[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 14997-15005]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3495, WOMEN'S PUBLIC HEALTH AND 
SAFETY ACT, AND WAIVING A REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH 
   RESPECT TO CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED FROM THE 
                           COMMITTEE ON RULES

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 444 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 444

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3495) to 
     amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to allow for 
     greater State flexibility with respect to excluding providers 
     who are involved in abortions. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment printed 
     in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as 
     amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 
     as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a 
     two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on 
     Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived 
     with respect to any resolution reported through the 
     legislative day of October 1, 2015.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 444 provides a closed rule 
for consideration of H.R. 3495, the Women's Public Health and Safety 
Act.
  Over the past few months, extremely disturbing information has come 
to light about the activities of abortion providers and their sale of 
unborn children's hearts and other organs for compensation. In light of 
those discoveries, we provide for consideration today of crucial 
legislation to ensure States are free to ensure their limited 
taxpayers' dollars do not provide sustaining funding to abortion 
providers whose activities are found repugnant.
  H.R. 3495, the Women's Public Health and Safety Act, allows States to 
make a decision identical to the one this House made earlier this month 
when we passed H.R. 3134, the Defund Planned Parenthood Act, which 
stopped the flow of taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood as 
investigations continue into its sale of unborn children's parts.
  As my colleagues noted during debate on H.R. 3134, arguments from the 
minority that this bill will prevent women from accessing health care 
ring hollow. We know that federally qualified health centers and rural 
health centers outnumber Planned Parenthood clinics at a rate of 20 to 
1.
  Of these over 13,000 federally qualified health centers and rural 
health centers, women have access to any healthcare service provided by 
Planned Parenthood or other abortion providers with one obvious 
exception. Because they are federally funded, these true health centers 
do not perform abortions.
  Clearly, despite opponents' best efforts to argue otherwise, this 
bill does not deny healthcare services to women. It does allow States 
to decide whether their Medicaid funds should support a provider whose 
atrocities have shocked our national conscience and devalued human 
life.
  It is not surprising, though, that we are hearing these hollow 
arguments about access to healthcare services, as the political 
machinery of abortion providers has kicked into high gear with scare 
tactics to protect their business. Abortion is, after all, a business. 
Planned Parenthood is the single largest abortion business in the 
country.

                              {time}  1230

  Recently, they performed over 325,000 abortions in 1 year. That is 
nearly 900 every day, at a rate of over 35 an hour. They are able to 
continue that activity, in part, because Planned Parenthood has 
received over $1 billion in 3 years from Medicaid alone. I have spoken 
previously on the floor about the absurdity of providing taxpayer funds 
to organizations that have had their willingness to accept compensation 
for the remains of unborn children exposed for all to see.
  Several States, including Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, and Indiana, 
have recognized that alarming truth and acted on their own to stop 
providing abortion providers with taxpayer dollars through Medicaid. 
Unfortunately, the Obama administration has forced those States to 
continue providing taxpayer dollars to abortion providers.
  Thankfully, when the Framers of our Constitution established our 
Nation, they saw fit to give States a right to determine their own 
affairs and the disposition of their citizens' taxes. Today, we restore 
federalism to the Medicaid program and enable States to make their own 
choices on which Medicaid providers to accept, allowing them to stop 
the flow of taxpayer dollars to organizations that accept compensation 
for the sale of well-developed unborn children's hearts and bodies.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend this rule and the underlying bill to my 
colleagues for their support.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding the 
customary 30 minutes for debate.

[[Page 14998]]

