[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13715-13720]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 954, CO-OP CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 
                                OF 2016

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 893 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 893

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 954) to 
     amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt from the 
     individual mandate certain individuals who had coverage under 
     a terminated qualified health plan funded through the 
     Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan (CO-OP) program. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
     the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill 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 Ways and Means; and (2) one motion 
     to recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1 
hour.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 
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

  Mr. BURGESS. 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 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 893 provides for 
consideration of H.R. 954, the CO-OP Consumer Protection Act of 2016. 
The rule provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided among the majority 
and minority of the Committee on Ways and Means. As is standard with 
all legislation pertaining to the Tax Code, the Committee on Rules made 
no further

[[Page 13716]]

amendments in order; however, the rule affords the minority the 
customary motion to recommit.
  Under the rule, we will be considering a bill to prevent a tax 
increase imposed on the American people by the Affordable Care Act. 
This will affect many Americans through no fault of their own and due 
to circumstances beyond their control. The bill advanced through 
regular order and was reported favorably out of the Committee on Ways 
and Means on a voice vote earlier this month.
  The Affordable Care Act established a program to provide taxpayer-
funded loans for Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan program, better 
known as the CO-OP program. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 
Services funded 24 CO-OPs in 23 States. Of those 24 CO-OPs, 1 failed 
before it ever enrolled a single individual, and just 6 remain open 
today. The 17 failed CO-OPs received over $1.8 billion in taxpayer 
funds and, to date, none of those CO-OPs has paid back any of those 
loans.
  In addition to wasting billions of taxpayer dollars, the CO-OPs have 
created instability and hardship for hundreds of thousands of 
individuals who relied on CO-OPs for insurance coverage. Under the 
Affordable Care Act, individuals must be covered by a health plan that 
provides minimum essential coverage or pay a tax for failure to 
maintain coverage. Thus, victims of failed CO-OPs were penalized, 
despite their efforts to be in compliance with the law.
  The magnitude of this problem for affected individuals is 
significant. They are left without coverage for health care. They face 
increased financial burdens and tax penalties. H.R. 954, the CO-OP 
Consumer Protection Act of 2016, would provide targeted relief by 
creating an exemption from the individual health insurance mandate for 
individuals who have coverage under a CO-OP that fails.
  H.R. 954 would be effective retroactively, starting January 1, 2014, 
and would also protect consumers of the remaining six CO-OPS going 
forward. While the administration and some of my counterparts have 
noted that consumers affected by a close CO-OP could have purchased new 
plans during a special enrollment period, this comes up short. Those 
victims of failed CO-OPs had to start anew in paying deductibles for a 
new plan well into the coverage year, and continuity of care could be 
significantly disrupted, based on changes to provider networks.
  H.R. 954 does not make these individuals whole, but it is the right 
thing to do. Across America, individuals do not even have the basic 
assurance that their insurance carrier will not simply vanish in the 
night. We should all be able to agree that these individuals should not 
also then face penalties under the individual mandate.
  H.R. 954 advanced through regular order and was favorably reported 
out of the Committee on Ways and Means. I urge my colleagues to support 
this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Here we are again, Mr. Speaker, discussing a bill that, whatever its 
merits and noble intentions are, of course, of trying to hold harmless 
the victims of organizations that go out of business, will meet a veto.
  The Statement of Administration Policy says, if the President were 
presented with H.R. 954, he would veto the bill. That is the strongest 
kind of veto message that we get. Sometimes they say his advisers say 
he might or he is going to consider it. It says he would veto it.
  So here we are again, in the precious little time that this body has 
before it sends everybody back to their district, when we could be 
addressing Zika, when we could be addressing Flint, when we could be 
addressing immigration reform, when we could pass a balanced budget 
amendment, or any of those things that I hear from my constituents 
every day. Instead, we are pursuing a bill that won't become law.
  This bill will not become law. The President has indicated he would 
veto it. So we are just taking up the time of this body to debate a 
bill that affects people in a few States. Of course, I understand Iowa 
and Nebraska share one of the CO-OPs that went out of business. New 
York and Oregon are the others.
  I hail from a State where the CO-OP went out of business. I would add 
that it went out of business, with the actions of State regulators, at 
the right time, namely, before the enrollment period.
  So the question I brought before the Rules Committee yesterday, and I 
think it is very important for anybody who supports this bill to 
answer: Why did the State regulators in those States allow those CO-OPs 
to fail mid-period? Why weren't they ahead of the curve in those States 
to make sure that, if they had to fail, they did so in an orderly 
manner prior to the enrollment period? It is irresponsible of State 
regulators to allow insolvent plans into the marketplace.
  Instead of discussing that and instead of launching an investigation 
into that, instead of having a GAO report on that, we are just doing a 
bill that effectively bails them out. Another Republican taxpayer 
bailout bill that we have before us today.
  I have always been a big fan of the CO-OPs. In fact, the Consumer 
Operated and Oriented Plan program was created to support the 
development of nonprofit health insurance options in the individual 
marketplace. They face a lot of challenges. And, sadly, in fact, we 
wouldn't even be dealing with the fact that 17 of them have gone out of 
business if the Republicans hadn't put a provision in the omnibus in 
2016--which I was proud to oppose for this reason, among many others--
that defunded the healthcare CO-OPs.
  So they already did an attack on the Affordable Care Act by defunding 
the CO-OPs; and now they are saying we want to bail them out. Of 
course, you want to bail them out now. You are responsible for letting 
them fail in the first place.
  Look, there are a lot of questions to answer before this body moves 
forward with this failed Republican bailout bill, namely, where were 
the State regulators?

