[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3760-3770]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   SUSPENDING THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE PENALTY LAW EQUALS FAIRNESS ACT

  Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 497, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 4118) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
delay the implementation of the penalty for failure to comply with the 
individual health insurance mandate, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 497, the bill 
is considered read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 4118

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Suspending the Individual 
     Mandate Penalty Law Equals Fairness Act'' or as the ``SIMPLE 
     Fairness Act''.

     SEC. 2. DELAY IN IMPLEMENTATION OF PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO 
                   COMPLY WITH INDIVIDUAL HEALTH INSURANCE 
                   MANDATE.

       (a) In General.--Section 5000A(c) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(5) Delay in implementation of penalty.--Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of this subsection, the monthly penalty 
     amount with respect to any taxpayer for any month beginning 
     before January 1, 2015, shall be zero.''.
       (b) Delay of Certain Phase Ins and Indexing.--
       (1) Phase in of percentage of income limitation.--Section 
     5000A(c)(2)(B) of such Code is amended--
       (A) by striking ``2014'' in clause (i) and inserting 
     ``2015'', and
       (B) by striking ``2015'' in clauses (ii) and (iii) and 
     inserting ``2016''.
       (2) Phase in of applicable dollar amount.--Section 
     5000A(c)(3)(B) of such Code is amended--
       (A) by striking ``2014'' and inserting ``2015'', and
       (B) by striking ``2015'' (before amendment by subparagraph 
     (A)) and inserting ``2016''.
       (3) Indexing of applicable dollar amount.--Section 
     5000A(c)(3)(D) of such Code is amended--
       (A) by striking ``2016'' in the matter preceding clause (i) 
     and inserting ``2017'', and
       (B) by striking ``2015'' in clause (ii) and inserting 
     ``2016''.
       (4) Indexing of exemption based on household income.--
     Section 5000A(e)(1)(D) of such Code is amended--
       (A) by striking ``2014'' (before amendment by subparagraph 
     (B)) and inserting ``2015'', and
       (B) by striking ``2013'' and inserting ``2014''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins) 
and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) each will control 30 
minutes.

[[Page 3761]]

  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Kansas.


                             General Leave

  Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
to include extraneous materials on H.R. 4118.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Kansas?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), the illustrious chairman of the 
House Ways and Means Committee.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Kansas for 
yielding.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 4118, the SIMPLE Fairness Act, which 
would give Americans some much-needed relief from the added costs of 
ObamaCare.
  I don't need to remind the American people about the failed launch of 
the health care law, but a failed Web site is the least of Americans' 
health concerns.
  Millions of Americans, including over 200,000 in my home State of 
Michigan, went out to the mailbox and found that the health care plan 
they had and liked was canceled.
  Millions of Americans are having their hours and wages cut as 
employers try to struggle with this complex law. Many find that they 
can no longer access the care that they relied on from their local 
doctor or hospital. Millions of Americans are left wondering what 
happened to their promised $2,500 reduction in premiums. And next year, 
millions more will see their premiums skyrocket again due to the 
administration's failure to meet their own enrollment goals.
  The American people have paid over and over for this health care law. 
They have paid higher premiums, and they have paid by having their 
hours cut back and their paychecks decreased. The last thing this law 
should do is penalize Americans for being unable to purchase a plan on 
healthcare.gov either because of multiple Web failures or that they 
were unable to find an affordable plan.
  The Obama administration unilaterally exempted businesses from the 
employer mandate tax for 2014. SIMPLE Fairness demands that Congress 
provide the same relief to hardworking Americans.
  When Congress can act to provide some relief for hardworking 
Americans, we should. Every Member here has heard from a frustrated 
constituent. This shouldn't and need not be a partisan fight. Granting 
relief to hardworking Americans is only fair. Voting ``yes'' on H.R. 
4118 is the right thing to do for the people we represent.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I shall 
consume.
  Well, here they go again. But this time, it is the 50th time that 
House Republicans have brought up legislation to repeal or to undermine 
the Affordable Care Act. But this 50th time is no golden anniversary. 
It is a House Republican goose egg for millions of Americans. Just look 
at this--fifty votes, but zero votes to raise the minimum wage, zero 
votes to renew unemployment insurance, zero votes to guarantee paycheck 
fairness, and zero votes to pass immigration reform.
  So let's spend a minute looking exactly at what would be the impact 
of this if it became law. In 2014, we would see an additional 1 million 
uninsured--1 million. In 2015, 2 million more people would be uninsured 
than if the individual mandate stayed in effect, and in 2016, another 
million people.
  The irony of this, and I think my colleagues on the Democratic side 
will speak to this, the irony is the individual mandate was a 
Republican idea. It was born out of the conservative Heritage 
Foundation in the eighties. And throughout the nineties, Republicans 
argued its merits. It was one of the foundations of the Massachusetts 
law. Its parent, at least in good measure, was Governor Mitt Romney.
  I met an hour or so ago with representatives of a major insurance 
carrier in Massachusetts, and one explained how it is working--97, 98 
percent of the people are covered. That law has sparked an improvement 
in the delivery of health care and in the restructuring of health care 
delivery systems. So here we are, instead of constructive action, 
essentially, we have a Republican demolition squad.
  Can any law be made perfect? Yes, including this. But that isn't what 
the Republicans are after today. They have never come up with their own 
plan. Indeed, they are a wrecking crew. America deserves much better.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JENKINS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, the enforcement of the individual mandate penalty tax 
is an important issue, an issue of basic fairness, and I look forward 
to debating this legislation on the House floor.
  On February 10 of this year, the Department of the Treasury announced 
that it would delay enforcement of the employer mandate penalty tax for 
businesses with 51 to 100 employees until 2016. This delay in the 
President's health care law comes on the heels of a similar delay the 
administration announced last July, which exempted all large businesses 
from the employer mandate penalty until 2015.
  Amidst all of these delays, it is easy to forget that the employer 
mandate, like the individual mandate, was required by the Affordable 
Care Act to be in effect right now. The President has now acted 
unilaterally on two separate occasions to give Big Business relief from 
this tax burden. However, he has not leveled the playing field for the 
millions of individuals and families who are forced to comply with the 
individual mandate tax.
  Aside from the fact that it is fundamentally unfair to give 
businesses special treatment that is not extended to these individuals, 
American families have also been forced to deal with a botched rollout 
of healthcare.gov and a series of confusing administration delays of 
the law issued via blog post. This has led to confusion, frustration, 
and, ultimately, difficulty complying with the law.
  Nowhere is this more evident than the fact that only 4 million 
Americans have enrolled in health coverage on the healthcare.gov Web 
site. This means that with less than a month to go in this initial open 
enrollment period, we are still 3 million enrollees short of the 
original CBO projection of 7 million enrollees--one that even the 
administration once touted as its goal. Enrollment is still 2 million 
enrollees short of CBO's new projection of 6 million enrollees.
  These millions can be added to the tens of millions of other American 
individuals and families who will now likely be forced to pay the 
individual mandate penalty. In my State, Kansas, the latest census 
information estimates that 356,000 folks are uninsured. At the last 
count, only 22,000 of those individuals have enrolled on 
healthcare.gov.
  Unlike businesses, the President has offered no relief for these 
individuals who do not or are unable to comply with the law's mandates. 
I believe that this is simply not fair and that the House must act to 
provide parity for these folks. That is why I have introduced this bill 
under consideration today.
  H.R. 4118 would eliminate implementation of the individual mandate 
penalty by 1 year. This means that the individual mandate penalty would 
be zeroed out this year. It would rise to $95 or 1 percent of income in 
2015, to $325 or 2 percent of income in 2016, and $695 or 2\1/2\ 
percent of income in 2017 and thereafter. I believe this is a simple 
concept, and considering the circumstances, I applaud this committee 
for taking up this legislation to provide fairness to all Americans 
under the President's health care law.
  In closing, I would ask this: If the President can delay the employer 
mandate, where is the relief for everyone else? It is time to give 
relief to hardworking individuals and families and work toward a 
legislative solution to eliminate these tax penalties for everyone. 
Congress must pass this bill today and create simple fairness for all.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 3762]]


