[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 4 (Wednesday, January 9, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H338-H346]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ADOPTING THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE 116TH
CONGRESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Clark of Massachusetts). Pursuant to
section 3 of House Resolution 5, proceedings will now resume on the
resolution (H. Res. 6) adopting the Rules of the House of
Representatives for the One Hundred Sixteenth Congress, and for other
purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. When proceedings were postponed on Friday,
January 4, 2019, the portion of the divided question comprising title
II had been disposed of.
Pursuant to section 2 of House Resolution 5, the portion of the
divided question comprising title III is now debatable for 1 hour.
The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Shalala) and the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
Ms. SHALALA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to support the ability of the Speaker, on
behalf of the House of Representatives, to intervene and defend the
Affordable Care Act in the case of Texas v. United States.
This case is a backhanded way to do what Republicans could not do
legislatively: repeal the ACA and take away comprehensive health
insurance from millions of Americans.
Madam Speaker, I represent a district that has the highest number of
people--more than 100,000--enrolled in the ACA. Whether you get your
health insurance from your employer, from Medicare, from Medicaid, or
from the marketplace, you have something to lose if this disastrous
court case is upheld.
Not only will insurance companies again be able to deny coverage to
people with preexisting conditions, young people will no longer be able
to stay on their parents' insurance until they are 26. Preventive
services like flu shots and annual checkups will not necessarily be
covered without cost. Women may, once again, face buying insurance that
doesn't cover maternity care.
Our bipartisan efforts to phase out the Medicare doughnut hole could
[[Page H339]]
come to an end. Our seniors should not have to choose between paying
exorbitant costs for prescription drugs and buying food or paying rent.
An overwhelming majority of Americans support all of these
provisions.
Madam Speaker, with this rule, we simply want to stand in court and
defend the valuable protections in the Affordable Care Act that this
case threatens to take away.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I want to begin by welcoming my good friend from
Florida, first, to the Rules Committee, congratulate her on her first
rule on the floor, and, finally, thank her quite sincerely for the
distinguished service she rendered to our country when she was a member
of the Cabinet for former President Clinton. It is wonderful to have
the gentlewoman in the people's House.
Madam Speaker, we are here again, this time on the third and final
title of the rules package for the 116th Congress. Title III authorizes
the House to intervene, otherwise appear, or take any other steps in
the case Texas v. United States, the lawsuit currently pending over the
legality of the Affordable Care Act. In essence, if this passes, the
House will be giving Speaker Pelosi the authority to intervene in this
lawsuit on behalf of the entire House of Representatives.
I spoke briefly about this matter during the debate of the overall
rules package last week, and I am sure my opposition to title III comes
as no surprise to my friends on the other side of the aisle. Today, we
have several speakers on our side from the Ways and Means Committee and
the Energy and Commerce Committee, all of whom are deeply familiar with
these issues and who will be able to tackle this in more detail. But
for now, I will make a few key points.
First and foremost, it really isn't a surprise that the Democrats'
poorly written healthcare law finds itself, once again, in legal
trouble. The lawsuit this time arises from Texas where 20 States have
filed suits on the grounds that, because there is no longer a tax
penalty in place for failing to purchase health insurance under the
individual mandate, and because there is no severability clause, the
law itself is unconstitutional.
Last month, a district court judge in Texas agreed with the States
and struck down the Affordable Care Act. That ruling has been stayed
pending appeal.
This really should not have come as a surprise to the majority. At
the time the Affordable Care Act was passed, many of us on the
Republican side raised similar concerns. The act, as drafted, was too
poorly written and too precariously balanced to stand up under its own
weight.
The succeeding 9 years have caused those predictions to come to pass.
Premiums have skyrocketed; insurers have fled the market; and for many
Americans, the care they thought they were accessing under the
Affordable Care Act has become anything but affordable.
Before Republicans acted last Congress to repeal the tax penalty for
the individual mandate, literally millions of taxpayers made the
decision to pay that penalty instead of buying health insurance they
could not afford.
No matter what the outcome of this lawsuit will be, House Republicans
have over and over again expressed their support for protections for
those with preexisting conditions. Should the Texas decision be upheld,
Republicans stand ready to work with Democrats to build an insurance
system that protects people with preexisting conditions, increases
transparency and choice, and lowers costs across the country.
That is exactly what we tried to do in the last Congress with the
American Health Care Act, which we in the House proposed and passed as
a solution to the broken law that is the Affordable Care Act. While it
fell short in the Senate, its passage in the House clearly shows
Republicans were ready to take steps to fix this broken system.
Rather than taking those steps today, Democrats are asking us to
grant Speaker Pelosi a blank check to intervene in this lawsuit. Rather
than allowing the States to continue to pursue this litigation, as is
their right under the Constitution, Democrats want this House to
intervene. But the majority has not said why intervention is necessary
and why the House of Representatives must jump into this litigation
against some of the States. Other States have already made the decision
to intervene in support of the Affordable Care Act, rendering
intervention by this House unnecessary.
At best, this proposal is a political exercise intended to allow the
majority to reiterate their position on the Affordable Care Act. At
worst, it is an attempt to pressure the courts. Either way, there is no
real justification for doing what the majority wishes to do today.
Madam Speaker, the best way for the majority to protect Americans and
to protect access to healthcare is to pass a constitutionally sound law
that is well considered, well structured, and that will result in lower
premiums and better access to health insurance. It is not what they
have proposed here, which is a wasteful expenditure of taxpayer dollars
to defend the indefensible.
Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Ms. SHALALA. Madam Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Oklahoma
for his kind words at the beginning of his comments.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. McGovern), who is the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
Rules.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida
(Ms. Shalala) for yielding me the time.
It is an honor to serve with her on the House Rules Committee. As the
longest serving HHS Secretary in U.S. history, she spent much of her
life leading on the issue of healthcare.
Madam Speaker, the American people have been living in fear for
years, worried that Washington Republicans would make good on their
promise to repeal the Affordable Care Act and that the President and
his allies in Congress would take away their ability to see a doctor or
afford care, including for preexisting conditions from asthma to
domestic abuse.
Who can blame them?
When the minority controlled this institution, they voted 69 times to
undermine the Affordable Care Act. Sixty-nine times they tried to take
away healthcare from more than 23 million Americans. Thankfully, the
Senate thwarted these efforts, and Republicans weren't successful.
Now the Trump administration is using the legal system to try to do
what the Republican Congress could not: strike down the Affordable Care
Act. Its Justice Department has asked in a legal filing for the courts
to invalidate this law and, in doing so, erase protections for
preexisting conditions.
Now, I have heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle try to
pretend that they are somehow champions of this provision, despite
working relentlessly to abolish it and voting nearly 70 times to
undermine the ACA.
Madam Speaker, who are they kidding?
This Democratic majority doesn't deal in alternative facts. The
American people are smarter than that.
Thankfully, it is a new Congress, and this majority isn't trying to
abolish preexisting condition coverage. Instead, we are moving swiftly
to protect it on the opening days of this Congress.
{time} 1530
This measure will allow this House to legally intervene to protect
preexisting condition coverage in the Affordable Care Act. If you
support coverage for preexisting conditions, then you will support this
measure to try and protect it. It is that simple.
Enough with the sound bites. It is time to vote. I urge all my
colleagues to vote for this measure.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), a member of both the Rules
Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee, who also happens to be
perhaps the foremost expert on the ACA in the House of Representatives.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Let's get one thing clear from the start: the majority should not be
acting like they are doing something that
[[Page H340]]
hasn't already been done. It is not something new. Nothing we do on
title III of the rules package will change what the House has already
voted on and how the court will receive it.
Title III of H. Res. 6 would authorize the Speaker of the House of
Representatives to intervene or take any other legal actions in cases
involving the Affordable Care Act, but in particular, the Texas v.
United States case, where a court recently ruled that the Affordable
Care Act was unconstitutional due to the elimination of the individual
mandate.
If this all sounds familiar to you, it should. Last week, at the
start of the 116th Congress, the House voted on title I of the rules
package that included the same provisions giving the Speaker the same
authority to intervene in the same case.
Actually, the Speaker has already filed three motions to intervene in
the Texas case the same day the rule was passed last week. The fact is,
nothing has changed between last week and today, and the Speaker does
not need to be given this authority again.
But what are the facts?
The facts are that this bill, the Affordable Care Act, was sold to
the American people on a misrepresentation. If you like your doctor,
you can keep your doctor. You may remember that. If you like your
insurance, you can keep your insurance. Your premium is going to be
down by $2,500. And, of course, famously: We've got to pass the bill to
find out what is in it.
As a practical matter, people are forced to buy insurance that they
may not want; that they certainly cannot afford; and, in fact, that
they are afraid to use because the deductible and the copay is so high.
So, again, I am not sure how the House is intervening in the judicial
process to support a failing policy while millions of Americans are
functionally uninsured. I don't understand how that helps us to deliver
better access to care in north Texas and across the country.
Americans should see this for what it is: a facade of the Democrats
who want to revive the individual mandate under the guise of protecting
Americans with preexisting conditions. I think the House can be more
effective in delivering on the promises of the American people. That
should be the goal of this House. It is not the goal of the House
today, unfortunately.
I urge my fellow Members to vote ``no'' on this bill.
Ms. SHALALA. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
Education and Labor.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from
Florida for her distinguished service as the Secretary of Health and
Human Services, and I thank her for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. Legal
scholars from across the ideological spectrum agree that this latest
challenge to the Affordable Care Act is legally frivolous. However,
because of the devastating impact that it will have on Americans, it is
critical that we use our authority to intervene on their behalf.
If Republicans successfully dismantle the Affordable Care Act, the
consequences will be felt by all Americans, including the millions of
people with employer-sponsored coverage. They will lose protections for
patients with preexisting conditions; they will lose prohibitions on
annual and lifetime coverage limits; they will lose access to low- or
no-cost preventive care; and they will lose the popular provision which
allows young people to stay on their parents' insurance policies up to
the age of 26.
These protections are all a product of the Affordable Care Act, and
they are all at risk. We can't take the chance on this lawsuit being
successful and then wait for a replacement, because we already know
what the replacement will be. The House-passed replacement for the
Affordable Care Act from a few years ago would have resulted in
millions of fewer people with insurance and according to CBO, the costs
would go up 20 percent the first year, insurance would cover less than
it covers now; and those with preexisting conditions would lose their
protections. That is what would happen if this lawsuit is successful.
This vote is about fulfilling our responsibility to act in the best
interests of the American people. I encourage my colleagues to support
the resolution.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Walden), my good friend, who is also the former chairman of
the House Energy and Commerce Committee and current ranking member.
Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to title III of the
Democrats' rules package which, as you have heard, paves the way for
Speaker Pelosi to unilaterally take legal action on behalf of the
entire House of Representatives in the ongoing court case surrounding
the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act and any future court
cases on the ACA as she sees fit. That is a pretty big blank check.
