[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4526-4533]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 372, COMPETITIVE HEALTH INSURANCE 
                           REFORM ACT OF 2017

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 209 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 209

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 372) to 
     restore the application of the Federal antitrust laws to the 
     business of health insurance to protect competition and 
     consumers. All points of order against consideration of the 
     bill are waived. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now 
     printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 
     115-8 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 the Judiciary; 
     and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 
1 hour.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. 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. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and 
to include any extraneous material on House Resolution 209, currently 
under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stewart). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Today I am pleased to bring forward this rule on behalf of the Rules 
Committee. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 372, the 
Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act. The rule provides for 1 hour 
of debate for the bill, equally divided between the chairman and 
ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. The rule also provides for a 
motion to recommit.
  Yesterday, the Rules Committee had the opportunity to hear from 
Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte and Congressman David 
Cicilline on behalf of the Judiciary Committee.
  I thank Chairman Goodlatte and the Judiciary Committee staff for 
their work on this legislation. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, 
I had the opportunity to review this legislation at both a committee 
hearing and a markup.
  We heard from several witnesses at the Judiciary Committee hearing, 
including the bill's primary sponsor, Congressman Paul Gosar of 
Arizona.
  In addition to the bill's sponsor and the Judiciary Committee, I 
would also like to recognize one of my colleagues from Georgia, 
Representative Austin Scott, for his interest in this topic and 
leadership on this legislation. Congressman Austin Scott of Georgia 
testified before the Judiciary Committee on this bill and has worked 
actively to highlight this issue.
  The issue of competition in the health insurance marketplace is not a 
new one, but it is one that deserves more attention. Legislation 
similar to the Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act passed the House 
under a Democrat-led Congress in 2010 and under a Republican Congress 
in 2012.
  Mr. Speaker, much of our attention on the floor this week is focused 
on making health care more affordable and accessible to the American 
people. The Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act is part of that 
plan.
  From shore to shore, we have seen and heard stories about the soaring 
costs of health care and the health insurance markets that have been 
hamstrung by ACA regulations. As a result, insurers have fled the 
exchanges while consumer choice and access to quality care have 
disappeared along with them.
  Today, more than ever, we need to institute reforms that restore 
options for Americans by encouraging healthy competition in the health 
insurance market. The problem actually dates back to the 1940s, and the 
Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act helps address a problem that 
has increasingly demanded attention.
  In 1944, Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court held, for the first time, 
that insurance was part of interstate commerce and was, therefore, 
subject to Federal antitrust laws. Congress responded a year later by 
passing the McCarran-Ferguson Act, which established certain exemptions 
from the Federal antitrust regulations for the business of insurance. 
That law remains in place today, and reexamining it in the context of 
our health insurance market has received bipartisan support.
  The Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act would amend the 1945 
McCarran-Ferguson Act to apply our three main antitrust laws--the 
Clayton Act, the Sherman Act, and the FTC Act--to the health insurance 
industry.
  To be clear, this bill does not impose new or radical regulations 
upon the health insurance industry. It merely applies longstanding 
antitrust laws to the business of health insurance, laws that have 
applied to the rest of the economy for decades. By restoring the 
application of our competition and antitrust laws to the health 
insurance industry, we strengthen the foundation for a competitive 
health insurance market.
  The high prices and lack of choices that patients find in health 
insurance flow back from a lack of competition in the market and a 
barrage of regulations. So it is past time that we reestablish a basis 
for a system in which insurance providers compete for customers in a 
patient-driven marketplace.
  While we work to bring common sense back to health care, we also have 
to look at the broad context of where the industry is and how it got 
there. In that spirit, this bill recognizes the importance of open and 
free competition across the economy, including the healthcare 
marketplace. Part of the government's role is to guard the American 
people rather than creating special interest exemptions that ultimately 
work against the hardworking citizens. H.R. 372 establishes that there 
is no basis for further exemption of the health insurance industry from 
the Federal antitrust law.
  Importantly, however, H.R. 372 also contains narrowly defined safe 
harbors to protect historically procompetitive collaborative activities 
that are unique to the business of insurance, including the collection 
and distribution of historical loss data and the performance