  My friend, the gentlewoman from North Carolina, says that the 
minority speaks in a way that is hollow. I will tell you what is 
hollow: talk about regular order in this institution.
  The general public may not know that there is a methodology that 
allows for all proceedings to go forward. Customarily, a measure of 
this kind would have had a committee hearing and a committee markup. It 
did not, and that is not regular order.
  Mr. Speaker, we are now less than 48 hours away from another 
government shutdown, and instead of considering a continuing 
resolution, we are debating legislation that will limit a woman's 
access to health services and make it harder for Medicaid patients to 
obtain care. I wonder about States like Florida and Texas that did not 
accept Medicaid money under so-called ObamaCare having charge of 
Medicare and Medicaid.
  Like many of my colleagues, I am frustrated that we are again wasting 
precious time considering a bill crafted by ideological extremists, 
which, even in the unlikely event of Senate passage, would be vetoed by 
the President.
  To be sure, this frustration isn't limited to my friends on this side 
of the aisle. Just this week, the fight over defunding Planned 
Parenthood and similar scuffles facilitated by fringe elements of the 
Republican Party led to the resignation of the Speaker of the House.
  And on a personal note, I would like to thank the Speaker for his 
service and his forthright commentary regarding his leaving the House. 
In my judgment, he has done a credible job for this institution. He had 
people who would not let him do the things that were needed for all of 
us in this Nation.
  The Republican Conference is really divided so fervently that we can 
again expect the real threat of a government shutdown in December. All 
we are doing today, in the final analysis on that subject, whenever it 
comes up--and it may come up today and tomorrow--is to kick the can 
down the road again. The can ain't got no more space for kicking. But 
we continue to do that, and this time until December, even if we are 
able to avoid the one currently looming over our heads.
  Mr. Speaker, current Federal law already denies Federal Medicaid 
coverage of abortion except in limited circumstances, and Federal 
insurance coverage of an abortion is restricted.
  Instead of debating bills like the one before us today, we should be 
coming together to find a balanced and responsible way to fund the 
government, pass a budget that represents our constituents' priorities, 
and invest in this great country.
  H.R. 3495 seeks to amend title 19 of the Medicaid law to allow States 
to prevent qualified providers and institutions from participating in 
their Medicaid programs without a showing of cause or due process if 
they have any involvement--underscore that, ``any involvement''--in 
abortions, a standard which has been left undefined and certainly 
vague.
  Aptly termed the ``free choice of provider'' provision, title 19 
currently mandates that Medicaid beneficiaries be permitted to obtain 
services from any qualified provider he or she chooses and is 
implemented in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' free 
choice of provider regulation. This regulation also explicitly states 
that under no circumstance can the free choice of provider protection 
be compromised with respect to providers of family planning services.
  In short, current Federal law was designated to guarantee that State 
Medicaid programs provide beneficiaries with the same basic opportunity 
and rights to choose and receive covered healthcare services from any 
qualified provider in the same way as any member of the general 
population seeking healthcare services. The legislative language of 
this bill is so broad that, if enacted, it has the potential to have a 
devastating impact on patient access by giving States the ability to 
kick any provider out of Medicaid, including entire hospital systems, 
if that provider has even an attenuated connection to abortion 
services.
  For example, it is entirely possible that, under this bill, a 
hospital could be excluded from providing any and all services in 
Medicaid if an obstetrician with admitting privileges at the same 
hospital provides, or even provided in the past, abortions as a 
separate part of his or her practice.
  The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, an 
organization of over 57,000 physicians and partners in women's health, 
have come out publicly against this legislation, as have the American 
Civil Liberties Union and the National Association for the Advancement 
of Colored People. I will include those endorsements against this 
measure in the Record.

         The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,
                               Washington, DC, September 28, 2015.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Congress of 
     Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), representing 57,000 
     physicians and partners in women's health, I urge you to vote 
     NO on H.R. 3495, the Women's Public Health and Safety Act.
       This intentionally vague bill should not be enacted into 
     law. In falling far short of any standard for sound federal 
     health legislation and policy, it would serve only to scare 
     providers away from providing comprehensive, compassionate 
     care to women, and leave women without the care they need. 
     America needs more ob-gyns participating in the Medicaid 
     program; this bill would do the opposite.
       I urge you to vote NO on H.R. 3495 when it comes to the 
     House floor. Don't be fooled by the title of this bill. This 
     legislation is nothing more than the latest in a string of 
     attacks against women's health.
           Sincerely,
                                               Mark S. DeFranceso,
                                                   MD, MBA, FACOG,
     President.
                                  ____



                               American Civil Liberties Union,

                               Washington, DC, September 29, 2015.
     Vote ``NO'' on H.R. 3495

       Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Civil 
     Liberties Union (ACLU), a nationwide organization with more 
     than a million members, activists, and supporters that fights 
     tirelessly to defend and preserve the individual rights and 
     liberties that the Constitution and the laws of the United 
     States guarantee everyone in this country, we urge you to 
     vote NO on Rep. Duffy's bill, the misleadingly titled 
     ``Women's Public Health and Safety Act.'' (H.R. 3495). 
     Because of the critical importance of the civil rights and 
     civil liberties principles involved, we will score the vote.
       H.R. 3495 gives states virtually unchecked power to exclude 
     women's health care providers from participation in Medicaid. 
     It does so by undermining the longstanding free choice of 
     provider provision which guarantees patients the ability to 
     seek health care services, and specifically family planning 
     services, from any qualified provider. This bill would allow 
     states that are hostile to a woman's right to abortion in 
     general, and to Planned Parenthood in particular, to target 
     women's health providers for exclusion from Medicaid with 
     impunity. In so doing, the bill forces doctors and 
     organizations to choose between providing a constitutionally-
     protected medical service that one in three women needs in 
     her lifetime and providing other necessary health care 
     services to low-income patients who already face a dearth of 
     qualified and willing medical professionals. Mandating such a 
     choice not only raises serious constitutional concerns, but 
     also threatens to devastate access to care for millions of 
     low-income women and men.
       As the latest component of the ongoing smear campaign 
     against Planned Parenthood, this bill particularly 
     jeopardizes access to the high quality, affordable health 
     care that Planned Parenthood health centers provide. Planned 
     Parenthood is a critical safety-net provider. One in five 
     women will visit a local Planned Parenthood health center 
     during her lifetime, and many low-income women and women of 
     color rely on Planned Parenthood as their primary health care 
     provider. Despite the fact that numerous investigations have 
     already cleared Planned Parenthood of wrongdoing, opponents 
     of safe, legal abortion continue to cite the deceptively 
     edited videos that misrepresent the organization's fetal 
     tissue donation practices as justification for legislation, 
     like H.R. 3495, that would harm women's health.
       H.R. 3495 would allow states to eliminate Planned 
     Parenthood health centers from Medicaid without cause based 
     solely on political motivations, effectively denying access 
     to vital preventive care services, including wellness exams, 
     cancer screenings, STI testing and treatment, and 
     contraception to many patients. Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, 
     and Utah have all recently attempted to do this, despite 
     warnings from the Department of Health and Human Services 
     that doing so likely violates federal law by illegally 
     restricting beneficiaries' access to services. As defunding 
     efforts in Texas and Indiana have demonstrated, eliminating 
     Planned Parenthood as an option for those enrolled in public 
     health care programs