Madam Speaker, first of all, I object to this vote on the grounds of
pure common sense. The authority we are voting on today was already
given to the Speaker last week under title I of the Democrats' rules
package. You can look it up. It is right there, beginning on page 30.
You will find it after the provisions that make it easier for House
Democrats to increase taxes and to set up automatic debt limit
increases. Not to mention, Speaker Pelosi has already filed three
motions to the court to intervene in the case since last week's vote.
Moreover, Democratic Attorneys General from intervening States are
already defending the law in the case, and the judge's ruling has
already been stayed and appealed. So this is an unnecessary waste of
time, paper, and ink.
I can only assume part of the reason for today's show vote is to
distract from Democrats' real radical views on healthcare.
Madam Speaker, where is the single-payer, $32 trillion government
takeover of healthcare bill which ends employer- and union-sponsored
healthcare and forces the 158 million Americans who get their
healthcare through their job into a one-size-fits-all government-run
plan?
A majority of House Democrats supported that proposal--or one very
like it--in the last Congress. When will they keep their promise to
bring that plan up for a vote?
Madam Speaker, today's vote to repeat the authorities given the
Speaker last week is just for show. It is not a serious exercise in
legislating. Meanwhile, last week, Republicans brought a powerful but
simple amendment to the floor that would have actually called on this
body to legislate on something we all could agree needs to be done, and
that is to lock in protections for patients with preexisting
conditions. But, unfortunately, in a fit of partisanship, Democrats
voted that down.
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to reject this unnecessary political
theater today and vote ``no'' so we can work together expeditiously to
guarantee preexisting condition protections for all Americans, and do
so in a manner that can withstand judicial scrutiny.
Ms. SHALALA. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, Trump and his apologists are so very good
at breaking things. It is just fixing them they can't seem to find an
answer to.
This underlying lawsuit is little more than a conspiracy between a
criminally-indicted Texas Republican attorney general and the Trump
administration that couldn't find its voice when it was time to defend
protections for preexisting conditions for so many American families.
There is no doubt there is collusion. There is Republican collusion
right here. It is collusion to strip away lifesaving protection from so
many Americans.
Intervening in this lawsuit is an important step in protecting
families from the uncertainties of fine-print denials, excessive
premiums, inadequate coverage, and just basic access to affordable
healthcare.
We must intervene because of a preexisting condition--and it is a
rather unusual one. It is called amnesia. These Republicans have
political amnesia. They cannot remember before the Affordable Care Act
how many families got a diagnosis of bankruptcy at the same time they
got a diagnosis
[[Page H341]]
of a severe disease or experienced an accident.
They had over 60 votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act, but they
never could come up with a plan to present to this House to replace the
Affordable Care Act because, for all of its shortcomings, it is the
best answer right now to the needs of the American people.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Roe), my good friend, the former chairman of the
Veterans' Affairs Committee and now its current ranking member.
Mr. DAVID P. ROE of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, I rise today in
opposition to title III of the Democratic rules package, which will
allow House Democrats to file a motion in Texas v. United States
defending the constitutionality of the ACA.
This lawsuit, which was filed by more than 20 State Attorneys
General, is about individual liberty and whether the Federal Government
can force individuals to purchase a product.
When the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the ACA 6
years ago, it did so under the logic that the individual mandate was a
tax. I disagreed with that rule then, but because we now have repealed
the tax, the Supreme Court's rationale for upholding the law was
applied by the district court when it found the mandate inseverable
from the law and struck it down.
The promise of the ACA, which we can all agree on, was to increase
access to, and lower the cost of, healthcare. In my State of Tennessee
alone, the average premium prices have gone up 176 percent in 8 years,
with deductible levels that are nothing more than the equivalent to
catastrophic coverage.
Let me give you an example, Madam Speaker. The majority of the
uncollectible debt in the hospital where I work are people with
insurance, not without insurance. Giving people access to a card does
not necessarily equal coverage. That is why, in my district alone, you
had nearly the same number of people who paid the tax that actually got
the benefit.
In the ruling in Texas v. U.S. the courts are giving Congress an
opportunity for a much-needed do-over. I spent over 30 years of my life
taking care of patients, and in that time I never saw a Republican or
Democratic disease. Preexisting conditions can affect anyone. All of us
in the House want to ensure those affected by serious illnesses can
access affordable care.
Rather than keeping the cost burden on the middle class, let's work
together to protect those with preexisting conditions while also
trusting Americans to make their own decisions when buying coverage
that best fits the needs of their family.
How can we find common ground?
Well, if you have ever received your health insurance from an
employer in the private sector, you were covered by ERISA and its
updates under HIPAA, which protect people with preexisting conditions
from being denied coverage. Unfortunately, the rules weren't the same
for the individual and small-group markets, and that is where the
problem arose.
A simple solution to this problem is to apply those large-group ERISA
protections to individual and small-group markets and the preexisting
coverage question is solved.
Whether you are for or against the passage of the ACA, it should be
clear that the law is broken. Instead of continuing to support a law
that clearly isn't working, why don't we come together and enact a real
patient-centered, free-market healthcare system that treats individuals
and small groups like big corporations.
The bottom line is that the ACA has failed, at least in my State. The
House of Representatives has more important work to focus on than
getting involved in litigation to resuscitate a law that is broken and
is causing problems for many individuals and families across America.
If we defeat title III of the Democratic rules package, I am hopeful
this will be the first step in agreeing that we should be focusing on
bipartisan reforms to our healthcare system, instead of wasting our
time on litigation. I urge opposition to the rule.