[[Page 4527]]

of actuarial services that do not involve a restraint of trade.
  The Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act is not a magic pill or a 
silver bullet, but it is a key component of our broader plan to restore 
competition and common sense to the healthcare marketplace.
  The principles captured by this bill are part of our House Republican 
Better Way plan and a part of our plan to address the harm done that 
ObamaCare has brought on our healthcare system and those who depend on 
it.
  I look forward to the underlying legislation once again receiving 
broad support from both sides of the aisle.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) for yielding me 
the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule today, one that 
provides for consideration of H.R. 372, the Competitive Health 
Insurance Reform Act of 2017, a good bill that I support.
  Mr. Speaker, the Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act amends the 
McCarran-Ferguson Act so that the health insurance companies would no 
longer be exempt from Federal antitrust regulation.
  Currently, unfortunately, most types of insurance, including property 
or life insurance, are exempt from Federal antitrust regulations and 
statutes. The McCarran-Ferguson Act makes it clear that the insurance 
industry heretofore has been regulated only by States. Additionally, 
the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission have 
retained authority for antitrust enforcement involving mergers and 
acquisitions of insurance companies, but not dominations of markets and 
competition.
  As a result of this exemption, the health insurance industry does not 
have to share pricing information, and actually can currently 
communicate with one another to fix prices. Now, that doesn't make 
sense.
  I firmly believe that the more transparency in our healthcare system, 
the better off consumers will be. Repealing the health insurance 
exemption of the McCarran-Ferguson Act may improve competition, but it 
would almost also result in more transparency in health insurance. It 
is something that we sorely need. So I intend to join many of my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle in supporting the underlying bill 
because it increases transparency.
  The reality is that this bill does nothing to replace the protections 
of the Affordable Care Act. It doesn't even make a dent in addressing 
the many problems created by the Republican healthcare legislation, the 
American Health Care Act.
  Mr. Speaker, so I don't want anybody listening to this to be 
distracted by a bipartisan bill that we hope becomes law. In any way, 
shape, or form, this bill does nothing when, in 2 days, we are 
considering a bill that threatens the health care for 24 million 
Americans, increases prices for Americans who are currently insured by 
15 to 20 percent, and throws millions off of the rolls of the insured.
  The Republican healthcare bill that is coming to the floor Thursday 
will cause a huge disruption in coverage for millions of Americans. It 
creates an entirely new entitlement program. It would throw 24 million 
people who currently have insurance out of insurance. And for anybody 
who still has insurance, their rates go up 15 to 20 percent.
  How is that a good idea? It is not.
  This bill today does nothing. Nothing. I don't even think the 
advocates of it would say it does anything to address those increases 
in costs for consumers or 24 million people losing their health care or 
the creation of a brand-new costly entitlement program in a time of 
record deficits.
  For constituents--and we all represent people from our districts--for 
people like Greg and Nikita, Coloradoans who have shared their stories 
with me, the passage of the American Health Care Act, the Republican 
healthcare bill, would devastate their lives.
  Greg was diagnosed with a rare form of cancer in 2014, in his 
midforties. After several surgeries, his doctors told him his condition 
is inoperable and could only be treated chronically by medication. It 
is a very expensive injection that has so far been successful, thank 
goodness, at keeping the tumor from growing and allowing Greg to live 
an ordinary life.
  Now, Greg needs this shot every 3 weeks. It is thousands of dollars 
each time. And despite working at least two jobs, it is not something 
that Greg could afford to have--Greg would not have health care without 
the Affordable Care Act. He would have to quit his jobs and become 
destitute and go on Medicaid.
  The Republicans are basically saying to people like Greg: We want you 
to be lazy. We want you to quit your job so you could have health care. 
We want you to live off the government dole of this brand-new 
entitlement program that we created to hand you money rather than work 
for yourself and pay for your own insurance.
  That is the message the Republicans are sending to people like Greg 
across the country.
  Nikita lives in Boulder and has spent much of her life battling 
endometriosis. In 2014, she was having trouble walking because of her 
condition and she missed work for a few weeks. After the passage of the 
Affordable Care Act, she was able to afford the surgery that she needed 
to improve her mobility and manage her pain.
  In her message to me, Nikita emphasized that affordable health care 
is what allows her to work and to be a citizen that pays taxes and 
contributes to society rather than somebody who is shut in at home, 
living off the government dole like Republicans are trying to force her 
to do with the new entitlement program that they are creating.
  If Nikita didn't have the healthcare coverage she obtained through 
the Accordable Care Act, she said that she would be on disability and 
Medicaid, costing the government far more money and preventing her the 
dignity of holding a job and working to support herself and paying 
taxes.
  Both Greg and Nikita expressed fear that the benefits they receive 
under the Affordable Care Act would disappear if the Affordable Care 
Act is dismantled in favor of this new Republican entitlement program 
that encourages people not to work. The American Health Care Act 
threatens to pull the rug out from so many of my constituents and 
millions across the country while simultaneously raising rates by 15 to 
20 percent for people who are currently insured and paying for their 
own insurance.
  Look, H.R. 372 is a fine bill. Republicans are using it as a talking 
point, claiming that somehow it addresses costs in some meaningful way. 
And given how complicated the healthcare system is and the critical 
role that we all have to play in it and every little piece plays, it is 
important to lay out the facts of the Republican plan, which H.R. 372 
does nothing to address.
  It is a fact fewer people will be covered under the Republican plan. 
The Congressional Budget Office says 24 million people will lose their 
healthcare coverage over the next decade.
  It is a fact that middle-aged Americans will pay five times more in 
premiums. The age tax is a big part of the Republican healthcare bill. 
Americans ages 55 to 64 will see their cost increase by over $8,000. 
Most of my constituents in that age group simply can't afford that 
every year.
  It is a fact that those currently enrolled in Medicaid programs are 
at risk of losing their coverage. The Republicans' concern that 
Medicaid expansion to the Affordable Care Act was coercive, they should 
be equally concerned about the per capita cap in the Republican plan. 
It is the flip side of the same coin.
  Those are just some of the many troubling facts about the Republican 
healthcare bill.
  H.R. 372, removing the antitrust exemption, is a fine bill. It does 
nothing to address any of those problems or change any of those facts 
and figures that I cited as to why this bill doesn't fix health care.
  In fact, frankly, this bill is a distraction from the real topic we 
should be