                              {time}  1345

  Why did they let these fail mid-cycle instead of, as they did in my 
State, before the enrollment period ended?
  Number two, why did you defend them in the first place? Didn't you 
know that you would probably have to bail them out if you did?
  And the third question I brought up in the Rules Committee is, why 
are we even just talking about CO-OPs? What about if for-profit 
insurance companies go out of business? Are we going to bail out those 
consumers, too?
  Now, I haven't seen that that has happened yet, but, look, these are 
private companies; it is only a matter of time until some company makes 
bad decisions and goes bankrupt and leaves its customers in the lurch.
  Now, it is the job of State regulators to try to actuarially make 
sure that those companies are sound and solvent; and if they are going 
to disqualify one, to do so before the enrollment period, not midterm.
  But let's be honest. Bad things happen, and probably someday a 
company will go out of business in the middle of a term, despite the 
best efforts of State regulators.
  And what about those customers, and why would they be treated any 
differently than the customers of CO-OPs?
  Look, in the three States where the CO-OPs did close down mid-session 
because of the ineffectiveness of State regulators, rather than 
proposing a Republican taxpayer bailout, we should simply point people 
to alternative insurance options. In fact, CO-OPs contacted every 
customer over 20 times to assist with the process of finding a new plan 
by e-mail, mailer, and phone. And in the event the available premiums 
were too expensive, the Affordable Care Act already has what they call 
a hardship exemption, where families can avoid paying any penalty. Just 
as they do under this bill, they can do it without this bill as well.
  In the three instances where CO-OP plans were terminated in the 
middle of the year, the set of circumstances that

[[Page 13717]]