[[Page 14999]]

     would leave a serious void that could simply not be filled by 
     other health care providers.
       H.R. 3495 would give these states and others that share 
     this anti-women's health agenda broad discretion to exclude 
     any person, institution, agency or entity that ``performs or 
     participates in the performance of abortions'' from 
     participating in Medicaid. Not only would this mean that all 
     such women's health providers could be cut out of the 
     Medicaid program under this provision, but states could also 
     attempt to use it to eliminate a wide range of other health 
     care providers, with serious consequences for low-income 
     patients. For example, a hospital that provides emergency 
     abortions to stabilize a women's health, as required under 
     federal law would be barred from Medicaid under H.R. 3495, 
     leaving Medicaid patients without access to any care at that 
     hospital. Simply put, this bill is extreme and would have a 
     devastating impact on access to care.
       The ACLU opposes H.R. 3495 and urges all members of the 
     House of Representatives to vote ``No.'' Should you have any 
     questions, please contact Georgeanne Usova.
           Sincerely,
     Karin Johanson,
       Director.
     Georgeanne M. Usova,
       Legislative Counsel.
                                  ____

                                          National Association for


                            The Advancement of Colored People,

                               Washington, DC, September 29, 2015.
     Re: NAACP Strong Opposition to H.R. 3495, a Bill to Prohibit 
         Federal Funding to Providers of Abortions, Including 
         Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

       Dear Representative: On behalf of the NAACP, our nation's 
     oldest, largest and most widely-recognized grassroots-based 
     civil rights organization, I strongly urge you to oppose and 
     vote against H.R. 3495, which would eliminate all federal 
     funding to any agency which provides abortions to women, 
     including Planned Parenthood and its affiliates nation-wide. 
     To ban all federal funding for Planned Parenthood and similar 
     organizations would result in the elimination of a myriad of 
     crucial and affordable health care services; for many in the 
     communities we serve and represent, Planned Parenthood 
     clinics represent the only health care services available. 
     Furthermore, since a prohibition on federal funding for 
     abortions is already in place, there is no justification for 
     this reckless initiative.
       The NAACP policy agenda has never taken a position on 
     abortions, neither in opposition nor support. We are, 
     however, very cognizant and very appreciative of the wide 
     range of health care services offered to the communities we 
     serve and represent by Planned Parenthood and its affiliates. 
     The latest estimates indicate that Planned Parenthood serves 
     over five million clients a year, and that 75% of their 
     clients have incomes at or below 150 percent of the federal 
     poverty level. Services provided at locations include 
     screening for breast, cervical and testicular cancers; 
     contraceptives; pregnancy testing and pregnancy options 
     counseling; testing and treatment for sexually transmitted 
     diseases; comprehensive sexuality education, menopause 
     treatments; and vasectomies and tubal ligations. For many of 
     Planned Parenthood's patients, the annual exams received at 
     their facilities are the only access to health care they 
     have.
       Thank you in advance for your attention to the position of 
     the NAACP; H.R. 3495 is extreme and should be opposed.
       Sincerely,

                                        Hilary O. Shelton,    

                                    Director, NAACP Washington    
                                Bureau & Senior Vice President    
                                          for Advocacy and Policy.

  Mr. HASTINGS. The American Congress of Obstetricians and 
Gynecologists stated that the bill falls far short of any standard 
Federal health legislation policy, and insisted that ``it would serve 
only to scare providers away from providing comprehensive, 
compassionate care to women, and leave women without the care they 
need.'' Moreover, the group maintains this bill would prevent OB/GYNs 
from participating in the Medicaid program.
  The reality is over 90 percent of the services of Planned Parenthood 
and similar organizations are preventative in nature, including cancer 
screenings, testing for sexually transmitted infections, and family 
planning services.
  Medicaid beneficiaries already have limited access to doctors, and 
this bill will only restrict access for the poorest individuals in our 
society.
  I said last night in the Rules Committee that wealthy women in our 
society don't have the problem of seeing the doctor of their choice. 
Under this particular measure, poor women will be further restricted 
from having the access to a physician of their choice as a Medicaid 
provider.
  Knowing this, the title of the bill, the Women's Public Health and 
Safety Act, is as ironic as it is patronizing. H.R. 3495 will punish 
the most vulnerable Americans and will prevent women from accessing the 
care that keeps them safe and healthy.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have heard the question, Why haven't you done this 
before? Unfortunately, the full depths to which abortion providers have 
sunk was not previously public knowledge. The recent release of a 
number of hidden camera videos exposing the painful dismemberment of 
unborn children to facilitate the sale of their body parts by Planned 
Parenthood has provided clear evidence that truly repugnant activities 
are rampant in the abortion industry and that taxpayer support should 
never be provided to organizations that participate in the trade of 
human tissue.
  One key Planned Parenthood abortionist even said: ``We've been very 
good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I'm not 
gonna crush that part, I'm gonna basically crush below, I'm gonna to 
crush above, and I'm gonna see if I can get it all intact.''
  In these days of 3-D ultrasounds and high-definition screens, it is 
impossible to hide the humanity of these child victims. They have 
fingers and toes, heartbeats, and organs developed enough that tissue 
collectors will pay $60 a specimen for them.
  In light of the serious questions raised by these videos, the House 
Committees on Energy and Commerce, Judiciary, and Oversight and 
Government Reform have each launched investigations.
  While Planned Parenthood does not receive direct Federal funding for 
abortions, these investigations are warranted, as a recent report from 
the Government Accountability Office shows that the organization 
receives an average of 500 million taxpayer dollars each year for other 
lines of business. Money is fungible, and the Federal funds that 
Planned Parenthood receives ultimately subsidize their abortion 
services.
  Mr. Speaker, that is why today's legislation is so important. In 
light of the atrocities uncovered in abortion facilities across the 
country, it is vital that States be empowered to choose to withhold 
Medicaid funds from flowing to abortion providers that deliberately 
dismember unborn children to receive compensation for their organs and 
other body parts.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), my good friend.