  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, it is now my special pleasure to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) with whom those 
of us on Ways and Means have worked all of these years on health care 
reform. He is one of the authors of this bill and the ranking member of 
Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  The truth of the matter is no matter how many votes the Republicans 
cast to repeal the Affordable Care Act and no matter how many 
distortions they spread about the law, there are some facts they cannot 
change.
  They cannot change the fact that, because of the Affordable Care Act, 
nobody in America can ever again be denied health insurance because 
they have a preexisting condition. They cannot change the fact that a 
woman can never be charged more than a man for the same coverage. They 
cannot change the fact that a family will never again be left without 
coverage just because their child's hospital bills got too high.
  These facts are stubborn and they are inconvenient for my Republican 
colleagues, so they ignore them and they deny them. Republicans have 
voted--or will today--50 times to try to take away the basic security 
and freedom guaranteed by the Affordable Care Act. They offer 
absolutely no solutions for the tens of millions of Americans who need 
health care coverage that is secure and affordable. They have voted to 
repeal the law, but they have never once voted for a replacement.
  Madam Speaker, if the Republicans have a solution that will expand 
coverage, that will end discrimination by insurance companies, and that 
will reduce the deficit, they need to bring it up for a vote. But they 
do not have solutions. What they want to do is deny health insurance 
coverage to millions of Americans. That is a shame, and I think we are 
wasting our time today voting again to turn our backs on a bill that 
will offer so much to the American people.
  Don't we have anything else to do? All we seem to do is deny science, 
which is the bill that will be coming up next, when the Republicans 
want to stop EPA from dealing with the climate change issue or denying 
the rights of people to get health insurance, which the Republicans 
have voted over and over again to do.
  I urge that we vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Ms. JENKINS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas, Chairman Kevin Brady, our chair of the Ways and Means Health 
Subcommittee.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
SIMPLE Fairness Act and thank the leadership of the gentlelady from 
Kansas in this area.
  Back home, my people are frightened about the Affordable Care Act. 
They don't think it is a waste of time to be trying to fix and repeal 
and stop this. They are paying a very steep price for it.
  President Obama made them some big promises when he sold them this 
health care plan. He promised Americans could keep the plan they like. 
He promised lower health care costs. He promised a functioning Web site 
that he said would work as well as Amazon. The White House hasn't 
delivered on any of these promises.
  Where I am from, if you make a mistake, if you don't keep your 
promise, you step up and fix it. You don't blame those you have hurt. 
No American should have to pay a penalty because ObamaCare fell short 
of its promises. No American should have to pay a penalty because the 
Web site couldn't even accept their application or deliver the correct 
information. No American should be penalized for trying days on end to 
purchase a plan only to decide it wasn't worth the effort because it 
was too expensive. No American should be penalized because they are 
concerned about the security of their private information on this 
government Web site, and no American should be penalized by the IRS 
because of sticker shock or deciding not to purchase a plan that is so 
much more expensive than what was promised.
  President Obama gave Big Business a break; he deserves to give 
average Americans the same type of break, as well. SIMPLE Fairness 
requires that we do the same for the American people. That is all this 
is about. It is all we are doing today, treating average Americans who 
are hurt by the Affordable Care Act the way the White House helped Big 
Business with the same exact problems. The American people deserve the 
same relief. We ought to give it to them. That is why this bill is 
called the SIMPLE Fairness Act, and it deserves our support.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Rangel).
  I also ask unanimous consent that the balance of my time be managed 
by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), the ranking member on 
the Health Subcommittee.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Foxx). Is there objection to the request 
of the gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, my colleagues, there is a cancer growing 
in the Republican Party in the House of Representatives, and as much of 
a Democrat as I am, I hate to see this happen because our government is 
based on a two-party system. Now this cancer, this small group of 
people in the Republican Party in the House, have already torn down the 
credibility of the entire House of Representatives because they are 
doing the same insane thing 50 times without getting any results, and 
they are not doing anything else. It is bad enough that all of us have 
to go down in political favoritism, or our reputations go down, but 
this small group of people have gone far enough now that the national 
Republican Party has no credibility.
  I will not embarrass anybody by asking them just who do you think 
nationally should serve our country from, pardon the expression, the 
Republican Party. You have none. Somewhere along the line, this 
insanity has to stop because you are not beating up on Democrats, you 
are beating up on people who have no health insurance.
  If you don't like the President, if you don't like this bill, let's 
talk about the millions of people who have no health insurance instead 
of just for the 50th time saying you don't like the bill. It is the 
law. The House and the Senate have signed it. The Supreme Court has 
verified it. The President can veto anything you do if something did 
happen.
  Why don't we talk about immigration reform? Rebuild the integrity of 
your great party from past years. Why don't we talk about the minimum 
wage, where all candidates will say if you work hard in America and do 
the right thing, then you can achieve anything you want. If you are 
middle class, you can achieve poverty. If you are in poverty, you can't 
even get a decent wage for working. There are so many things we can do.
  Don't you remember the days before the Affordable Care Act when you 
had constituents coming in saying: I can't get insurance? How about the 
days when people would say: My husband was in the hospital and they cut 
off insurance. Or even worse: I tried to get insurance and they told me 
I was so sick, so I can't get any more insurance. Or the guy who is 
working and he is on his parents' insurance, and he is 26 years old. 
Don't you have any of these people in your congressional districts? Are 
all of your people well and can do without health insurance?
  How do you go home and explain that we do have a bill and instead of 
perfecting it, supporting it, educating your people how they can get 
health insurance, that you have tried not once, you have tried 10 
times, 20 times, 30 times, 40 times, now 50 times to derail and destroy 
it.
  I don't know how you get away with it. I don't know what you put in 
the water that you feed your constituents, but it certainly doesn't 
make sense that you can try to destroy and at the same time not to 
substitute.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fortenberry). Members are reminded to 
address their remarks to the Chair.
  Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio

[[Page 3763]]

(Mr. Renacci), our colleague and friend on the House Ways and Means 
Committee.
  Mr. RENACCI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
4118, the SIMPLE Fairness Act.
  According to a recent Gallup poll, 51 percent of Americans disapprove 
of the President's health care law, and for good reason.
  The rollout of the failed, misguided law was nothing short of 
disastrous. Its plagued Web site prevented many Americans from 
purchasing health insurance on the Federal and State exchanges. Though 
the President promised lower costs, many are facing the reality of 
higher premiums and a steep penalty if they cannot afford the plans 
that are offered.
  Recently, the administration delayed the employer mandate for a 
second time, leaving intact the mandate that requires individuals to 
purchase health insurance or pay a fine.
  The bill before us today would ensure that no American will be forced 
to pay the individual mandate penalty tax in 2014. It is evident to 
this Chamber and Americans across the country that the President's 
health care law is too complex, too costly, and completely unworkable. 
Ultimately, this law should be fully repealed, but I am here today 
because I believe that all hardworking Americans deserve relief from 
the President's health care law.
  Congress should afford individuals the same advantage the 
administration is giving to businesses and delay the individual 
mandate. It is simply common sense. I ask my colleagues to come 
together and pass this important bill and send it to the President to 
be signed into law.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, today is a little like ``Groundhog Day.'' The 
Republican leadership has come out here and tried to decide what the 
weather is going to be, and they are going to get the same answer that 
they have gotten 49 times before. They can pass it from here, but it is 
not going to change anything. We have seen this poorly designed, sadly 
staged GOP political theater before--50 times. This is the 50th vote of 
this Tea Party, Koch brothers-led Congress to crash the Affordable Care 
Act.
  It is a waste of time and resources, and ignores the facts. Americans 
want affordable health care, and ACA delivers it to them. ACA has saved 
lives and brought down our spending. New fraud measures, including new 
authorities imposing payment suspensions and more rigorous-provider 
enrollment procedures put into law by ACA, helped the Federal 
Government recover $4.3 billion in taxpayer money from individuals and 
companies that tried to defraud the health care programs. The ACA is 
delivering historic results for the American people, and yet the 
Republican leadership is hell-bent on a 50th stroke.
  Regardless of the fact that our economic system remains stuck in 
neutral, nothing has been done about jobs, unemployment insurance, 
raising the minimum wage, and so forth.
  If that was all that was going on here, this would still be insulting 
and absurd. The bill under consideration today, H.R. 4118, is virtually 
identical to H.R. 2668, a bill passed on the 17th of July, 2013. The 
Republicans have already passed this bill to delay the individual 
mandate, something the CBO knows will result in higher insurance 
premiums. So beyond wasting time and engaging in stunts designed to 
make the producers of FOX News happy, Republicans want to return 
Americans to the days before ACA, when a cancer victim couldn't get 
covered and seniors couldn't get their prescriptions; to the day when 
wage workers who had paid hundreds of dollars out of pocket went 
without; to the days of ever-changing lists of preexisting conditions 
when companies tried to drop coverage.
  The real business of the Congress should be to stand up for those 
Americans and millions more like them. That is what the American people 
want. That is what the American people deserve. That is why they want 
us to vote ``no.''
  Jim McCrery, in March, 2000, said in an article in Atlantic Monthly 
that an employer mandate and an individual mandate was essential.
  I can't understand the Republicans saying we don't want everybody to 
play. We don't want everybody according to their ability to be in. Why 
are you so eager to let people out the door because they are going to 
wind up in the emergency room? Have no doubt, they will be getting 
health care, but they won't be paying for it. You are saying: That's 
okay with us, we like people who are free riders. That is not America. 
We are all supposed to do our part, and that is why everyone here 
should vote ``no.''
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JENKINS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Young), our friend and colleague on the Ways and Means 
Committee.
  Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Madam Speaker, as we approach the deadline for 
enrolling in ObamaCare-sanctioned insurance, it has become clear the 
system is not working as its supporters intended. For months, we have 
been learning about Web site problems, spiking premiums, and lost 
coverage. For months, we have seen an underwhelming number of signups, 
not even close to matching the stated enrollment goals of this 
administration. For months, we have heard heart-wrenching stories from 
our districts about the negative impact this botched rollout has had on 
hardworking American families.
  Unfortunately for those families, the White House and those who 
helped bring us this law have consistently turned a deaf ear to 
Americans' concerns. Meanwhile, at the urging of the business 
community, we had the White House delay the employer mandate tax--
twice. What must the constituents in our districts do to be heard by 
ObamaCare supporters? Should they form trade organizations and hire a 
lobbyist so maybe President Obama and champions of this law will 
listen?
  Well, guess what? My constituents did hire someone to lobby on their 
behalf when they elected me to Congress. It is simply not fair when 
businesses get a break but the people who work at those businesses do 
not. I am all for delaying the employer mandate tax because it is 
confusing and it is cumbersome for our businesses. I also feel very 
strongly that the individual mandate tax is just as cumbersome for 
individuals and families as the employer mandate tax is for our 
businesses. I believe that individuals and families deserve the same 
sort of delay. So on behalf of my constituents in Indiana's Ninth 
District, and on behalf of all of yours, I encourage all of my 
colleagues to support this bill and to support simple fairness.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis).
  Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong 
opposition to H.R. 4118, the 50th vote to repeal the Affordable Care 
Act, which, if passed and implemented, would increase premiums, 
decrease coverage, and increase the number of people who are not 
insured by as much as 11 million people in this country. It is 
unbelievable that we would be on the floor voting for the 50th time to 
try and turn back the clock on millions of Americans who have been 
denied health insurance coverage because of a preexisting condition, 
didn't have enough money, or did not have accessibility to facilities.
  In Illinois, over 256,000 individuals benefit from the Affordable 
Care Act. Nationally, more than 4 million Americans have enrolled in 
private plans, with 82 percent receiving premium tax credits to make 
health insurance more affordable. More than 3.1 million young adults 
have access to health insurance by remaining on their parents' plans 
until age 26. Millions more Americans have secured new coverage through 
Medicaid expansion.
  Rather than decreasing or taking away, the Republican leadership and 
all of us ought to be increasing and providing. We ought to be 
affording individuals the opportunity to get insurance because they are 
unemployed--to get a check. So it is amazing that rather than giving, 
we would be talking