[[Page 4528]]

discussing--how to improve health care in this country. I don't think 
we should improve it by giving tax cuts to millionaires and 
billionaires, forcing people like Greg and Nikita not to work and to be 
destitute in order to get health care and go on the government dole, 
creating a brand-new entitlement program that States administer, 
increasing the costs of insurance for people who are already insured by 
15 to 20 percent.
  Mr. Speaker, if those are the answers, what is the question? Is it 
how to make health care cost more and how to have less people covered?
  If that is the question, the Republican bill is a good answer.
  That is not the question my constituents are asking me, and I don't 
think it is a question their constituents are asking my Republican 
colleagues.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott) to continue 
discussing the rule before us about the McCarran-Ferguson repeal.
  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong 
support of H.R. 372, the Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act of 
2017, which would take a big step towards creating a more business- and 
consumer-friendly insurance market that works for all Americans.
  As I listened to the comments just before I stood up, I heard that 
this is a fine bill. It is more than a fine bill. This is a good bill. 
Let me tell you how I know it is a good bill--because, a few years ago, 
both Nancy Pelosi and Mike Pence voted for it.
  Now, what the Democrats don't want to tell you is that on February 
24, 2010, less than a month before the Affordable Care Act was signed 
into law, there was an agreement that allowing the insurance companies 
to be exempt from the antitrust laws in the country was a problem.
  So how is it that with a bill that passed 406 ``yes'' votes to 19 
``no'' votes--when it came out of the dark rooms, the Affordable Care 
Act was brought to the floor with the comments of: Well, you will have 
to read it to find out what is in it.
  Perhaps the Democrats should have read it to find out what wasn't in 
it, because the leadership not only sold America out, they sold them 
out. This bill passed 406-19. Yet, in the back rooms where they put the 
Affordable Care Act together, they didn't include the provision.
  While the Affordable Care Act certainly has played a major role in 
the disruptions patients and providers have experienced, the decades-
old special exemption--which they voted to take away, and then the 
leadership of the Democratic party gave it back to the insurance 
industry--shielding insurers from Federal antitrust laws has eroded 
confidence and competition in the marketplace. Fortunately, we have a 
vehicle before us to walk back this special deal.
  The legislation currently before the House would inject much-needed 
competition into the health insurance market by eliminating the 
antitrust exemptions for health and dental insurers, leveling the 
playing field and giving consumers and providers more leverage and 
better options. There are very few antitrust exemptions in our country, 
and for good reason.
  This exemption is not only damaging to the consumer when they 
purchase health insurance, but it damages the healthcare providers, 
further limiting consumers' access to services.
  The dominance of the market that large insurers have enjoyed has 
forced many providers to move, close, merge, or sell to larger regional 
hospitals, impacting parties across the industry. In the 24 counties of 
Georgia that I represent, patients have few healthcare choices left 
that impacts their ability to receive quality care and negotiate a 
policy that meets their unique needs.
  Echoing that sentiment, I think anyone who has skin in the game will 
tell you that a majority of the problems in the healthcare marketplace 
trace their roots back to a lack of competition.