Ms. SHALALA. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), a distinguished member of the Rules
Committee.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
rules package before us. This package includes, among other things, a
critical provision defending the affordable healthcare of Americans.
I came to Congress with a resounding message from my constituents to
protect and expand affordable, quality healthcare. Parents should not
have to choose between paying rent or healthcare for their children.
Students should not have to choose between paying for school or health
insurance. Children should not have to spend sleepless nights worried
about paying for aging parents' healthcare.
{time} 1545
It is unacceptable that American families are one healthcare
emergency away from financial ruin.
This administration is once again undermining the Affordable Care Act
and ignoring a clear message from the American people. Quality
healthcare is a right and should not be the privilege of the few who
can afford it.
I will continue using my voice in Congress to advocate for those who
need us most, pushing this body to protect the healthcare of my
constituents.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Wenstrup), my good friend, who not only provided lifesaving care
to men and women in uniform in another career, but has actually done
that in this body as well.
Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Speaker, I will admit I am a little bit confused
here today because the part of the rule package that we are debating
was already passed by the Democratic majority last week. So why are we
here again?
I hear some people say: ``I stand in strong support of this.'' Well,
good. You did last week, too.
I suspect some see it as trying to falsely claim that Republicans are
opposed to protecting Americans with preexisting conditions. I
guarantee you, as a doctor, there is no part of me that doesn't want
people in America to have insurance and coverage for their conditions.
There is no part of me. In fact, it is just the opposite.
Just last week, in one of our first votes this year, every Republican
in this Chamber voted for the House to take action this month that--
word for word, our Republican amendment said--``guarantees no American
citizen can be denied health insurance coverage as the result of a
previous illness or health status'' and ``guarantees no American
citizen can be charged higher premiums or cost sharing as the result of
a previous illness or health status.''
Curiously, not one of my Democratic colleagues voted for this.
This is only the most recent action of many we have taken to support
and protect Americans with preexisting health conditions in the last
few years.
Rather, this rule package allows Speaker Pelosi to use the U.S. House
as a shield to try and defend the individual mandate, the same mandate
that this very Chamber has already zeroed out.
The individual mandate, in its original form, forced Americans to buy
something simply because they are alive, or they will be penalized.
This said that Congress has the authority to penalize Americans for not
buying something, penalize you just because you are alive. How is that
for freedom?
By the way, there is a difference between dismantling a flawed bill,
the flawed Affordable Care Act, and mending its every flaw, which we
have tried to do and, in some cases, we have done.
But going back to the rule, this takes away each Member's right to
vote on how we want the House to engage in litigation. Rather, it gives
more power to one person and takes power away from this body as a whole
to have a say in the matter.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this title of the rules package. It is
bad policy, bad posturing.
And since this vote is a repeat, I repeat: Republicans are and have
been and have supported and have voted for coverage for Americans with
preexisting conditions, period.
Ms. SHALALA. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Nadler), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
the Judiciary.
[[Page H342]]
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman for
yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution
authorizing the House to defend the Affordable Care Act in court
against baseless but potentially devastating litigation designed to
dismantle the law.
Because of the ACA, which passed without a single Republican vote,
millions of Americans now have access to health insurance, including
those with preexisting conditions. Yet ever since it became law, the
ACA has been the target of nonstop attacks by Republican politicians
intent on stripping Americans of the important protections guaranteed
by the law.
For the last 8 years, when the Republicans controlled the House, they
voted 62 times to repeal the ACA but never once came up with a proposal
to protect Americans with preexisting conditions.
Despite all the Republicans' efforts, the ACA still stands today,
continuing to guarantee access to affordable, quality health insurance.
But now, 21 Republican State attorneys general have launched a new
attack on the law, based on tortured logic and flimsy legal reasoning.
The Department of Justice has a duty to defend every duly enacted
law, absent exceptional circumstances. The Trump administration,
however, has broken this well-established norm and now refuses to
defend the law from this latest challenge, a decision that caused
several career Justice Department attorneys to resign in protest.
The Judiciary Committee will be investigating how the Trump
administration made this blatantly political decision to abdicate its
responsibility, and the committee will be holding those responsible
accountable for their actions.
While the administration turns its back on people with preexisting
conditions and people who would go bankrupt without the law's cost-
sharing subsidies, with this resolution, the House of Representatives
has an opportunity to provide the defense that the ACA and the millions
of Americans who depend on it every day deserve.
Although legal scholars across the ideological spectrum find the
plaintiffs' arguments laughable, it has found a sympathetic judge in
Texas who recently ruled the entire law must be overturned.
This resolution would authorize the House to intervene in the case as
it works its way through the courts on appeal to ensure that the law's
vital protections are properly defended in court.
I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and to allow the
House to fend off this latest Republican assault against the health and
well-being of Americans.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington), my good friend.
Mr. ARRINGTON. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this
rules package authorizing the House to intervene in the lawsuit against
ObamaCare, Texas v. United States. The American people sent us here to
do a job: to solve problems, to improve their lives, and to move this
country forward. However, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
seem to be more interested in playing partisan games than problem-
solving.
Why do I say this? Because Democrats have already voted to pass this
exact provision last week. They have even filed three motions to
intervene in the ObamaCare lawsuit.
On the substance of the matter at hand, ObamaCare is one of the
worst, most destructive pieces of legislation to have ever passed this
House, and the facts on that are indisputable. Just ask some of my
hardworking, God-fearing farmers and ranchers and small businesses in
west Texas.
ObamaCare has ruined our healthcare system; it is crushing our
economy; and it is breaking the backs of our small businesses and our
working families.