[[Page 3764]]

about taking, taking away, when the law says and all of us know that 
everybody ought to have access to quality health care.
  I oppose this legislation.
  Ms. JENKINS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Roe), my friend and colleague.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for 
yielding to me.
  I rise in support of the SIMPLE Fairness Act and a level playing 
field for all Americans.
  In the span of about 7 months, the Obama administration has taken 
action twice to provide big businesses with relief from the President's 
disastrous health care law. Working families, however, are still being 
forced to comply with the individual mandate.
  Over the last year, President Obama's broken promises on health care 
has become almost too numerous to count. Americans were told that if 
they liked their health care plan, they could keep it. Tell that to the 
82,000 Tennesseans who were forced out of their coverage by ObamaCare.
  Americans were told that ObamaCare would lower the cost of insurance. 
Explain that to the 11 million people that CMS has determined will have 
their premiums increase.
  We were told by the Democratic leader that ObamaCare would create 
jobs. I invite her to have a conversation with the workers at Mountain 
States Health Alliance in my district who lost their jobs. Even the CBO 
agrees that this law is discouraging work.
  Throughout the implementation of ObamaCare, the one thing the 
President has held firm on is that working families must buy 
insurance--or else. He has promised a veto on this commonsense 
legislation simply because it delays individual mandate penalties for 1 
year.
  Here in the people's House, we should stand for their interests and 
treat people the same as big businesses. It is only fair.
  Madam Speaker, I would argue that if this bill is doing so well, why 
would only 34 percent of the people in this country approve of it?
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to follow my 
good friend, Dr. Phil Roe, on the floor because we spent last weekend--
speaking of health care--along with Mr. McDermott--in Houston, Texas, 
at a fabulous conference by the nonpartisan Commonwealth Fund to be 
able to deal meaningfully with health care problems and bring people 
together on a bipartisan basis to discuss them.
  I know some things we have to do and have got to come to the floor to 
repeal this 50 times, but I would hope that, sooner rather than later, 
we reach a point where we can focus on things that bring Americans 
together, not divide them, something that will improve the quality of 
health care and actually has nothing to do with spending money, new 
mandates, or ObamaCare.
  I am referring to the legislation that I am pleased to have 
cosponsored with my good friend, Dr. Roe, H.R. 1173, the Personalize 
Your Care bill. It has over 50 bipartisan cosponsors. It would enable, 
for the first time, to provide voluntary consultation on advanced care 
planning for Medicare and Medicaid.
  Every 5 years or when somebody becomes first eligible, it would 
provide grants to establish and expand programs for physician-ordered 
life sustaining treatment. It would require that certified electronic 
health records could display current advanced directives and physician 
orders for sustaining treatment.
  Bear in mind, right now, every day, there are people who are getting 
health care at their most critical vulnerable moments, at the end of 
life, that is not necessarily what they want.
  The majority of Americans would rather spend their last hours or days 
surrounded by their families at home, but very few Americans actually 
are able to do that. They end up in an ICU, not necessarily because 
that is their choice, but because their choices haven't been recorded 
and haven't been respected.
  It is fascinating to me that Dr. Billy Graham, in his recent book, 
talks about the Christian responsibility to spare one's family from 
impossible decisions like that, that it is a Christian responsibility 
to have that conversation in advance, execute the appropriate papers, 
and make sure nobody has to guess about whether a loved one wants to be 
in an ICU or at home.
  Dr. Bill Frist, a fellow Tennessean of my friend Dr. Roe, had an op-
ed in Politico a few months ago talking about his experience. Dr. Frist 
was a former Republican majority leader in the Senate, but he is also a 
respected physician.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fortenberry). The time of the gentleman 
has expired.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. He is also a respected heart surgeon who has faced 
families in this circumstance, and he knows that they need information, 
that they need help, and that their wishes need to be respected.
  Now, maybe instead of repealing ObamaCare the 51st or the 58th or the 
100th time--legislation is not going to go any place--maybe we could 
take a little bit of a time out and consider the legislation that Dr. 
Roe and I have worked on that is not partisan, that doesn't have 
anything to do with ObamaCare, that would enable families in their time 
of need to know what their choices are and to make sure that their 
choices, whatever they might be, are respected, they are respected in 
their city, they are respected across State lines, that they protect 
their family, and that they get the care they want and they need as 
they approach end of life.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope that we will find time this year from passing 
post office renaming and whatnot, this is a piece of legislation that 
could come to the floor on the suspension calendar and would make a 
difference for families all across America.
  Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia, Eric Cantor, our current Republican House majority leader.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlelady and 
congratulate her on her leadership for this bill and making sure that 
we reinsert a notion of fairness back into the law for the people of 
this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the SIMPLE Fairness Act.
  For the past few months, the President's health care law has been 
wreaking havoc on the American people. After the administration's 
disastrous launch of the exchanges, ObamaCare has been anything but 
what the President had promised it would be. It has become very clear 
that this law is doing more harm than good.
  We now know that ObamaCare has pushed up to 5 million people off the 
health care plan they liked, and many are now being denied the care 
they had. To make matters worse, many of these new plans will force 
Americans to pay higher premiums and higher deductibles. This leaves 
them with a limited number of options for health care coverage.
  Many folks are also finding out that they cannot keep the doctor or 
the pediatrician that they want to go to and trusted. To put it simply, 
this is not how America should work. The American people deserve 
better.
  Yet, time and again, the Obama administration has shown its true 
colors by putting politics first and unilaterally delaying parts of the 
law to avoid political repercussions. This has become most evident by 
the administration's delay in the employee mandate for big businesses 
and its refusal to delay the individual mandate for working Americans.
  Just yesterday, it was reported the administration will announce 
another major unilateral delay on their minimum coverage requirements 
to--and I quote the publication The Hill--``ease election pressure on 
Democrats.''
  Doesn't it say something that the authors of this legislation are 
worried

[[Page 3765]]