this Republican taxpayer bailout bill is designed to address, it 
appears that individuals had ample time and options to find new 
coverage, even if their own State regulators were asleep at the switch, 
and it does not mean that the rest of us, that I have to go back to 
honest, hardworking Coloradans and say, sorry, you have to bail out the 
Republican Congress and their failure to include in the omnibus a plan 
to maintain the solvency of the CO-OPs.
  The financial penalty for forgoing coverage is one of the primary 
incentives for what we call RomneyCare, or some call ObamaCare. By 
circumventing the individual mandate, H.R. 954 undermines an essential 
component of what was known as the Massachusetts plan, which is now the 
Affordable Care Act.
  But as we know, over 20 million Americans have obtained health 
insurance, many for the first time. I am proud to say that in my home 
State of Colorado, while we have a number of issues with regard to the 
Affordable Care Act, one positive indicator that we can point to is 
that the rate of individuals without insurance has dropped by half. It 
is now a historically low 6.7 percent. It has never been that low in 
the history of Colorado. For Colorado children, the uninsured rate is 
even lower, 2.5 percent.
  So nationwide, as we know, there are a lot of elements of the 
Affordable Care Act that are very popular and important to maintain. No 
one should be denied coverage for having a preexisting condition. Young 
adults can afford health insurance by staying on their parents' plan.
  The individual mandate is the flip side of making sure that people 
aren't discriminated against because of preexisting conditions. You 
can't have only a high-risk pool. You have to make sure that healthy 
people are in the pool to keep the rates low for everybody. That is the 
fundamental model that went into RomneyCare, and it was later adopted 
as a bipartisan concept.
  In addition, individuals have access to preventative services, 
affordable prescription drugs, and are no longer subject to lifetime 
caps that can leave them bankrupt if they have a serious illness. I 
have heard from a number of constituents for whom that is very 
important.
  So, look, every law can use improvement. There is no doubt about 
that. I was very strongly against the language in the Omnibus in 2016 
that led to these CO-OPs going out of business and led to this 
Republican bailout package. And the Affordable Care Act, of course, can 
be improved.
  So instead of discussing ways to roll back the successes of the 
Affordable Care Act or do massive bailouts, we should be discussing 
ways that we can make the law work better and prevent the need for 
bailouts moving forward.
  To this end, I, along with many of my colleagues, have been a long-
time supporter of establishing a public health insurance plan option. A 
public health insurance plan option would go a long way to revitalizing 
the individual marketplace through increased competition.
  In 2010, I led an effort with my colleague from Maine, Representative 
Chellie Pingree, to encourage Senator Reid to consider a public option 
in the health care reform legislation that was being drafted. And I 
have continued to call for a public option even after the Affordable 
Care Act passed. It has been scored to have reduced the deficit by over 
$200 billion and it would help the constituents in my district, 
particularly in our mountain areas, by providing a more affordable 
option within the individual exchange.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of Representative Schakowsky's H.R. 265, 
the Public Option Deficit Reduction Act, which would require HHS to set 
up a public health insurance option. I would point out that this 
Republican bailout plan increases the deficit. Right? Small amount, 
small amount.
  You have the figures, my friend from Texas. I think--was it $40 
million? How much does this bill increase the deficit? 12 million?
  Very small amount, right; but still the wrong way.
  The plan that I am supporting and that many Democrats support would 
reduce the deficit by $200 billion.
  So if the Republicans continue to go down this road of bailouts, 
large and small, we are going to bankrupt this country. We are already 
$20 trillion in debt. We have a deficit of half a trillion dollars. 
Yes, every little bit matters. Again, the amount is small of this 
Republican bailout that increases the deficit; but we could be going 
another path which is fiscally responsible, increases consumer choice, 
and brings down costs.
  Furthermore, since this bill will be vetoed anyway and this isn't 
going to become law, it is hardly worth the time to discuss. What we 
should be talking about are the very real public health crises. Indeed, 
public health, health-related bill, let's talk about health.
  Let's talk about the fact that it has been over a year since Flint 
administrators first became aware of toxic levels of lead in the water 
of the city, which still exist; and over that time the body has sat on 
its hands, day after day, week after week. Exposure to lead is very 
harmful to children who are at significantly elevated risk of damage to 
their nervous system, learning disabilities, impaired development, that 
not only are crises for them and their families, but ultimately will 
cost taxpayers even more over time. Yet, Congress hasn't allocated any 
help to even replace the pipes in Flint while children in the community 
are still using bottled water to drink and bathe, at great expense, I 
might add.
  Bottled water, for those of you who drink bottled water--Mr. Speaker, 
I don't know if you do--you know it is quite expensive, right?
  Better to drink water out of your tap. Let's fix the underlying 
condition.
  Then, of course, we have the Zika crisis. Nineteen thousand Americans 
have contracted the virus so far this year; 1,800 of those Americans 
are pregnant women who have an elevated risk of having associated 
consequences for their children, including microcephaly. Funding is 
essential to reduce the building diagnostic backlog and develop a 
method of testing, a vaccination, and better ways to address this 
health crisis as it spreads across Florida, south Texas, and the 
Caribbean.
  But instead of debating Zika or Flint or even a continuing resolution 
to keep the government open past Friday--which we haven't spent a 
moment on yet even though Government funding runs out Friday--or a 
bipartisan balanced budget amendment or any of the other great ideas 
that have been brought forward in a bipartisan way, instead of doing 
any of that, a symbolic bill will be met by a veto, yet another 
Republican bailout that costs taxpayers and increases the deficit.
  We have a bill that does nothing, that won't become law. It is a part 
of a wider effort to increase the deficit and force hardworking 
taxpayers in Colorado to bail out the failures of State regulators in 
four States.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill adds to the deficit. It undermines a component 
of the Affordable Care Act. It doesn't even address the failure of 
State regulators. It doesn't even address the fact that a policy that 
Republicans put in the 2016 Omnibus has led to the need for this 
bailout. Simply put, this is not part of the solution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to bring up the bipartisan no fly, no buy 
legislation. It would allow the Attorney General to bar the sale of 
explosives and firearms to those on the FBI's terrorist watch list.
  Republicans have refused to act on this commonsense legislation. Some 
of you might have heard at the debate yesterday that both Presidential 
contenders from both parties support this legislation. It is common 
sense.
  If we don't let somebody fly on an airplane, if they are on the 
terrorist watch list, why would we let them quietly assemble an 
arsenal?
  We need to check it out. Of course, if they are wrongly put on that 
list, of