Madam Speaker, we shouldn't spend another day nor should we spend
another dime on attempting to prop up this top-down, government-
controlled healthcare system that is collapsing under its own weight.
It is unconscionable to me and the American people to continue to throw
good money after bad policy like this.
Instead of doubling down on ObamaCare and its flawed framework of
mandates, taxes, and regulations that drove healthcare costs to the
Moon, we should be working on policies together that truly reduce costs
and continue to provide access to the greatest quality of care in the
world here in the United States.
No government plan, no government program can divine these desired
outcomes. Only a healthy market with robust competition and maximum
consumer choice can achieve them.
Now, my colleagues on the other side talk a lot about protecting
Americans with preexisting conditions. I agree. My colleagues on the
Republican side agree. That is why we passed our Healthcare Reform Act
with protections for folks with preexisting conditions. That is why,
last week, Republicans voted to ensure Americans with preexisting
conditions are protected.
This is a game. We have already done it. We have already voted. We
stand firm to protect people with preexisting conditions.
But today's vote isn't about protecting people with preexisting
conditions. It is about Democrat-produced political theater. That is
what it is. It is about trying to save what is left of ObamaCare, and
it is actually in preparation for a single-payer system, for socialized
medicine, and for complete government control of our healthcare
economy.
Madam Speaker, the American people deserve real solutions to
affordable care. They deserve real solutions: markets that are free to
create any number of products and services.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Texas an
additional 30 seconds.
Mr. ARRINGTON. Madam Speaker, I repeat: The American people deserve
real solutions to the desired outcome of affordable care, and that is
markets that are free to create any number, any variety of products and
services and people who are free to choose those products and what is
best for them and their families.
Ms. SHALALA. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Allred).
Mr. ALLRED. Madam Speaker, I rise today to correct an injustice and
to urge passage of this resolution that will put the United States
House back on the side of the people and protecting their healthcare.
For far too long, seeking to fulfill empty partisan promises at the
expense of the American people, politicians in Congress have sought to
tear apart the Affordable Care Act and its protections for people with
preexisting conditions. That ends today.
When the American people chose this new Congress, they said: Enough
with the sabotage and the kowtowing to special interests seeking to
divide us.
Too many times this very body has voted against the American people
to repeal the Affordable Care Act and, with it, the protections for
people with preexisting conditions. Now, a Federal court has put at
risk those same protections.
That brings me to the story of Natalie. As I traveled around my
district, which I am now truly honored to represent, I met Natalie. She
told me her story.
She was a lawyer with young children, Hugo and Mia, and was married
to a law professor at Southern Methodist University. I met with her on
the same day that the House had voted to repeal the Affordable Care
Act. I learned that Natalie had stage IV cancer and that she had come
to my event from her chemotherapy treatment. She explained to me that
her goal was to fight her cancer as long as possible so that her
children would know her.
Natalie came to my event that day because she was worried about
future moms like her who would lose their care if the Affordable Care
Act was repealed. Natalie was worried about a return to the bad old
days, with lifetime caps and discrimination against people with
preexisting conditions. She knew that, because of her treatment, she
would have blown through any lifetime cap in a matter of weeks.
Stories like Natalie's are all too common across America.
Tomorrow will be 1 year, to the day, since we lost Natalie, and she
is still an inspiration to me and to many other north Texans and
Americans across the
[[Page H343]]
country. You see, Madam Speaker, Natalie spent her final days, while
she was in pain, while she was saying her good-byes, emailing and
posting on social media an talking to her community about the need to
protect the Affordable Care Act so that other moms could get the care
that they need.
That is who we are as north Texans, and that is who we are as
Americans. We believe in something larger than ourselves. We believe in
protecting 130 million Americans and more than 320,000 people in my
district in north Texas who have a preexisting condition.
Let me be clear. The Affordable Care Act is not perfect, and this
resolution does not solve all the healthcare problems facing our
country. But, as one of our first acts, I hope that this measure tells
the American people that we are on their side.
I know I speak for many of my colleagues when I say that this
Congress will not stop working for the American people. We will not
relent to the special interests and the forces of cynicism. The
American people now, more than ever, need us to work together to
address the rising cost of healthcare. Americans like Natalie and her
family deserve no less.
Madam Speaker, it is truly an honor to address this body for the
first time, and it is my first act to lead this resolution to defend
the Affordable Care Act.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes), my very good friend and former
chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and current ranking member
of that committee.
Mr. NUNES. Madam Speaker, I am struggling to understand what we are
doing here today. We already know that the Democrats go to great
lengths to defend the unconstitutional Affordable Care Act.
They really believe that Congress can and should force the American
people to buy something, whether they want it or not. We know this
because they made everyone vote on this same provision in title I of
the rules package last week. Now we are here voting on the same thing
this week.
``Why?'' some Americans may ask. Because Democrats are trying to sell
this farce as a vote to protect people with preexisting conditions.
But this is not a healthcare vote. This is a vote to give cover
because the law they passed was unconstitutional, and the individual
mandate was deeply unpopular.
They could put an end to this by passing a law that abides by the
Constitution, but they are not willing to do that. Instead, we are
wasting time here today voting on something for the second time.
Republicans know that we can protect the people with preexisting
health conditions without infringing on basic freedoms. This is why,
last week, we voted on an amendment to the rules package to guarantee
no American citizen can be denied health insurance coverage as a result
of a preexisting condition.
{time} 1600
I voted to ensure that no American citizen can be charged a higher
premium or cost sharing as a result of a preexisting condition.