that it is being implemented before they face voters again?
  And I ask: Will future Presidents, perhaps of our party, be able to 
simply delay or cancel all or part of ObamaCare? Will my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle withhold complaint then?
  There is no greater indictment of this law or proof of its failure 
than the fear that full implementation invokes in its authors.
  It is not fair to pick and choose which parts of an unpopular law 
should be enforced at the expense of working individuals for political 
expediency, and it is just not fair that businesses and insurance 
companies get delays and exemptions and not hardworking Americans. It 
is not fair.
  Millions of Americans all over the country are already living 
paycheck to paycheck. The last thing they need is another brazen attack 
on their pocketbooks from a health care law they don't want, they 
didn't ask for, and that doesn't work for them.
  Through this administration's ad hoc implementation of ObamaCare, 
some people won't have to pay the penalty, but others will. Here is who 
I am concerned about and who the bill before us today protects, the 
single mom, who for whatever reason ended up without insurance for 
several months.
  She doesn't need a new tax bill from Uncle Sam for hundreds of 
dollars because she can't access the coverage that Washington says she 
must. She could use that money to pay the heating bill or to buy 
groceries for her children.
  All Americans--not just some--but all Americans deserve a delay from 
the punishing financial penalties of the President's health care law. 
This is our chance to make it happen. With the legislation before us 
today, no one in this country would be forced to pay the individual 
mandate tax in 2014.
  This is an opportunity to stop the political games and put working 
Americans first. Let's stand together and support the SIMPLE Fairness 
Act in bipartisan fashion and give our constituents some relief from 
the financial burdens of ObamaCare.
  I would like to thank Chairman Dave Camp and Representative Lynn 
Jenkins for their hard work on this issue and on behalf of working 
Americans.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 12 minutes 
remaining. The gentlewoman from Kansas has 15\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana, Steve Scalise, the chairman of the Republican Study 
Committee.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from Kansas for 
yielding and for her leadership on this bill that I am proud to 
cosponsor.
  The SIMPLE Fairness Act is about just that, providing fairness for 
hardworking taxpayers. If you look at how the President's health care 
law is being implemented, Mr. Speaker, you have got the President 
literally saying he is going to give exemption after exemption after 
exemption to the political class, to the select few who have special 
interest protections here in Washington.
  The President, by the way, has said: Big businesses can get 
exemptions from ObamaCare. The President has said: Insurance companies 
can get exemptions from ObamaCare.
  But then, when it comes to hardworking taxpayers, families out there 
who are struggling under the weight of this law, the President says no, 
you can't have that same exemption that he has given to everybody else.
  So what we are saying here, Mr. Speaker, is if these exemptions are 
good enough for big businesses and if these exemptions are good enough 
for insurance companies, shouldn't they also be good enough for 
hardworking taxpayers who are struggling in this bad economy that the 
President has given us and under the weight of this unworkable law, 
that the President himself is acknowledging is unworkable, by giving 
all these exemptions away to everybody else?
  Now, if you look at the law, Mr. Speaker, the President doesn't have 
the legal authority to just waive a law--to literally take out a pen 
and change the law.
  What the President does have is the ability to work with us in 
Congress in a bipartisan way, which when you look at the vote on this 
bill, it will be bipartisan in support of giving these hardworking 
taxpayers that same exemption.
  But this law, ObamaCare, is built on a foundation of broken promises. 
If you like what you have, you can keep it, of course, is probably the 
most broken promise in political history; but there is more. The 
President said insurance costs will be lower. Insurance costs are 
higher for families.
  The President even said he will meet with anybody who has a better 
idea. Well, we do have a better idea, Mr. Speaker. Over 120 Members of 
Congress, including medical doctors, have cosponsored the American 
Health Care Reform Act.
  We took the President up on his promise, now almost 3 months ago, and 
the President has refused to fulfill that promise of meeting with 
anybody who has a better idea. He won't even sit down and talk with us 
about a better idea to put patients back in charge of health care.
  There is a better way. We ought to treat people fairly. This bill 
does it. I urge adoption.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Is the gentlelady from Kansas ready to close?
  Ms. JENKINS. I see no other speakers, so I am prepared to close.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I have one Member who is in transit, but 
let me say a few things until he gets here.

                              {time}  1445

  I have been in Congress for 25 years, and I have listened to the 
Republicans talk about what we ought to do about health care. They have 
never brought a bill to the committee--a chairman's mark--for us to 
mark up and bring out on the floor.
  Now, if you have a solution for the fact that health care costs are 
the biggest costs driving bankruptcy in this country, where is it since 
you don't like what we have here?
  When I was younger, I lived through the implementation of Medicare. 
The American Medical Association--everybody--was just up and down, and 
it was the worst thing. If we put in Medicare, it was going to be the 
end of the world, and we would never have health care again in this 
country. We went on and on and on like that. They so poisoned the well 
that, when people went out to actually recruit people to get into the 
Medicare program, people said: I am not going to have any of that 
socialistic medicine in my house.
  That is what it was called. That is what people were doing in 1964 
and 1965. This is a rerun of that very same movie. The Republicans want 
to kill the idea and leave the American people out there on their own. 
It is probably the single best example of the difference between the 
Republicans and the Democrats.
  The Democrats have put something out here, and we are trying to help 
all Americans. Is it perfect? There isn't anybody on my side who would 
say it is. If we had had some hearings in the Ways and Means Committee, 
the subcommittee could have done a whole bunch of things--there are all 
kinds of problems out there--but there haven't been any hearings on 
this bill, on how to fix it.
  I talked to Bill Frist some months ago. He said: Jim, there is no 
reason to repeal it. You ought to fix it. Make it work. Make it work 
for the American people.
  One of the interesting things that I hear over and over again--and it 
must be confusing to folks at home--is that the President said: If you 
like your health care, you can keep it. Now, implicit in that is that 
it will still exist. The President didn't say: I am going to tell the 
insurance companies you have got to keep those plans out there.
  That wouldn't be the free enterprise system, what you have. You don't 
like the free enterprise system.
  As soon as the President passed this bill, immediately, we had people 
in the

[[Page 3766]]