                              {time}  1245

  Yet, the Democrats left the insurance industry exempt from the 
antitrust laws once again when they passed the Affordable Care Act.
  While insurance companies have the power to negotiate, just as they 
proved in the negotiations with the Democrats on the Affordable Care 
Act, pharmacies, physicians, and hospitals are left without a seat at 
the table. When the insurance companies get to determine who is and 
isn't able to provide healthcare services, the insurer-provider 
relationship is closer to extortion than negotiation.
  So why do we allow the health insurance industry that controls, 
through their contracts, who your doctor is, who your pharmacist is, 
which medicine you can get, and which hospital you can go to, to be 
exempt from the antitrust laws of the country? How could the Democrats 
do that to you in the Affordable Care Act?
  By definition, health care and health insurance are not the same 
thing, but when one industry, one insurance company controls such 
significant portions of the cash flow of all of the providers in a 
region, no provider can stay in business without a contract with that 
carrier; therefore, the insurance company gets to determine who is and 
who is not able to provide health care.
  Removing this antitrust exemption for health insurers means one more 
option for consumers, increased competition between providers, and 
greater certainty for insurers when it comes to hammering out policies 
and working for consumers across the spectrum. It should have been done 
long ago, but the Democrats turned their back on the American public 
and, again, granted the health insurance industry an exemption from the 
antitrust laws of the country.
  While this is certainly not an end-all, be-all to reforming our 
broken and dysfunctional healthcare system, it is a commonsense step 
towards untangling the mess our health insurance marketplace has 
become.
  I also think it noteworthy to mention, again, February 24, 2010, the 
Health Insurance Industry Fair Competition Act passed the House with a 
vote 406-19 only 1 month prior to the Affordable Care Act being signed 
into law. And yet, the American citizens, once again, were sold out by 
the Democratic Party.
  I strongly believe this piece of legislation currently before the 
House lays a firm foundation in our work to fulfill our promise to fix 
our badly broken healthcare system. Today we have the opportunity to 
provide relief to consumers and providers alike, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 372, the Competitive Health 
Insurance Reform Act of 2017.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Two weeks ago, the Republicans pushed ahead with their healthcare 
bill, despite not knowing the impact of the legislation. A week later, 
the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office announced that the bill 
would take health insurance away from 24 million people and increase 
costs by 15 to 20 percent for those who currently have insurance.
  Mr. Speaker, late last night the Republicans introduced a major 
manager's amendment that changes the bill, frankly.
  Mr. Speaker, just as it was irresponsible to move forward without 
knowing the full effects of the original bill, it is completely 
reckless to even know whether this manager's amendment makes it better 
or worse and the impact that it has on health care for American 
families. It is reckless to consider and vote on their amended bill 
before the Congressional Budget Office even says how much it costs, or 
how much it will increase insurance by, or whether it throws people off 
insurance rolls.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule that would require a CBO cost estimate that 
analyzes the impact of any legislation amending or repealing the 
Affordable Care Act, as well as the impact of any manager's amendment 
to that legislation to be made publicly available before the bill may 
be considered on the House floor.