But the majority would rather spend time and taxpayer money defending
the constitutionality of the ACA's individual mandate. They seem to
have forgotten that the Supreme Court told them, back in 2012, that
Congress does not have the power to make the American people purchase a
product.
The Democrats should not spend more taxpayer money defending the
indefensible.
Congress should focus its energy on making healthcare more affordable
and giving people meaningful choice in healthcare again.
Ms. SHALALA. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Bera).
Mr. BERA. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of title III of the
House rules package. A district court recently ruled that the entire
Affordable Care Act was unconstitutional, and, sadly, President Trump's
Justice Department did nothing to defend the Affordable Care Act. They
even urged the judge to strike down protections to those with
preexisting conditions.
Now, I have heard and I understand my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle don't like the Affordable Care Act, but not to defend it, not
to talk about the benefits, is not defensible. I have heard many of my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about how they want to
protect those with preexisting conditions. Well, this is one way to
protect those with preexisting conditions.
I see this as a doctor. I don't want to go back to the days when I
would see patients who had cancer, had diabetes, had heart conditions,
and through no action on their own, lost their health insurance. I
don't want to go back to the days where the health insurance companies
could deny people those coverages--often necessary lifesaving therapies
and coverage. This is about doing the right thing for America's
patients. That is why we are here.
Now, what title III of the rules package does is it says that the
House of Representatives should intervene in Texas v. United States. If
this lawsuit succeeds, it is going to repeal the Affordable Care Act
with no solution. None. Millions of Americans are going to lose their
health insurance coverage.
The American public spoke loud and clear. They want this body to sit
down, to come together to provide coverage for America--affordable
coverage. That is what we need to do as Democrats and Republicans. I
urge my colleagues to vote for title III and to make it clear this
Congress will protect those with preexisting conditions.
I have got friends on the other side of the aisle. I heard many of
them talk about how they want to protect those with preexisting
conditions. A vote against title III of the rules package is a vote
against protecting those Americans.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
simply to make a quick point.
Actually, a vote against this provision is not a vote against
preexisting conditions. It is a vote to limit the power of the
Speaker--not to allow the Speaker to, on her own, decide whether she is
going to intervene in law cases where, frankly, the intervention of
this House isn't necessary. There are States litigating against the
ACA. There are States litigating for the ACA. The idea that either side
is unrepresented, I think, just doesn't bear serious scrutiny.
So, you know, not only is it an exercise in futility, in my opinion,
it is an exercise that is totally unnecessary because we have already
given the Speaker that power. The majority has already seen fit to do
that. So why we are wasting time, money, and effort in this particular
exercise eludes me.
With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SHALALA. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), the distinguished chairman of the Committee
on Ways and Means.
Mr. NEAL. Madam Speaker, I thank Secretary Shalala for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I feel like I have a preexisting condition. It is
arguing about the Affordable Care Act. For 10 years we have argued
about the Affordable Care Act. A campaign is part of forming a
government, and no issue resonated with the American people in the last
election like the issue of preexisting conditions.
My friend, the gentleman from California, previously said he didn't
understand why people had to buy something that they didn't want. Well,
we require people to buy automobile insurance. And, by the way, you
don't buy automobile insurance the day after you have been in an
automobile accident. And we probably don't want to buy homeowners
insurance, but, guess what; we don't buy it the day after our house is
burned down. We buy it because the genius of insurance is the spreading
of risk.
So I ask the following rhetorical question, and that is, why should
the rest of us annually put $1,000 into our premiums for health
insurance to take care of those who don't want to buy health insurance?
So what this discussion and argument is really about, for the moment,
is the following: The child who is born with diabetes is then told,
under the old system, that they can never buy health insurance, or, if
they do, it has to be rated--back to the old actuarial argument about
how do we spread risk.
The protections that were built into the Affordable Care Act, which I
helped
[[Page H344]]
to write, were based upon the idea of using the best principles of the
marketplace while simultaneously using the ability of the Federal
Government to prod certain behaviors, and those behaviors included a
ban on preexisting conditions as an option for people who didn't want
to buy health insurance.
So what did the other side do? They filed the lawsuit. Now, they
generally lecture us on activist judges. They decided that they would
challenge what has become okay with the American people, the Affordable
Care Act. They would challenge it in the Federal courts and really
didn't want to bring down the entire Affordable Care Act. Instead, they
wanted to disassemble piece by piece parts of the Affordable Care Act
that really, in a lot of ways, have made for its success.
There is no argument with the following statistic that, today,
between 17 and 20 million Americans have health insurance that didn't
have it before the Affordable Care Act.
And back to those people who, by the way, their system of healthcare
was the emergency room. So, in the emergency room, we all know, it is a
pretty poor way to get health insurance because it really doesn't
emphasize preventive care.
So all of these options that we built into the Affordable Care Act,
including making sure that people that had preexisting conditions
couldn't be exploited in the marketplace with undue costs, this
argument that we continue to have, Madam Speaker, here about the
Affordable Care Act could be rectified in short order by both sides
just working together to improve the Affordable Care Act.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, to my good friend, the distinguished chairman of the
Ways and Means, I think that offer is made quite sincerely, and I think
it will be taken up by our side. We can work together in a bipartisan
way to do exactly what the gentleman suggests.
In my opinion, this particular measure doesn't do that. It doesn't
get us anywhere. It involves us in litigation unnecessarily, and it
doesn't--by the way, for the second time, since we gave the Speaker
this authority--I didn't vote for it, my friends did, that is their
right, she has it, so why we are here on the floor today arguing about
it mystifies me.