insurance industry pulling down plans all over the country, sending out 
mailings, saying: You have lost your health care coverage.
  I sometimes wonder if global warming--or climate change--is really 
not because of Obama's health care. I hear that it is the cause of 
every evil--of people losing jobs. I don't know. Whatever is going on 
in the country, it is because of ObamaCare. That is foolishness. When 
you are trying to change a program for 20 or 30 million people, you are 
bound to have some problems. We are having them, and we are working 
them out. It was awful at the beginning, and it is better now. It is 
better today than it was 3 months ago, and it will be. It will continue 
to improve because the American people need it. They absolutely need it 
even with the foolishness coming out of here, of trying again to 
convince the American people to get rid of this.
  I had a woman in my district who was an opera singer. She went to 
Germany, and she got into the German health care system. Instantly, 
boom, you are in. Anybody who goes to Germany is in. Her daughter got 
leukemia. Her daughter was treated for leukemia, and she went into 
remission. The mother finished her contract and came home to the United 
States. She could not find an insurance company anyplace in this 
country that would give her insurance for her daughter--none.
  Now, that is what you want to go back to. You want to go back to the 
time when a parent can't find an insurance company that will take care 
of his kid, and that is the kind of thing that we have been watching 
for as long as I have been in Congress and before that, and this bill 
has begun to stop that.
  We had lifetime limits. Some cancers eat up a lot of money real 
quickly. Bone marrow transplants are $125,000 or more, and people wind 
up being unable to purchase the medication. All of that is covered by 
this bill, and you are saying to people: No, we want to go back to 
1930. We like the Dust Bowl. We like the hard times of the thirties. We 
don't want any of this stuff.
  In my view, this is a perfect place for Democrats to vote ``no,'' and 
Republicans, of course, will vote ``yes,'' and the American people will 
make a judgment in the next election.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, in closing, this bill is about fairness and 
about providing relief to all hardworking Americans just as the 
administration keeps giving to businesses. It is about leveling the 
playing field for the millions of individuals and middle class families 
who are forced to comply with this health care law.
  Just last week, a stunning poll found that only 6 percent of 
Americans claim ObamaCare is working and want it kept intact. 
Opposition to this law is at an all-time high, and even the President 
admitted that the launch of this law was fumbled. Add that to the 
millions of Americans who are losing their health insurance that they 
like, are losing access to the doctors they have always seen, are 
submitting their personal data to an unsecured system, are paying 
higher premiums they can't afford, and clearly, we have a law that is 
not working and is not fair to the American people.
  The court of public opinion is a powerful thing. The House will 
listen, and it will continue to listen, and it will continue to provide 
relief and fairness to middle class families. I hope the Senate and the 
President will also do the right thing for the American people.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I have always said that Congress would need 
to pass fixes to improve the Affordable Care Act. The original version 
of the bill that passed the House in 2009, and included my provision to 
repeal the anti-trust exemption enjoyed by the insurance industry, was 
much better than the Senate version that ultimately became law. 
Unfortunately the House Leadership has not allowed us the opportunity 
to vote on real fixes to the ACA. Instead the Republican leadership 
continues to engage in an ideological exercise of repeatedly bringing 
up bills that will never move beyond the House. H.R. 4118 is no 
different. It won't be taken up by the Senate. The President has 
threatened to veto it. It is not a real fix.
  Instead of bringing up bills that will never become law, Congress 
should be working on fixes to the Affordable Care Act that will 
actually help our constituents. Oregonians who want to buy insurance 
continue to face a state exchange website that does not function. 
Because of this problem I fought hard to let Oregonians to keep their 
current insurance plan if they wanted to. Small businesses in Oregon 
can't use tax credits to help them provide insurance to their employees 
on the SHOP small business exchange because there still is no SHOP 
exchange in Oregon, so I am asking for small business tax credits to be 
available outside of the SHOP exchange.
  Americans who want to take personal responsibility for all of their 
healthcare costs would benefit from an alternative to the individual 
mandate that I have proposed. My proposal would allow people to opt out 
of buying insurance without facing a tax penalty as long as they commit 
to taking full responsibility for any healthcare costs they incur.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition once again to an 
attempt by the majority to defeat the Affordable Care Act.
  This begins the third year that the majority has attempted to put an 
end to affordable, available and accessible health care for all 
Americans.
  They have ignored the law, a Supreme Court decision and a national 
presidential election that affirmed the establishment, legality, and 
popularity of the Affordable Care Act.
  I oppose this bill for three reasons: there are much more pressing 
issues facing our nation, this bill is wrong on the facts, and the 
Affordable Care Act is working.
  There are much more pressing issues facing our nation: unemployment, 
food security, housing security and access to job training that leads 
to employment.
  We should be debating a bill to restore emergency supplemental 
unemployment benefits.
  We should be restoring cuts the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
Program that was cut by nearly $20 billion dollars over several years.
  We should be voting to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour over 
several years and link future increases of the minimum wage to 
inflation.
  We should be taking up the budget process with eagerness to avoid 
another government shutdown.
  In 2013, we had a Federal government shutdown because we lost 
precious legislative time voting to repeal or seriously diminish the 
ability of the Affordable Care Act to do what it is currently doing--
providing health insurance to millions of Americans.
  Every wasted vote--moves this Congress another step closer to another 
Federal government shutdown.
  The budget process takes months of work by over a dozen committees to 
complete.
  Each vote that stops our legislative work and bring us to the floor 
for a debate on legislation that will not go anywhere--is time taken 
away from our work to avoid another government shutdown.
  The American people were unaware of the cost of over 40 votes to end 
Obamacare until millions of citizens were put out of work when the 
government shutdown last year.
  They are watching what is happening in Congress very closely and the 
consequences will fall heaviest on those who were hurt by the last 
government shutdown.
  The 113th Congress has 70 legislative working days left on the 
calendar before September 30, 2014--the end of the fiscal year for 2014 
and the beginning of the fiscal year for 2015.
  I call on my colleagues to bring to the floor bills like H.R. 3773, 
the Unemployment Jobhunters Protection and Assistance Act, a bill I 
introduced that would extend emergency unemployment compensation (EUC) 
payments for eligible individuals to weeks of employment ending on or 
before January 1, 2015.
  This Congress would find a better use of its time if it would take up 
consideration of H.R. 3888, New Chance for a New Start in Life Act of 
2014, that would authorize the Secretary of Labor to make grants to 
States, units of local government, and Indian tribes to carry out 
employment training programs to assist long-term unemployed job hunters 
to obtain the skills and training they need to reenter the workforce 
and fill jobs in high-growth sectors of the economy.
  These are just two bills that would improve the lives of people who 
we all serve, but there are dozens of others introduced by members who 
came to the Congress to serve the will of the people and not their own 
will.
  I oppose this bill because it is wrong on the facts.
  Republicans are claiming that this bill is simply logical because the 
Administration has already delayed the employer responsibility 
provision for one year.

[[Page 3767]]