[[Page 4529]]

  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. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth), the ranking member 
on the Committee on the Budget, to discuss our proposal.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.
  The one question I think many Americans who follow this debate would 
be asking now is: What is the rush? What is the rush?
  For 7 years now, our Republican colleagues have consistently said we 
are going to repeal the Affordable Care Act. More than 60 votes have 
been taken in this body to repeal the Affordable Care Act. We kept 
asking: If you are going to repeal it, what are you going to replace it 
with? You can't just say, do away with it, and leave millions and 
millions of Americans in the lurch.
  So finally, 2 weeks ago yesterday, we have gotten their answer. 
TrumpCare, RyanCare, the American Health Care Act, call it what you 
will, we finally got an answer.
  What has happened since those 2 weeks? We had no hearings on this 
bill. We had quick markups. They lasted a long time, but we had--the 
bill was introduced Monday night--markups in the Energy and Commerce 
Committee and the Ways and Means Committee on Wednesday. And this was 
on just a steamroller to try to get this accomplished before anybody 
knew what was in it.
  Now, the CBO report from last week came out indicating things that I 
think most Americans would be frightened by. 24 million Americans lose 
their coverage over 10 years; but, more significantly than that, 21 
million lose their coverage within 3 years; 14 million next year.
  Consider that. All of the gains in coverage made under the Affordable 
Care Act done away with in 3 years. Premiums going up for Americans.
  I can't believe Speaker Ryan tried to put lipstick on a pig. He said 
he thought the CBO report was really encouraging because, 10 years from 
now, premiums would be 10 percent lower. The only way they are 10 
percent lower is because, under the TrumpCare, older Americans, 50 and 
older, in the individual market get priced out of the market with huge 
premium increases. So they are gone. Only younger and healthier people 
are in there. Yes, premiums would be lower for them. Other people are 
out of business.
  So that report comes out, causing a great deal of consternation on 
the part of the sponsors and supporters. They bring it, schedule it to 
come to the floor on Thursday, March 23, because they think that is 
cute because that is the seventh anniversary of the passage of the 
Affordable Care Act. But, again, no hearings, no real analysis; and 
what is more important, no CBO revised report on the changes that were 
introduced late last night.
  This is outrageous. And I love to hear my Republican colleagues try 
to portray the process under which the Affordable Care Act was drafted 
and considered with some kind of nighttime secretive deal. They weren't 
here, most of them. I was.
  I was on the Ways and Means Committee, one of the drafting 
committees. Fourteen months we worked on that legislation--14 months. 
Seventy-nine hearings in the Congress on that legislation. Hours and 
hours and hours of markups on that legislation. Cost estimates 
throughout the process. I can't imagine a more exhaustive and public 
process than we went through for the Affordable Care Act.
  And here, 2 weeks from introduction to proposed passage, we have no 
real public discussion of a piece of legislation that directly affects 
the lives and probably, unfortunately, the deaths of many, many 
Americans.
  So, Mr. Speaker, we don't need to rush to judgment. I don't think the 
American people are waiting around saying: I don't need to know any 
more; ObamaCare is so bad, and my life is so bad that I can't wait 
another 2 weeks to find out what this really would do to me and my 
family. No, we need to give more time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Kentucky has 
expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.
  Mr. YARMUTH. We don't need to do this this Thursday without a full 
rendering of the cost of the new manager's amendment to TrumpCare. We 
suspect, although we don't know, that it is going to look even bleaker; 
that more people will lose their coverage; that costs and rates will be 
higher. But shouldn't we understand exactly what those statistics are, 
what those projections are before we vote on something that is so 
significant for tens of millions of Americans?
  So, Mr. Speaker, I think it is entirely appropriate that we require 
that a new CBO report be done on the manager's amendment before we vote 
on something that, again, means life and death to American families.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am awaiting the graphic presentation about some of 
what is at stake in this debate about the Affordable Care Act, the 
fundamental debate about whether we try to fix health care in this 
country, make insurance cost less, or whether we move backwards under 
this Republican healthcare proposal.
  The Republican healthcare proposal would create an entirely new 
entitlement program administered by the States. In creating this 
program, it would throw 24 million people who have healthcare insurance 
today off of the insurance rolls. They would become uninsured 
Americans.
  It would add an age tax on older Americans. It would also increase 
the cost of health care for people who have health care today and pay 
for it, by 15 to 20 percent. Now, they wouldn't be getting more for 
that 15 to 20 percent.
  Mr. Speaker, if you can believe it, they would actually be getting 
less insurance for that 15 to 20 percent because many of the 
requirements that insurance has to have are rolled back, the Federal 
protections under this Republican healthcare bill.
  Somehow, at the same time it does all these things, the same time it 
costs 24 million Americans their insurance, the same time it increases 
rates by 15 to 20 percent--and, by the way, these figures are from the 
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the head of which was 
appointed by Republicans.
  These are solid predictions that are done by people who were 
appointed by Republicans. We are not citing any outside group or 
naysayers who don't like the bill. These are the objective 
Congressional Budget Office numbers that we are citing here in their 
entirety.
  So, in addition to costing people 15 to 20 percent more, this bill 
also, for reasons unknown, gives an enormous multibillion-dollar tax 
break to millionaires and billionaires in New York and California. That 
is where most of them live. Now, there are a few in other places, of 
course, too.
  But it is just unclear why, at the same time Republicans are trying 
to change the healthcare law, they want to go back to giving enormous 
tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans. We are not even talking the 
wealthiest 1 percent. We are talking, like, one-tenth of a percent who 
are going to see the bulk of the benefit from these tax cuts, at the 
same time that health care is being taken away from 24 million people 
who have insurance today, and at the same time those who are fortunate 
enough to be able to continue to have it will have to pay 15 to 20 
percent more.
  That is why, Mr. Speaker, this bill is so unpopular. If you are going 
to go through the trouble of creating an entirely new entitlement 
program, at least do it in a way where it actually helps people afford 
coverage versus hurts their ability to afford coverage.
  Now, I gave the example in my remarks of Greg, and that is far from