                              {time}  1245

  Ms. MATSUI. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3495. This bill is 
misleadingly named the Women's Public Health and Safety Act when, in 
fact, it puts women's and men's health at risk.
  This bill would allow States to block Planned Parenthood or any other 
health provider from Medicaid based on ``involvement in abortions.'' 
Now, millions of American women and men depend on Planned Parenthood 
for essential health care.
  The majority seems determined to take our Nation's healthcare system 
backwards. Planned Parenthood uses Medicaid funding to provide services 
like cancer screening, access to contraception, and pre-conception 
counseling that helps women prepare for healthy pregnancies.
  Members of Congress should stop attacking women's ability to control 
their own health care. This bill disproportionately impacts low-income 
women and families and unfairly takes away one of their healthcare 
options.
  Congress needs to get back to doing our job and stop this attack on 
women's health.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  For those who complain that this bill isn't properly named, let us 
not forget that at least half of the unborn children who are victims of 
abortion are female who would grow up to be women.

[[Page 15000]]

Far too many supporters of abortion on demand ignore that reality and 
the fact that many abortions are sex-selection abortions.
  Until they confront that, how can they parse bill titles, 
particularly those that protect all existing funding for women's 
health, while ensuring women and their children are not party to the 
sale of tiny hearts and organs for compensation?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my colleague from Maryland (Mr. 
Harris).
  Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill very simply allows States to be partners in 
the Medicaid program. The Medicaid program is a partnership between the 
Federal Government and the States, except too often Washington tells 
the States exactly what they have to do.
  This is one of those examples because this is not theoretical. There 
are two States that have attempted to defund with their use of taxpayer 
dollars in their States--these are not Federal tax dollars. They don't 
want their State's taxpayers dollars to fund Planned Parenthood. 
Instead, they want to fund other women's health services. They should 
be allowed to do that.
  Why should the Secretary of Health and Human Services demand that one 
particular institution get funds?
  Let's talk about that institution. The gentleman from Florida says, 
oh, this is going to deny women health care.
  Let me tell you who is denying women health care in my district, in 
rural Lower Eastern Shore. We had a Planned Parenthood in Salisbury. 
They closed up in April. On their Web site, they said: The center in 
Easton will be open Monday through Friday. You can just get your care 
there, our Planned Parenthood Center, which is about 45 minutes up the 
road.
  Mr. Speaker, just go on your tablet device and see what the hours at 
the Easton Planned Parenthood are that are supposed to develop this 
wonderful comprehensive health care to women in my district.
  Now, if you want to go today, you are out of luck. They are closed. 
Now, if you went yesterday, they were open for 7 hours, from 10 a.m. to 
5 p.m. That is nice. I guess they are bankers' hours. I guess we just 
assume that everybody is going to get their health care between 10 a.m. 
and 5 p.m. So Monday they are open from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. Tuesday they 
are closed.
  Mr. Speaker, if one of the women in my Lower Shore want to go on 
Wednesday, they are out of luck. They are closed. If they want to go on 
Thursday, they are in luck. They are open for 7\1/2\ hours, from 11 
a.m. to 6:30 p.m. But if they want to go on Friday, Saturday, or 
Sunday, they are out of luck because Planned Parenthood is closed. They 
are not delivering comprehensive services those days.
  In fact, Mr. Speaker, as we know, Planned Parenthood doesn't deliver 
comprehensive women's health services. One of the most important 
services that you can deliver to a woman of child-bearing age is 
mammograms.
  Not a single Planned Parenthood facility in this entire country has a 
mammography machine. Now, how do you deliver a mammogram without a 
mammography machine?
  Mr. Speaker, it is an untruth. Planned Parenthood doesn't do 
comprehensive cancer screening. Because one of the most important 
screening techniques is mammography, and none of them can deliver it.
  Let's contrast what the woman who is seeking comprehensive women's 
health care on the Lower Eastern Shore in Maryland--what her 
alternative is, because the gentleman from Florida mentions that our 
Medicaid patients won't be able to be seen if we pass this bill.
  The alternative is our Federally qualified health center, our 
community health center, called Three Lower Counties. Now, if you go to 
Three Lower Counties today, you are actually in luck because they are 
open from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. and they have a mammography machine as 
well as the entire range of comprehensive services, with one exception. 
They don't do abortions. But, then again, the other Planned Parenthoods 
on the Eastern Shore of Maryland don't do it either.
  So, in fact, if a woman who is on Medicaid really wants access to 
comprehensive health care in my district, they have got to go past 
Planned Parenthood unless--well, that is not true.
  I guess, if Monday and Thursday they want their health care, they can 
go to Planned Parenthood. Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday, Saturday, they 
can't.
  But they could go to one of those at my community health center. In 
fact, nationwide there are only a little over 500 Planned Parenthood 
facilities.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holding). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. HARRIS. There are 13,000 community health centers, each of which 
has to have radiology facilities. That is how you get the Federal 
money.
  So, in fact, if we really want to let our States, by their choice--we 
are not forcing States. We are not saying that a State can't fund 
Planned Parenthood.
  Look, I come from the State of Maryland. We will probably choose to 
do it.
  But a State that chooses not to should be given the option to tell 
their women: If you really want it, really want comprehensive care, 