But, again, I know my friend's offer is made in good faith. I think
it will be taken up in good faith. We should work together to do
exactly what my friend suggests, that is, guarantee that every American
is protected from preexisting conditions and able to go into the
marketplace and buy insurance at a practical and reasonable rate that
they can afford.
So, with that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SHALALA. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the distinguished chairman of the Committee
on Energy and Commerce.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I thank--I call her the Secretary. She is
one of my colleagues now. Congresswoman Shalala knows more about
healthcare, and, I should say, probably is more of an expert on it than
anybody else in this body.
I want to basically contradict what my Republican colleagues have
been saying. They are saying that this is not about preexisting
conditions. That is exactly what this debate is about.
We have seen the Republicans in the House, the President,
consistently try to sabotage the Affordable Care Act. And what does
that mean? That means sabotage to make it more difficult for people
with preexisting conditions to get coverage. It means bringing out junk
insurance that doesn't have good benefits. It means bringing back all
the discriminatory practices that existed before the ACA, like lifetime
or annual limits or rescissions.
You know, before the Affordable Care Act, you could actually buy a
policy and the insurance company could come in and rescind the policy
because they were spending too much money on your insurance policy. We
worked very hard with the ACA to get rid of all these discriminatory
practices. They would come back again if this lawsuit succeeds.
I don't think there should be any mistake. This lawsuit, brought by a
group of Republican attorneys general, is nothing more than a
continuation of Republican efforts to sabotage the healthcare of
millions of Americans. Having failed to repeal the law through the
legislative process, Republicans are attempting to invalidate the law
through the Federal courts, and they have, at least for now, succeeded
at the district court level.
Last month, Judge Reed O'Connor of the Northern District of Texas
declared the entire ACA was invalid. His decision would eliminate the
law's protections for preexisting conditions, as well as entirely
unrelated provisions, such as the Medicaid expansion and the closing of
the Medicare prescription drug donut hole.
This decision has been roundly criticized by legal scholars.
Conservative scholars, like Jonathan Adler, joined with other scholars
in writing that the decision was a mockery of the rule of law and basic
principles of democracy. Judge O'Connor's decision is an exercise in
raw judicial power. It is not the job of the Federal judges to strike
down entire statutes without considering what Congress intended.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I am always delighted when my friends on the other
side believe in judicial restraint, so it is nice to see we have some
new converts in that.
I just make my basic point again, Madam Speaker. We are here for no
particular reason debating something that we did last week, giving that
power to the Speaker. I didn't agree with that vote. We had an
opportunity last week, actually, to take up a Republican measure that
would have legislatively guaranteed protections for preexisting. The
majority chose not to do that. So I have just forced back on the
conclusion that this is much more about political theater than it is
about genuine substance.
I will say, though, in disagreeing with my good friend from New
Jersey, I am not a lawyer. I don't pretend to be able to be an expert
judge of the legal merits, but I do think I would not so blithely
dismiss 20 State attorneys general and a court that ruled in their
favor. It tells me that there are significant legal issues here and
that those legal issues are going to be litigated in due course.
What mystifies me is why we need to be involved in it since there is
high-powered law from different States with different points of view
that are in this right now.
So, again, I see no particular reason to do this, although, with all
due respect, my friends have already given the Speaker the power to do
it, so I don't know why we need to do it a second time. But, again, I
am here to represent my colleagues on my side of the aisle, and we will
continue to do that.
With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SHALALA. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the majority whip.
Mr. CLYBURN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
the time.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to support this resolution to intervene
against the egregious Texas v. United States lawsuit that seeks to end
the Affordable Care Act, or, as I like to call it, the Civil Rights Act
of the 21st Century.
In a few days, we are going to be celebrating the birthday of Dr.
Martin Luther King, Jr., who once said: ``Of all the forms of
inequality, injustice in healthcare is the most shocking and
inhumane.''
Since the ACA was enacted, significant progress has been made to
lessen the inequality in our healthcare delivery system. To dismantle
those lifesaving protections now is unfounded and unjust.
It is unjust to deny those with preexisting conditions access to
healthcare. It is unjust to cut off insurance coverage to a child with
cancer because she has reached her maximum lifetime benefits. It is
unjust to charge women more than we charge men for healthcare simply
because of their gender. It is unjust to increase the cost of seniors'
medications by reopening the gap known as the donut hole in their
Medicare prescription drug coverage.
{time} 1615
It is unjust to tell young people just starting out in life that they
can no
[[Page H345]]
longer remain on their parents' insurance policies.
It is unjust to reinstitute charges for preventative healthcare,
costing more money in the long run when illnesses go undetected for too
long.
It is unjust to ask the working poor not eligible for Medicaid to
purchase private insurance at the market rate when they are struggling
to feed their families and keep a roof over their heads.
Access to quality healthcare ought not only be for those who can
afford it; it ought to be for those who need it. It is unfortunate for
us to deny healthcare to people just because they were born unhealthy.
A vote against this resolution is a vote against providing the basic
human right to fair and equitable access to quality, affordable
healthcare for all Americans.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, let me advise my friend, I am prepared to
close. I see she has additional speakers, so, for the moment, I will
simply reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SHALALA. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
Ms. MOORE. Madam Speaker, being sort of last in this debate gives you
an opportunity to hear all of the arguments.
The question has been asked: Why should we allow Speaker Pelosi to
intervene? Well, she authored the bill. We need her to defend this
bill, and we believe that she has standing.
Another question that was raised was about an initiative that was
offered last week and that this is just a theater here today. Well, I
was here the 60-plus times that we tried to repeal the Affordable Care
Act. That is the true theater.