[[Page 13718]]

course let's have a way to get them off that list right away. So if 
they have a legitimate reason to buy a gun and they are not a 
terrorist, they shouldn't be on that list. But not buying a gun is the 
least of their inconveniences. If they are on that list, they can't 
even fly in most cases.
  Yet, Republicans continue to fail to act on this commonsense 
legislation despite being supported by Donald Trump, by Hillary 
Clinton, by many other leaders of both parties.
  We have the opportunity, if I can defeat the previous question with 
this vote, to actually take action and close this glaring loophole that 
allows terrorists to buy firearms and explosives right now in this 
country.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, again, rather than have this Republican 
bailout bill that increases the deficit, we could be discussing making 
it harder for terrorists to buy explosives and assemble arsenals. Okay?
  That is the choice we have in this vote. It is a choice I am willing 
to make, Mr. Speaker. It is a choice that every Member will be called 
upon to make when they vote ``yea'' and they say, Let's do a bailout 
that increases the deficit, or they vote ``nay'' and join me and say, 
You know what, let's make it harder for terrorists to buy explosives 
and firearms, a policy supported by both Donald Trump and Hillary 
Clinton.
  That is the choice we will have in moments, and it is one I urge my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to think deeply about before they 
cast their ``yes'' vote or before they cast their ``no'' vote.
  Mr. Speaker, we have three calendar days left in this fiscal year, 
and our limited legislative time is not being spent well. We could be 
devoting our last few days to addressing Zika, to making it harder for 
terrorists to assemble arsenals, to addressing the disaster in Flint, 
Michigan, to stem the tide of opioid addiction ravaging this country 
and so many families that I have heard from in Colorado.
  None of these public health crises will be addressed if we don't 
consider a bill to keep the government open beyond September 30; 
instead, we are considering yet another Republican bailout--increases 
the deficit, unnecessary, and lets State regulators off the hook, bails 
them out.
  H.R. 954 implements an unnecessary, uncalled-for exemption, distracts 
us from the real conversations we should be having about how we can 
make health care more affordable and how we can reduce our budget 
deficit. This bill is simply an irresponsible process. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  First off, just to correct the record, I was asked about the 
budgetary effect of this bill, and it is negative $4 million over the 
next 10 years.
  Congress did not defund the CO-OPs. The risk corridor program that 
was passed by this Congress in 2010, associated with the Affordable 
Care Act, was never fully funded in the first place.
  This bill under our consideration today does not bail out anyone. It 
does not bail out the CO-OPs. It eliminates a penalty--a penalty 
imposed on consumers who did everything they could to comply with the 
law known as the individual mandate under the Affordable Care Act.
  Look, if I ran the zoo, I would get rid of the individual mandate 
tomorrow. These individuals, under the individual mandate, covered by 
insurance which they were forced to purchase, and then goes bankrupt, 
through no fault of their own, they are going to get penalized for not 
having coverage. It is almost Kafkaesque in its design.
  State legislators have virtually no control over the CO-OPs. Control 
of the business model is completely centralized within the Centers for 
Medicare and Medicaid Services. The CO-OP model was fundamentally 
unsound from the start, another example of this administration's 
propensity to conduct dangerous experiments with our Nation's health 
care. Yet, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has continued 
to stand in the way of the flexibility that the CO-OPS actually need to 
become fiscally sustainable.
  Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of this 
important bill to provide relief for a tax increase looming over 
Americans who tried, tried, and tried to follow the rules of the 
Affordable Care Act and, yet, have been let down by this 
administration's failed policies.
  I certainly thank Mr. Smith on the Ways and Means Committee for 
proposing this legislation and shepherding it through the committee 
process.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

            An Amendment to H. Res. 893 Offered by Mr. Polis

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. 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. 
     1076) to increase public safety by permitting the Attorney 
     General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of 
     firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected 
     dangerous terrorist. 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 the Judiciary. 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. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 1076.

        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, 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

[[Page 13719]]

     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.

  Mr. BURGESS. 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. POLIS. 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 ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of House Resolution 893, if 
ordered;
  Ordering the previous question on House Resolution 892; and
  Adoption of House Resolution 892, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 244, 
nays 176, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 559]

                               YEAS--244

     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)
     Davidson
     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
     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
     Hudson
     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
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     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
     Vela
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--176

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     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.
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     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
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Beatty
     Duckworth
     Granger
     Hinojosa
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Poe (TX)
     Rush
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Speier
     Westmoreland

                              {time}  1422

  Messrs. LARSEN of Washington, MURPHY of Florida, and AL GREEN of 
Texas changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rothfus). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  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 243, 
nays 177, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 560]

                               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)
     Davidson
     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
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)

[[Page 13720]]


     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
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     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
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--177

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     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.
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     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
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Swalwell (CA)
     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--11

     Beatty
     Duckworth
     Hinojosa
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Poe (TX)
     Rush
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Speier
     Westmoreland

                              {time}  1430

  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.

                          ____________________