well, go to one of the community health centers. That is all this bill 
does.
  This doesn't limit care. This expands care because this tells women: 
You don't have to go to the Monday-and Thursday-only clinic that can't 
give you a mammogram. You can actually go get comprehensive care 
somewhere else, even if you are on Medicaid.
  My biggest objection--and the gentlewoman from North Carolina hit it 
on the head--is look at what else Planned Parenthood does. They 
actually--and, as a physician, I find this unbelievable.
  They will change the abortion technique in order to better harvest 
the fetal tissue that they can then sell. That should be so morally 
objectionable that we should allow States to limit that funding.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just like to indicate to my friend from Maryland that, while 
there are 13,000 community health centers, many of them are overcrowded 
to begin with and can't provide even the daytime that you mentioned in 
Salisbury, all the services for various communities.
  But, more important, you are correct. Planned Parenthood does not do 
mammograms. But they did in the last year 500,000 breast screenings. I 
could offer up anecdotal information that allows--you can go downstairs 
right here to the House physician. The House physician doesn't provide 
all of the services, but refers you out to GW or to Walter Reed 
Bethesda.
  So referring out those women, if I were to pull up the anecdotal 
information of the number of women that did ultimately learn that they 
had problems, those statistics justify the continuation of this 
organization that provides compassionate services to women.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene).
  Ms. DelBENE. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Just 10 days ago the 
House took a vote to attack women's health. At that time, I said it 
felt like deja vu.
  Now I am starting to wonder if this is the only issue that my 
colleagues care about.
  Have we taken a vote to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank? No.
  Have we taken a vote to extend the Land and Water Conservation Fund? 
No.
  Have we taken a single vote this year to fix our broken immigration 
system? No.
  Yet, somehow we found time to take vote after vote restricting 
women's access to care. It is reprehensible.
  The bill we are considering today is one of the worst yet. It is a 
dangerous and unprecedented assault on women and their healthcare 
providers, and it does nothing to address the real issues that 
Americans are facing.
  Mr. Speaker, voters didn't send us here to intimidate their doctors 
and interfere in their private medical decisions.

[[Page 15001]]

  It is time for Congress to stop wasting time and get to work. I urge 
my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying bill.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am 
going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3611, a long-
term reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, to discuss our proposal, I am very pleased 
to yield 3 minutes to my good friend from Washington (Mr. Heck).
  Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Florida.
  I rise to oppose the demand for the previous question so that we 
might, in fact, take up the issue of a long-term reauthorization of the 
Export-Import Bank.
  Something has changed. This is no longer an abstract philosophical 
conversation. This is a real, manifest, concrete conversation in which 
people are losing their livelihoods.
  I stood here last week and reported that not one, but two, satellite 
sales were likely lost. A subsequent announcement by Boeing to lay off 
workers in El Segundo, California, is not abstract.
  I referred to General Electric announcing that it was laying off 500 
people as a result of the failure of this body to do what it has done 
every chance it had under every President for 81 years, almost always 
unanimously.
  This is no longer an abstraction. People are losing their 
livelihoods, and it will continue. It continued yesterday. General 
Electric announced another 350 jobs lost. They are moving them from 
Wisconsin to Canada.
  This is not an abstraction. This is not some ideological tug of war. 
You are taking away people's jobs.
  And, by the way, last week, when GE announced its first layoff of 
500, the spokesman for the majority party said it was immaterial. They 
dismissed it. Well, if you opened up that envelope and found a pink 
slip, you wouldn't think it was immaterial.
  Last week I revealed a dirty little secret. I shared with you that 
the Boeing aircraft company, the largest exporter in the United States 
of America, the heart of our manufacturing base, didn't make airplanes. 
They don't. They design and assemble them. They assemble them with 
parts made mostly in America.
  Now, here is today's dirty little secret: domestic content. The 
Export-Import Bank requires anything it finances to be made out of 85 
percent domestic content. Made in America, 85 percent.
  Now, our largest exporter, in good times, finances about 1 in 5 of 
its sales through the Ex-Im. But it is countercyclical. In bad times, 
it is up to 40 percent, as a consequence of that material amount that 
is sold. And, by the way, 70 percent of its sales are international. 
They make all their airplanes with a minimum of 85 percent domestic 
content.
  People, stop and think. If you do away with the Ex-Im, you do away 
with the 85 percent domestic content requirement.
  Boeing wants to make airplanes in America with 85 percent domestic 
content.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. HECK of Washington. I know this because 2 years ago there was a 
coalition formed to lobby to reduce the domestic content. Boeing left 
the coalition because they want to make airplanes in America. If you do 
away with Ex-Im, you do away with the domestic content requirement.
  Six to 8,000 of the 15,000 businesses in Boeing's supply chain are 
small businesses. They are small businesses. You are holding a gun to 
the head of America's number one exporter and forcing them--forcing 
them--by virtue of competitive disadvantage to look at and consider 
outsourcing.
  More pink slips. More people losing their livelihood. This is no 
longer an abstraction. You are taking away people's livelihoods.
  Yes, it is unilateral disarmament. Every other developed country on 
the face of the planet has an export credit authority, every other one, 
except us now.
  In God's name, defeat the previous question.