And let me tell you something, Madam Speaker. Why do we think that
there was such a strident effort to destroy the Affordable Care Act?
Because our colleagues have told us it cost a lot of money, and we have
tried to prevent insurers from maximizing their profits.
And how do they maximize their profits? By denying the sickest people
with preexisting conditions--like the people I met today, the kids with
neurofibromatosis, a serious illness that causes tumors all through
your body and causes you to wake up in pain every single day--if you
can get rid of them, then you won't have to pay much money; to impose
lifetime limits on coverage not just for people under the ACA, but for
everybody, including those folks who get employer-based insurance.
Why have they tried to deny health coverage to consumers, to provide
essential health benefits? Because they want to provide these skeletal
benefits, this fig leaf of provisions for folks.
So I think that we need someone like Speaker Pelosi to intervene, and
I think that she should have standing, and this body ought to authorize
it.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. SHALALA. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Speaker, last month, a judge delivered a ruling to
gut the Affordable Care Act, a warning shot that was fired at millions
of Americans of all ages, backgrounds, and beliefs. The decision
changed little immediately, but that didn't matter. Patients again
panicked because, yes, they have been here before.
The family with a young child who will spend their entire life
battling diabetes, the father in remission, the young woman facing
addiction desperately seeking treatment, over the past 2 years, they
have watched their government, led by a Republican Congress and a
reckless President, come after their healthcare coverage again and
again and again.
So families wake up wondering if this is the day. Is this the day
where they succeed, the day the President finally wins, the day my
coverage goes away, the day I have to face my loved ones, my kids, my
ailing parents, and tell them that we can't afford the care to make
their suffering go away?
They deserve better, and that is why I ask everyone to support this
rules package.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would like to remind all Members
to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Ms. SHALALA. Madam Speaker, I inquire whether the gentleman from
Oklahoma is prepared to close. I am prepared to close on my side.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, actually, I know I informed the gentlewoman
differently, but my good friend, Mr. Burgess, got so excited by the
debate he came back and asked for an additional minute. So if I may,
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Burgess).
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I would just ask a simple question: What
has happened to your insurance premium since the passage of the
Affordable Care Act? They have gone up. They have gone up a lot.
What has happened to the cost of prescription drugs since the passage
of the Affordable Care Act? They have gone up. They have gone up a lot.
All I would suggest is there was a better way to go about this.
Republicans have offered ideas. It really, really would behoove us to
work on behalf of the American people to solve these problems rather
than to continue to push this bill that has been so unfavorable in the
eyes of so many Americans.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, in closing, I urge opposition to this measure. The
majority is asking the House of Representatives to authorize the
Speaker to intervene in a lawsuit over the legality of the Affordable
Care Act. Such an act is unnecessary and wasteful.
It should have been obvious to the majority that the Affordable Care
Act was and is poorly written and precariously unbalanced as
Republicans warned them at the time it was passed, and the intervening
years have brought those predictions to come about. Premiums
have skyrocketed. Insurers have fled the market. The American consumers
have suffered as a result.
The appropriate solution is not to intervene in a lawsuit but,
instead, to spend time working with Republicans to craft a replacement
fix to this broken system. And moreover, it is certainly not to do
today, in a rule, what we have already done in the same rule last week.
Madam Speaker, I have enjoyed the debate, but I am not exactly sure
why we had it. Again, it is always worthwhile to spend time on the
floor with my friends.
So, Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' on the previous question, ``no''
on the underlying measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. SHALALA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time,
and I thank my distinguished colleague.
It has been more than 9 years since Congress passed the Affordable
Care Act. It has withstood dozens of repeal attempts, and the Supreme
Court already has held it constitutional. Now a district court in Texas
has determined that the whole law should be null and void.
But the ACA is now so enmeshed in our society that we sometimes
forget the numerous benefits that are now threatened by this case. It
is not simply protections for preexisting conditions. It is subsidies
to help the middle-class families and small businesses to buy health
insurance. It is caps on out-of-pocket health insurance costs. It is an
end to annual and lifetime limits.
No matter where someone gets their healthcare, they have something to
lose if this case is upheld. Madam Speaker, that is why the House of
Representatives must intervene in this case. We need to stand with the
American people, the overwhelming majority of whom support the crucial
benefits of the Affordable Care Act.
The administration is unwilling to intervene in this case and protect
the rights of Americans; thus, it is up to Congress to defend and
uphold this law and all of the crucial protections it provides for our
citizens.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 5, the previous
question is ordered on the portion of the divided question comprising
title III.
The question is on that portion of the divided question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-
[[Page H346]]
minute vote on the portion of the divided question comprising title III
will be followed by 5-minute votes on:
The motion to recommit on H.R. 264; and
Passage of H.R. 264.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 235,
nays 192, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 19]
YEAS--235
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brindisi
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cummings
Cunningham
Davids (KS)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Foster
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Hill (CA)
Himes
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
=========================== NOTE ===========================
January 9, 2019, in the Roll Call Vote on page H346, the surname
of Mr. Luján was typeset incorrectly Luján, Ben
Ray.
The online version has been corrected to show the surname
typeset correctly.
========================= END NOTE =========================
Luria
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McAdams
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Reed
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stevens
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Van Drew
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NAYS--192
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Bost
Brady
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson (OH)
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Estes
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (OH)
Gooden
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meadows
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rooney (FL)
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spano
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Waltz
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yoho
Young
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--6
Buck
Frankel
Guest
Jones
Lynch
Mast
{time} 1650
Mr. MARCHANT changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the portion of the divided question comprising title III was
agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________