[[Page 4530]]

unique because people today, who rely on the subsidies to be able to 
get health insurance within the Affordable Care Act, if the Republican 
bill passes, would have to quit their jobs and rely on Medicaid 
instead, or they would have to take a lower-wage job. Instead of 
earning $40,000 or $50,000 a year, they would have to quit that job and 
try to take a minimum-wage job so they could qualify for Medicaid.
  Essentially, this Republican healthcare bill is telling Americans, 
you need to be lazy and not work if you want health care because, if 
you want to work a job, we are going to take it away. We are only going 
to provide it if you quit your job or take a minimum-wage job under 
Medicaid.
  So that is not the message or the incentives that we want to send to 
the American people. One of the great aspects of the Affordable Care 
Act is it actually, for the first time, provided an incentive for 
people to get increases in their wages, to get better jobs, to work 
additional hours.
  Before the Affordable Care Act, we were locked into a scenario where 
people who were on Medicaid lost their Medicaid benefits if they got a 
raise at work, depending on the size of their family. It could have 
been a raise from, let's say, $14 an hour to $16 an hour. They couldn't 
work overtime. They couldn't work a second job, as so many people do to 
escape from poverty because they would lose their health care.
  The Affordable Care Act said: You know what? We are going to allow 
you and encourage you to work that second job, to get a raise and 
support your health care as you make your way out of poverty into the 
middle class. What a great idea.
  The Republican proposal creates a brand new entitlement program, but 
rolls back those affordability protections that help people work their 
way out of poverty, and leaves no alternative for people like Nikita 
and Greg, other than you have to quit your job or work a minimum-wage 
job because, otherwise, we are going to take your health care away from 
you.