  This claim is inaccurate and disingenuous.
  Nonpartisan experts agree that there is no comparison between the 
impacts of a delay in the employer responsibility and individual 
responsibility provisions.
  For example, in a report in July, the nonpartisan Urban Institute 
concluded, ``Delaying or eliminating the individual mandate would 
significantly decrease insurance coverage relative to the full 
Affordable Care Act's implementation, whereas delaying or eliminating 
the employer mandate will have essentially no effect on coverage.''
  The Affordable Care Act is good for the American People
  The Obamacare is popular and growing in greater popularity everyday 
as consumers get past the rhetoric and experience the reality of the 
peace of mind that health insurance for their families and themselves 
brings.
  Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, in Texas:
  5,198,000 individuals on private insurance have gained coverage for 
at least one free preventive health care service such as a mammogram, 
birth control, or an immunization in 2011 and 2012. In the first eleven 
months of 2013 alone, an additional 1,683,800 people with Medicare have 
received at least one preventive service at no out of pocket cost.
  The up to 10,695,000 individuals with pre-existing conditions such as 
asthma, cancer, or diabetes--including up to 1,632,000 children--will 
no longer have to worry about being denied coverage or charged higher 
prices because of their health status or history.
  Approximately 5,189,000 Texans have gained expanded mental health and 
substance use disorder benefits and/or federal parity protections.
  4,889,000 uninsured Texans will have new health insurance options 
through Medicaid or private health plans in the Marketplace.
  As a result of new policies that make sure premium dollars work for 
the consumer, not just the insurer, in the past year insurance 
companies have sent rebates averaging $95 per family to approximately 
726,200 consumers.
  In the first ten months of 2013, 233,100 seniors and people with 
disabilities have saved on average $866 on prescription medications as 
the health care law closes Medicare's so called ``donut hole.''
  357,000 young adults have gained health insurance because they can 
now stay on their parents' health plans until age 26.
  Individuals no longer have to worry about having their health 
benefits cut off after they reach a lifetime limit on benefits, and 
starting in January, 7,536,000 Texans will no longer have to worry 
about annual limits, either.
  Health centers have received $293,038,000 to provide primary care, 
establish new sites, and renovate existing centers to expand access to 
quality health care. Texas has approximately 400 health center sites, 
which served about 1,079,000 individuals in 2012.
  Every day more uninsured Americans are signing up for plans as the 
website gets faster and more people with insurance are benefiting from 
the law.
  I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to not spend any 
more precious legislative work on efforts to end the Affordable Care 
Act or ignoring the number of people continuing to vote in favor of the 
new law with their insurance enrollment dollars.
  Mr. Speakers, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this 
bill.
  Mr. POSEY. Mr. Speaker, when the health care law was passed on a 
party line vote people were assured they could keep their current 
doctors and insurance plans, it would cost them less, it was not a tax, 
and there would be no rationing of medical care. Those are not my 
words. They are the words from the supporters of the bill in the 
Congress and the Obama Administration.
  The stark reality is very different for many of my constituents and 
hundreds of them have shared with me how this health care law has 
adversely impacted them. I'd like to share just a few of these comments 
with you. They are from real people, hardworking Americans who I have 
the privilege of representing and they are begging for relief:
  ``My group rate insurance increased 100% and my deductible went from 
$2,500 to $7,500'' wrote Preston in Brevard, and Margaret says her 
``insurances costs jumped 300%.''
  Paul in Brevard writes, ``It has created a situation where I can't 
retire safely.''
  Norma in Indian River County says her ``premiums increased $600 per 
year. That's a lot for someone on a fixed income.''
  Tom in south Brevard wrote that the law ``increased premiums and 
inserted unneeded benefits into our policy.''
  Rob in Melbourne fears for his kids, writing: ``My kids cannot find a 
job and the cost of healthcare is three times more for them than it was 
previously.'' And another constituent wrote: ``My grandchildren lost 
their insurance due to the exorbitant increase in monthly premiums by 
their employer.''
  A friend wrote: ``My best friend's hours got cut so the company would 
not have to provide healthcare for him and his family.'' And, Ed in 
Titusville wrote of the impact on his daughters: ``Both of my daughters 
have had their work hours cut [so their employers could avoid providing 
health insurance].''
  Christine in Vero shared: ``With no change in my health, my premiums 
went up 21% with a $2500 deductible.''
  Rob in Melbourne says his insurance costs ``doubled''.
  Ralph in Brevard says ``I lost my doctor and am paying for things I 
don't need.''
  Chris in Palm Bay says he ``lost his job and was forced to move and 
pay higher insurance costs.''
  Paul in Palm Bay says: ``The policy increased from $50 a month to 
$350 a month.''
  Terri shares that her doctors won't take her private insurance.
  Dave in central Brevard shared that: ``It has DOUBLED my premiums!! I 
am very upset about Obamacare! FIX IT!''
  John says he lost his plan, and Norma writes: ``I have to die, 
because my medical bills will not be covered.''
  I could go on.
  This bill simply delays the individual mandate tax penalty for a year 
so that Americans can pick a plan that they want and that they can 
afford, rather than one that the government in Washington tells them 
they must sign up for.
  The President has already given large multinational corporations and 
labor unions the same waiver. We are simply extending this same 
flexibility to average Americans who want nothing more than to be 
treated equally.
  Ultimately, when you have to pass a bill to find out what's in it, 
there's a good chance that you're not going to like what it says. The 
only way to fix this situation is to repeal this law and replace it 
with a plan that restores individual freedom and makes health insurance 
more affordable.
  Mr. MARCHANT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
support the Simple Fairness Act and eliminate the individual mandate 
tax penalty under the Affordable Care Act for a year.
  Many of my constituents in the 24th District of Texas have lost their 
health insurance and access to doctors they liked due to the 
President's healthcare law. The law is hurting millions of Americans.
  The President has recognized as much, as he recently issued another 
delay that protects businesses from his employer mandate tax. In fact, 
the President has delayed provisions in his own healthcare law over 20 
times in the past year.
  It is simply not fair for the President to give businesses a one-year 
delay on the tax penalty, but not give hardworking individuals and 
families the same relief.
  My constituents, and all Americans, deserve the same thing: fairness.
  I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting the Simple 
Fairness Act.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 
50th time this House of Representatives has tried to repeal, defund or 
dismantle the Affordable Care Act.
  What a sad Golden Anniversary moment for the GOP.
  The Affordable Care Act, which has already helped millions of 
Americans, is the law of the land. Instead of playing politics, let's 
instead work together to address concerns over its implementation while 
upholding its mission: to provide quality, affordable healthcare access 
for all Americans.
  With Americans facing so many real, pressing issues every day, I urge 
this Congress to focus on achieving results and serving our 
constituents.
  Two million Americans, including about 110 thousand Floridians have 
lost their unemployment insurance. Our immigration system is in dire 
need of common sense and comprehensive reforms. Women still make less 
than men while working equal jobs.
  The list goes on. We have work to do. We have a duty and 
responsibility to serve the interests of the American people. These 
pointless partisan attacks on the Affordable Care Act must stop.

  Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Speaker, the more we learn about the President's 
healthcare law, the more the facts show it's hurting more than it's 
helping.
  The President said premiums would go down by two thousand dollars, 
but instead his chief actuary finally admitted that premiums will go up 
for two-thirds of Americans working for small businesses.
  While the administration continues to provide delay after delay, 
admitting that the law is

[[Page 3768]]

unworkable, they continue to let the individual mandate take effect. 
Millions of people will be hit with a mandate and new financial 
penalties, while losing the coverage they like, not being able to see 
the doctors they want, and facing higher premiums and out of pocket 
costs. Why is the administration willing to give big businesses a delay 
but not do anything to help hardworking Americans? Today, we have an 
opportunity to also delay the individual mandate in order to protect 
all Americans.
  Minnesotans needed genuine healthcare reform before President Obama 
signed his healthcare law--and they still do now. It's time to act and 
spare the American people of Obamacare's costly and burdensome mandates 
and enact true, bipartisan healthcare reform that improves quality, 
increases choice, and reduces costs.

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4118, 
the 50th vote to undermine the Affordable Care Act.
  First, let me say, I'm concerned that many Marylanders, including my 
constituents, are struggling to sign up for health insurance through 
the state-based Marketplace due to technical issues. With open 
enrollment coming to a close at the end of the month, I urge the 
Administration, state governments, and insurance carriers to come 
together to assist applicants in getting eligibility determinations and 
enrolling in coverage as soon as possible. I appreciated the guidance 
provided by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) last 
week that would allow consumers the possibility of qualifying 
retroactive health insurance, tax credits and cost-sharing assistance. 
It's critical that CMS clarify that those individuals who take 
retroactive coverage will be protected from any undue penalties for the 
months prior to the effective date of retroactive coverage.
  The bill on the floor today is not about helping Marylanders or any 
other Americans, but rather about dismantling the Affordable Care Act 
and putting health insurance further out of reach for them. I want to 
be clear: the requirement that individuals take responsibility for 
ensuring they have adequate health insurance coverage was an idea 
espoused by the Heritage Foundation in the late 1980s. It was carefully 
crafted and includes exemptions for individuals facing hardships and 
those who can't afford insurance. Delaying the provision for everyone 
for a year, according to the Congressional Budget Office, would 
increase the number of uninsured by one million this year and two 
million in 2015, and lead to higher premiums. It's obvious that 
delaying the provision will undermine the protections and reforms that 
have taken effect and will introduce more instability into market.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the House leadership to put an end to these 
Affordable Care Act repeal votes. We want to work with you to identify 
parts of the law that can be improved and develop serious solutions. 
Unfortunately, today's bill is not one of them. I urge my colleagues to 
oppose it.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 497, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. HORSFORD. I am in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Horsford moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4118 to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       Add at the end the following new section:

     SEC. 3 PROTECTING CONSUMERS FROM PREMIUM INCREASES AND 
                   DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF PREEXISTING 
                   CONDITIONS.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed to alter, impact, 
     delay, or weaken--
       (1) section 1402 of the Patient Protection and Affordable 
     Care Act that reduces out-of-pocket costs and cost-sharing 
     for individuals and families,
       (2) sections 1001 and 1401 of such Act that provide tax 
     credits and rebates for health insurance, or
       (3) section 1201 of such Act that prohibits discrimination 
     on the basis of pre-existing conditions and gender.

  Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the 
motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Nevada is recognized for 5 
minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, 
which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, 
the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.
  This Republican bill represents the 50th attempt to undermine and 
repeal the Affordable Care Act. The Democratic motion to recommit 
lowers out-of-pocket costs, secures tax credits and rebates, and 
ensures no discrimination against those with preexisting conditions.
  The bill would delay the individual responsibility provision of the 
Affordable Care Act to purchase health care by 1 year, which would 
directly impact the out-of-pocket costs of consumers and threaten the 
ability of millions of Americans with preexisting conditions to have 
health coverage.
  The nonpartisan CBO estimates that the enactment of the Republican 
H.R. 4118 would increase the number of uninsured by 1 million in 2014, 
by 2 million in 2015, and by 1 million in 2016. That is 4 million 
Americans who would not have access to health insurance otherwise.
  The White House pointed out this morning that the individual shared 
responsibility provision is essential to ensuring that 129 million 
Americans with preexisting conditions can get coverage without being 
charged more or losing coverage when they get sick.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is just another example of House Republicans 
playing political games rather than working together to get things done 
for the American people. This is no longer about helping people. It 
never really was for the Republicans. These repeal votes are about 
ideological purity. They are about politics for the sake of politics. 
That is why people across America are frustrated and disappointed by 
this Congress--because this Chamber has become a bubble, and 
Republicans have stopped listening and have stopped working on anything 
productive.
  It is not just on health care. It is on giving Americans a raise by 
increasing the Federal minimum wage. It is the refusal to bring up 
comprehensive immigration reform even though there are votes in the 
House to pass it. It is on unemployment insurance and on the failure of 
this Congress to extend benefits to now more than 2 million Americans 
who have lost coverage. It is about creating jobs and helping to 
improve and grow our infrastructure.
  Now, this vote may seem routine. It may seem like this is just 
Congress' continuing Groundhog Day, but this is the 50th time that we 
have done this. We are wasting time, and we have a full docket of 
things that we need to be doing. This vote is a symptom of something 
very wrong in Washington, and it is time to wake up and to do something 
more than play Tea Party politics in this House. The bill offered by my 
colleagues on the other side would increase out-of-pocket costs to 
American consumers. It would increase health premiums and the number of 
uninsured Americans, and it hurts those with preexisting conditions.
  Last year, I underwent a six-way bypass. Open heart surgery--no 
question--was terrifying, and when you are on an operating table in an 
emergency room, the last thing you should be focusing on is becoming 
medically bankrupt. You should be focusing on taking care of yourself 
and your family and on getting them the best care that you can. Whether 
it is heart disease, cancer, diabetes, or any other preexisting 
condition, people shouldn't go bankrupt because of an illness or a 
disease in this country.
  Thankfully, my surgery went well. I was able to afford it. My heart 
condition is now a preexisting condition. There are thousands of my 
constituents who are in the same or worse boat but who are not 
financially well off. If we repeal or delay the Affordable Care Act, 
what are they supposed to do? There is no solution being offered by the 
House Republicans. It is not repeal and replace. It is repeal and 
return to a broken health care system. That is it. That is the 
Republicans' plan.

[[Page 3769]]

  Last year, they passed H.R. 2668, a virtually identical bill to the 
one we are considering today. They have run out of ways to repeal this 
law, so now we are stuck on repeat. We should, instead, be focusing on 
renewing unemployment insurance benefits for 2 million struggling 
Americans, on passing comprehensive immigration reform so that we can 
fix the system that has got families torn apart, and on giving 30 
million Americans a raise.
  My motion to recommit would protect three of the most important 
provisions of the Affordable Care Act that are overwhelmingly supported 
by the American people: lower out-of-pocket costs for consumers, tax 
credits and rebates to purchase health care, and ensuring that no one 
in America can be denied coverage due to a preexisting condition in 
America.
  It is time for this Congress to wake up and to do the right thing--to 
protect Americans and their health care.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1500

  Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order and seek time 
in opposition to the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The point of order is withdrawn.
  The gentlewoman from Kansas is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, once again, the Democrats are simply 
missing the point. The President is the one who has delayed the 
employer mandate, the President has said this law is not ready, and the 
President has declined to extend the same flexibility to individuals.
  This is about basic fairness. It is only fair that hardworking 
taxpayers are given the same treatment as businesses.
  Like so many other provisions of the law that have been delayed, 
repealed, or declared unworkable, this is just another example that, 
despite the administration's promises, ObamaCare is not working for the 
American people.
  I reject this motion.
  Please support H.R. 4118, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 
5-minute votes on passage of H.R. 4118, if ordered, and the motion to 
suspend the rules with regard to H.R. 2126.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 185, 
nays 227, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 96]

                               YEAS--185

     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--227

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Chaffetz
     Courtney
     Crawford
     DeLauro
     Duffy
     Esty
     Frankel (FL)
     Gosar
     Green, Gene
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Larson (CT)
     McCarthy (NY)
     Negrete McLeod
     Pastor (AZ)
     Schneider

                              {time}  1529

  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Messrs. FARENTHOLD, FRANKS of 
Arizona, REICHERT, PEARCE, and TERRY changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Messrs. BRADY of Pennsylvania, GRIJALVA, and 
SWALWELL of California changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the vote on the Motion 
to Recommit with Instructions, rollcall vote 96, I would have voted 
``aye.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

[[Page 3770]]

  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 250, 
nays 160, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 97]

                               YEAS--250

     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bera (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duckworth
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Enyart
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Kuster
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Maffei
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nolan
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shea-Porter
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vela
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--160

     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Fudge
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Aderholt
     Chaffetz
     Courtney
     Crawford
     DeLauro
     Duffy
     Esty
     Frankel (FL)
     Gosar
     Green, Gene
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Larson (CT)
     McCarthy (NY)
     Negrete McLeod
     Pastor (AZ)
     Ruppersberger
     Schneider

                              {time}  1538

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 97, H.R. 4118 would 
increase the number of uninsured. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``no.''
  Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the vote On Passage of 
H.R. 4118, rollcall vote 97, I would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________