                              {time}  1300

  Ms. FOXX. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are talking 
about the Ex-Im Bank because they know when they talk about protecting 
organizations that sell babies' hearts and lungs, they are losing.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues in the minority also claim that women 
would no longer have access to healthcare services. It is important to 
remember that this bill merely stops the Obama administration's current 
practice of using Medicaid to force States into including abortionists 
in their provider network. Each State can take its specific needs into 
consideration when determining what, if any, action to take under this 
bill. Claims that 13,000 federally qualified and rural health centers 
aren't sufficient fail to reflect the fact that community health 
centers have grown significantly since 2010.
  According to HRSA data, health centers have grown so much that, in 
the years since 2010, they have acquired 3.4 million more patients, 1.9 
million of whom are women. And as our colleague from Maryland pointed 
out, they are often open more days and more hours than Planned 
Parenthood clinics are. They are providing better and more 
comprehensive services to women.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters), my very good friend 
who is the ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services and a 
real champion on both these issues that we are discussing here today.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong 
opposition to the previous question so that this House may finally get 
on with the important work of supporting American jobs by reauthorizing 
the charter of the Export-Import Bank.
  My friends on the opposite side of the aisle claim that they support 
business. They claim they support small business. They claim that this 
is something that is not paid enough attention to. Yet when we have the 
opportunity to support the Ex-Im Bank, what do they do? They turn it 
into a political question because they want to use it to divide.
  Let me tell you some facts about the Ex-Im Bank.
  The Ex-Im Bank supported $27.4 billion of U.S. exports at no cost to 
American taxpayers; 164,000 American jobs were supported. Nearly 90 
percent of Ex-Im Bank transactions directly supported small businesses. 
There was a $675 million surplus generated for American taxpayers in 
funding year 2014 alone.
  Ex-Im Bank's mission is American jobs. By financing the export of 
American goods and services, Ex-Im Bank has supported $1.3 million 
private sector, American jobs since 2009, supporting, again, 164,000 
jobs in funding year 2014 alone.
  So, Mr. Speaker and Members, every day that this Republican-led House 
refuses to act is another day that American workers suffer the 
consequences.
  It has been 3 months now since Republicans shut down our Nation's 
export credit agency, a vital financing tool that enables U.S. 
companies both large and small to compete for sales in the global 
marketplace, and businesses and their workers are feeling the pain.
  The stories that we have received from across the Nation make the 
unfortunate consequences of the House Republicans' shutdown of the Ex-
Im

[[Page 15002]]