                              {time}  1300

  That is the reason that the projections came back--no surprise--that 
24 million people will lose their healthcare insurance. It is the 
reason that healthcare insurance rates will increase 15 to 20 percent.
  We don't know the reason that they are also giving a tax cut to 
billionaires in the same bill. We know they want to do that, but they 
should do that in a tax bill. There is an effort at tax reform. I think 
they are talking about giving an additional tax cut to billionaires in 
that bill. That will be debated separately. But it is unclear how--or 
it is more than unclear as to why it would help make health care more 
affordable to give a tax cut to billionaires. It just doesn't make any 
sense. Let's debate that under a different bill. I am happy to do that. 
As part of a broader tax proposal, we will see what else is in it. We 
know Republicans want to do that, but they shouldn't do that under the 
guise of health care.
  So, again, Mr. Speaker, what you have here in this Republican bill, 
which this current bill does nothing to change--and this bill will 
pass, it has passed before, and we hope the Senate acts on it to remove 
the antitrust exemption. This bill does nothing to change the facts on 
the ground that the Republican healthcare bill that creates a brand new 
entitlement program would make Americans pay more for less, 24 million 
people would lose their insurance, there is an age tax on older 
Americans, guts Medicaid, huge tax cuts for millionaires and 
billionaires, increases of 15 to 20 percent for Americans who are lucky 
enough to retain their insurance, and discourages work and encourages 
people to be lazy at home to get health care.
  It is the opposite of what we want to do. It is contrary to the 
American work ethic, and it is contrary to all incentives around cost 
containment. I hope--I really hope, Mr. Speaker--that the House defeats 
this awful bill to replace the Affordable Care Act, even as we pass 
some of these commonsense bipartisan measures like the one before us 
today that, around the edges, could potentially affect antitrust within 
insurance companies.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill under consideration today is a commonsense 
piece of legislation. It has passed the House before. Ultimately, 
however, it distracts from the elephant in the room. The American 
Health Care Act is the Republican bill to roll back and change the 
Affordable Care Act and create a brand new entitlement program while 
increasing the insurance rates for American families, providing tax 
cuts to billionaires, and throwing 24 million people off of the 
insurance rolls.
  My colleagues across the aisle had 7 years to work with us to improve 
the Affordable Care Act, but they refused to work with us to make 
health care more affordable and to expand coverage. Instead, they have 
drafted a bill that does the exact opposite. No wonder we were unable 
to find common ground when our goals were different.
  The goals of myself and Democrats have always been to reduce costs 
and expand coverage. Reading into what the Republican goals must be if 
this bill meets them, it seems like they are working to decrease 
coverage and increase costs--the opposite of what we are working for.
  How will my colleagues look into the eyes of a former veteran or a 
small-business owner or a middle class family or my constituents like 
Greg or Nikita and somehow tell them that they would be better off 
under a plan that forces them to quit their jobs and become destitute? 
How will Republicans defend the vote to senior citizens when the age 
tax in this bill will force most seniors to pay premiums five times 
higher than what others pay for healthcare coverage? What will my 
colleagues say to 24 million people who lose healthcare coverage 
entirely under this bill?
  The Republican healthcare bill that this body will consider on 
Thursday will do extraordinary damage to the healthcare system and 
leave millions of Americans guessing as to how much healthcare costs 
will cost and what will be covered. The American healthcare bill 
threatens to roll back important protections in coverage gains 
delivered by the ACA, and discussion of anything else at this point is 
a diversionary tactic, plain and simple.
  Mr. Speaker, let's defeat the previous question and figure out how 
much this mysterious manager's amendment even changes the bill for 
better or worse. My colleague, Mr. Yarmuth, made a very compelling 
argument about how we need to know the actual costs and benefits of any 
bill we vote on; yet, this body is being forced to vote blind on a 
manager's amendment that we saw for the first time today and could even 
change by tomorrow, and we won't even know how it affects the costs of 
this bill or how it affects the lives of Americans who have health care 
today or aspire to it.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to defeat the previous 
question and vote ``no'' on the rule, to vote ``yes'' on this 
commonsense bill to modify our antitrust statutes which Democrats and 
Republicans have supported overwhelmingly in the past, but never, not 
once, to take our eye away from the ball of trying to decrease costs 
rather than increase costs and trying to expand coverage rather than 
retract coverage.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  I would just like to remind those from the House that if you do 
defeat this rule, you will not vote on this commonsense piece of 
legislation. So let's at least put the correct procedural order out 
there.
  We need to vote ``yes'' on this rule and get on to the underlying 
piece of legislation, which is a piece that has passed this House not 
only unanimously by voice vote in the Republican Congress but also with 
an overwhelming vote just recently in the Democratic administration as 
well. So we are moving forward on this.
  I think what is interesting here, and what I have worked on, and we 
are going to have a lot of discussion on for

[[Page 4531]]