Bank distressingly clear. In describing the impact of the Ex-Im 
shutdown, the chief financial officer of Chief Industries, 
Incorporated, a Nebraska company that sells grain bins and elevators, 
said: ``We've lost business. That's the easiest way to put it. We can't 
get that business back.''
  In my home State of California, the president of Combustion 
Associates, Incorporated, a power plant manufacturer, said that the 
shutdown of the Ex-Im Bank has put her small, woman- and minority-owned 
company at a ``real disadvantage,'' saying that, as a result of fierce 
competition from Chinese and European firms: ``If we don't get Ex-Im 
back soon, there's a very good chance we will lose three pending 
contracts to one of our competitors.''
  In describing the devastating consequence of losing the support of 
the Ex-Im Bank, the owner of U.S. International Trading Corporation, 
based in Nevada, said that the ideologically charged debate surrounding 
the reauthorization ``is like being stabbed in the back by people who 
should be defending you.''
  Steve Wilburn, a long-time Republican and former marine, who owns a 
renewable fuels company in Arizona that lost a major Philippines green 
energy project due to the uncertainty over Ex-Im's future, recently 
remarked: ``I never thought the day would come when the Republican 
Party would somehow view a small business like mine as crony 
capitalism.''
  While these small businesses and many like them are unable to 
successfully compete internationally without the support of the Ex-Im 
Bank, some of our Nation's largest manufacturers are losing contracts 
as well, with significant negative downstream consequences for the 
small business suppliers that make up their vast U.S. supply chains.
  Making matters worse, in recent weeks, large companies, including GE 
and Boeing, have announced that the lack of export credit financing 
from the Ex-Im Bank has forced those companies to move some of their 
manufacturing operations abroad, where export credit financing is 
readily available.
  Mr. Speaker, we should be ashamed of this. We should be doing 
everything we can to grow jobs in this country and give U.S. businesses 
the tools they need to succeed.
  I have said it before and will say it again, a majority of this House 
supports reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank; and if we don't give 
Members the opportunity to vote up or down on reopening the Bank's 
doors today, the self-inflicted shutdown of the Ex-Im Bank will 
continue to hurt workers and our economy. It is time to recognize the 
realities of the extremely competitive international marketplace that 
businesses must compete in.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 
minute.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I don't know what they are afraid 
of. They like shutting things down.
  You are going to shut down something in this country that is going to 
cause us to lose jobs.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks 
to the Chair and not to other Members of the House.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I repeat, my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle are talking about the Ex-Im Bank because they know that when 
they talk about protecting organizations that sell babies' hearts and 
lungs, they are losing.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Carter).
  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. I thank the gentlewoman.
  Mr. Speaker, we have known for some time that Planned Parenthood is 
the largest provider of abortions in this country. What we did not know 
until recently was just how vile and disgusting the nature of this 
organization truly is.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 3495 because I believe States have 
the right to refuse funding to an organization that profits from the 
sale of aborted children's organs. Medicaid and CMS should not be 
allowed to force States to fund these horrific practices against the 
States' wishes.
  The advancement of women's health should always remain a top priority 
for our healthcare community. However, we can achieve this goal without 
requiring States to provide access to institutions like Planned 
Parenthood.
  Taxpayer dollars should not be going to the killing of unborn babies. 
Taxpayer dollars should not go to organizations like Planned Parenthood 
that support the practice of abortion and trafficking of aborted fetal 
tissue.
  Taxpayer funds should go toward investigating and prosecuting the 
individuals that are responsible for trafficking in the selling of 
fetal tissue. Taxpayer funds should go toward the advancement of 
women's health.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this bill, but we cannot stop 
here.
  In addition to cutting off funding, the perpetrators behind these 
heinous crimes should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. 
These disgusting acts are on par with those committed by the sickest of 
criminals behind bars, and that is exactly where the people who did 
this belong.
  I urge my colleagues to support precious, innocent lives of the 
unborn.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from North Carolina says 
that we are discussing the Export-Import Bank because we are losing, as 
she put it, on the subject that is the base bill here today. We are not 
losing. This bill will pass the House of Representatives, and it will 
go nowhere. Why we are discussing the Ex-Im Bank is because we need 
American businesses to win.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), my classmate, who is 
a member of the Committee on Financial Services.
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly oppose this rule and 
support the motion to defeat the previous question.
  Instead of bringing a bill to the floor that will go nowhere, we 
should, instead, be letting the House work its will; and we should be 
voting to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank. Reauthorizing the Export-
Import Bank is an economic imperative.
  While some of my colleagues celebrate their misguided, ideologically 
driven agenda, hardworking Americans are losing their jobs, and 
American businesses and exporters are being outgunned by larger export 
credit agencies which are more than willing to provide financing to 
America's foreign competitors.
  The Bank is an unbridled, market-driven success story which has broad 
bipartisan support in both Houses of this Congress as well as support 
from the majority of Americans. The Bank supports hundreds of thousands 
of good-paying jobs in this country.
  If we fail to act now, we are shutting off a lifeline for many of our 
small businesses and exporters. In my congressional district alone, the 
Bank has supported thousands of small business and manufacturing jobs. 
These are good jobs in a very high-need area in Texas that would not 
have been possible without the Bank. These jobs are now in danger.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my GOP colleagues to let common sense regain a 
foothold in this House. We have the votes. Let Congress work its will 
and allow a vote on the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to how I began my remarks today, and 
that is to say that the measure before us has not gone through regular 
order in the House of Representatives. There were no hearings, no 
markup. It just showed up in the rules for us. And somehow or another, 
that seems to be a pattern that is developing around here, where we are 
not legislating, we are rulemaking. In the final analysis, many Members 
and their constituents are being shut out.
  Mr. Speaker, the decision to have an abortion is obviously a very, 
very difficult decision for a woman, and it is one that must be made, 
in my judgment--and my colleague from Colorado

[[Page 15003]]

(Mr. Polis) always says that it is not the Oversight Committee's--which 
is hearing right now, as we speak, from Planned Parenthood providers--
or the Energy and Commerce Committee's decision for a woman's right to 
choose. The freedom of choice measure, since 1960, has been a part of 
Medicaid in this country, and now we would tear that fabric and divide 
this country with an issue that the only committee that should be in 
charge is the committee formed by a woman, her doctor, and God.