the next 2 days is repealing and replacing ObamaCare. I think it was 
interesting that my friend--we share many a night and day in the Rules 
Committee, we share different opinions, but he made mention of the 
elephant in the room. I will just make mention of the donkey in the 
room.
  It is amazing to me now that we are actually concerned about people 
losing health care. We are actually concerned about prices going up. We 
are actually concerned about these issues that have been going on for 7 
years. We are having an $800 billion tax because we have removed the 
taxes and impediments of ObamaCare. We are actually--instead of 
mandating the folks that they buy insurance that they can't afford and 
can't use, we are actually getting a marketplace that will actually 
give them better choices and results.
  I think the interesting part here is not knowing the cost and 
benefits. Good gracious. All we have to do is look back over the last 7 
years, Mr. Speaker. When we understand what is going on, let's also, as 
we throw out the discussion--it was made in comment by my friend, 7 
years to fix. You can't fix broken in this regard. When he goes about 
it traditionally wrong, it is not fixing. When you take away the 
markets, when you take away the individual market, and when you are 
taking away the very incentives that actually are the underpinnings of 
our health care to enlarge and grow, if your goals were to reduce and 
expand, then you failed miserably. You have not reduced costs, they 
have gone up. You have not expanded choices, they have gone down.
  I have listened to it about as much as I can right now. We are going 
to have the next 2 days to give people health. It is why we are over 
here for the majority speaking because of the failure of the ACA in 
ObamaCare. When we understand that, then we can look at pieces of 
legislation like the Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act that 
should have been part of this a long time ago. Yet, we choose to begin 
discussions about a failure. It is about a failure.
  Choose the status quo. Squint your eyes, look real hard, it is not 
getting worse, it is really okay, just help us tweak it, help it get 
better.
  It is not getting any better. In fact, any insurance company is on a 
death spiral. ObamaCare is failing. Some of the CBO estimates about 
increased costs 10 years out are based on ObamaCare pricing. There 
wouldn't even be an ObamaCare plan in 10 years because it won't be 
there.
  So we will have these arguments. We will have these discussions. But 
if you want to move forward a commonsense piece of legislation, if you 
want to move forward a bipartisan piece of legislation, if you want one 
that actually the American people sent us here to do to actually make 
things better, then vote ``yes'' on the rule and vote ``yes'' on the 
underlying bill because that is why we are here--real solutions from a 
real majority that will answer the questions and then gladly defend it 
to an American people who are tired of being told about and talked 
about and taking things away because we didn't read it to know what was 
in it. That is why, because you couldn't know what was in it.
  Now we are going to tell you what is in it, and we are going to put 
back a marketplace that actually works for Americans. When we do that, 
we will gladly put the market back there where they can actually have a 
plan they can afford and actually use. When we understand that, the 
health care and the plan we put forward will be one that works for the 
American people, not against them.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

            An Amendment to H. Res. 209 Offered by Mr. Polis

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     section:
       Sec. 2. In rule XXI add the following new clause:
       13. (a) It shall not be in order to consider a measure or 
     matter proposing to repeal or amend the Patient Protection 
     and Affordable Care Act (PL 111-148) and the Health Care and 
     Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010 (PL 111-
     152), or part thereof, in the House or in the Committee of 
     the Whole House on the state of the Union unless an easily 
     searchable electronic estimate and comparison prepared by the 
     Director of the Congressional Budget Office is made available 
     on a publicly available website of the House.
       (b) It shall not be in order to consider a measure or 
     matter proposing to repeal or amend the Patient Protection 
     and Affordable Care Act (PL 111-148) and the Health Care and 
     Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010 (PL 111-
     152), or part thereof, in the House or in the Committee of 
     the Whole House on the state of the Union, that is called up 
     pursuant to a rule or order that makes a manager's amendment 
     in order or considers such an amendment to be adopted, unless 
     an easily searchable updated electronic estimate and 
     comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional 
     Budget Office reflecting such amendment is made available on 
     a publicly available website of the House.
       (c) It shall not be in order to consider a rule or order 
     that waives the application of paragraphs (a) or (b).
                                  ____


        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 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. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Graves of Louisiana). The question is on 
ordering the previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. 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

[[Page 4532]]

previous question will be followed by
5-minute votes on adopting the resolution, if ordered, and suspending 
the rules and passing H.R. 1353.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 231, 
nays 185, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 176]

                               YEAS--231

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     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)
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--185

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Grothman
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Allen
     Beyer
     Deutch
     Emmer
     Fortenberry
     Lewis (GA)
     Marchant
     Payne
     Rush
     Sinema
     Slaughter
     Thompson (MS)
     Tsongas

                              {time}  1335

  Mr. COHEN changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. WITTMAN changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 176.
  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. POLIS. 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 234, 
noes 182, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 177]

                               AYES--234

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crist
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     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)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--182

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)

[[Page 4533]]


     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Beyer
     Deutch
     Fortenberry
     Lewis (GA)
     Marchant
     Norcross
     Payne
     Rush
     Schweikert
     Sinema
     Slaughter
     Thompson (MS)
     Tsongas


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Huizenga) (during the vote). There are 2 
minutes remaining.

                              {time}  1342

  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.

                          ____________________