                              {time}  1315

  There is no place for the ideological whims of politicians in that 
determination. I said last night I know where this is headed. I have 
seen it now for 22 years. What the ultimate objective is is not this 
legislation today or the legislation that we considered 2 weeks ago or 
legislation like this that they have considered. For 22 years that I 
have been here, it has been headed toward trying to reverse Roe v. 
Wade.
  Like it or not, the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade conferred 
upon women the right to do with their own bodies what they determine 
best until the point of viability. It is unfathomable to me and 
countless others around this country and the world that we continue to 
entertain attacks on poor women's health to satisfy the extreme 
political agenda of a few in Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle often 
articulate their support for measures such as the one we are 
considering today by insisting that it is our duty to protect the most 
vulnerable in society. To those individuals I ask: How does eliminating 
critical health services to our country's most poor and preventing 
those same individuals from being able to see the doctors of their 
choice that they know and trust help them to accomplish this worthwhile 
goal?
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the 
previous question and against this rule and the underlying bill. I want 
to ask us to get back to regular order and let us get into legislating.
  No, my colleague from North Carolina, we are not losing. We asked on 
the Export-Import measure to allow for American businesses to win. 
Everybody here knows that this legislation, once it passes the House of 
Representatives, is going to get lost in that nowhere forest. I said 
last night, and I listened to my granddaughter saying, ``Let It Go.'' 
The words are different to this particular situation today, but the 
title of the song should be heard as a mantra by the Republican Party 
on the subject of the rights of women and their choice. They should 
just let it go.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  My colleagues continue to hold up regular order as an excuse for 
their unwillingness to stop the flow of taxpayer dollars to 
organizations that dismember children. Thankfully, there are committee 
hearings being held on this issue even now that will continue to expose 
the wrongs of the abortion industry. Here today, though, we take the 
simple step of stopping funding to organizations that sell children's 
body parts.
  My colleague's newfound affection for regular order is a poor 
objection to the passage of this legislation to protect women and 
children from being parties to trafficking in human tissue. It is not 
extreme to want to protect the most vulnerable, the unborn, from having 
their body parts being sold and the use of taxpayer dollars to aid such 
enterprises.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard today about outrageous activities that are 
ongoing in the abortion industry as it takes apart tiny babies with 
beating hearts and cute little fingers and toes. It is truly saddening 
that the reaction in this Chamber isn't unanimous agreement that the 
clinics where this has occurred be closed and those responsible be 
sanctioned for their reprehensible actions. We haven't even been able 
to come to agreement with those on the other side that Federal grants 
to these organizations from the Department of Health and Human Services 
stop immediately.
  Now we try again to find common ground. Today, the legislation before 
us would take the small but vital step of allowing those States that 
choose, and only those States, to stop funding abortion providers 
through Medicaid. This legislation wouldn't tell New York or 
Massachusetts or California that they can't give their taxpayer dollars 
to an organization that sells body parts. It would, however, enable 
Louisiana, Alabama, Arkansas, or Indiana to do so.
  The principle of federalism, that Americans are free to come together 
with others in their community and establish the principles by which 
they will govern themselves, is a bedrock for our Nation. Even if 
opponents of this legislation have become callous to the unheard cries 
of unborn children dismembered for compensation, they should rally to 
the cause of federalism in order to allow their own communities to 
exercise the freedom it protects.
  What a sad day it is when we can no longer even unite around our 
founding principles, one of which was that life is the first 
unalienable right. When we ignore the need to protect that right for 
the smallest of our brothers and sisters, we should not be surprised by 
the erosion of our other rights, including the right to self-governance 
prohibited by federalism.
  The exposure of the ongoing tragedy of crushed young lives must spur 
us to unite to stop this imposition of Federal power on States and 
their citizens and restore to them the choice of protecting children 
from being sold as organ donors before even taking their first breath. 
This is what H.R. 3495, the Women's Public Health and Safety Act, would 
accomplish, and I commend it and this rule providing for its 
consideration to my colleagues for their support.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:

     An Amendment to H. Res. 444 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     3611) to reauthorize and reform the Export-Import Bank of the 
     United States, and for other purposes. The first reading of 
     the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Financial Services. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and 
     reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then 
     on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately 
     after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of 
     rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 3611.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry,

[[Page 15004]]

     asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G. 
     Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been 
     refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had 
     asked the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is 
     entitled to the first recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 243, 
nays 182, not voting 9, as follows:
  


                             [Roll No. 521]

                               YEAS--243

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--182

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Ellison
     Hudson
     Kelly (IL)
     Larson (CT)
     McDermott
     Payne
     Reichert
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Westmoreland

                              {time}  1349

  Mr. LOWENTHAL, Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California, Ms. BASS, and Mr. 
NORCROSS changed their votes from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. FINCHER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 242, 
noes 183, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 522]

                               AYES--242

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck

[[Page 15005]]


     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NOES--183

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Amash
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Massie
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Frelinghuysen
     Hudson
     Kelly (IL)
     Larson (CT)
     McDermott
     Payne
     Reichert
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Smith (TX)

                              {time}  1357

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                          Personal Explanation

  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, September 29th I missed two 
votes on Ordering the Previous Question and House Resolution 444. Had I 
been present, I would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________