[Pages H713-H722]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 596, REPEAL OF THE PATIENT
PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 70 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 70

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 596) to
repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and
health care-related provisions in the Health Care and
Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, and for other purposes.
All points of order against consideration of the bill are
waived. The amendment printed in the report of the Committee
on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as
adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read.
All points of order against provisions in the bill, as
amended, are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any
further amendment thereto, to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) 90 minutes of debate equally
divided among and controlled by the respective chairs and
ranking minority members of the Committees on Education and
the Workforce, Energy and Commerce, and Ways and Means; and
(2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoder). The gentleman from Texas is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 70 provides for a rule to
consider the full repeal of the flawed and ill-conceived Affordable
Care Act.
The rule provides for 90 minutes of debate, divided and controlled by
the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the Committee on Ways and Means,
and the Committee on Education and the Workforce. Further, the rule
self-executes the Byrne amendment, which provides for a clean repeal of
the entire Affordable Care Act. The rule further provides the minority
with one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
This approach--a full repeal--will give the House, particularly
freshmen from both parties, an opportunity to have an up-or-down vote
on the Affordable Care Act.
More than just a full repeal, the legislation before us provides for
a process whereby the committees of jurisdiction are tasked with coming
up with a replacement for the flawed law now being implemented. We know
what ideas don't work. Those are the ideas enshrined into law in the
Affordable Care Act. Now let's look toward ideas that will work.

{time} 1230

I do look forward to working with the Energy and Commerce Committee's
chairman, Fred Upton, to craft meaningful legislation that will
actually help the American people instead of strangle them with more
government regulation, which is what the Affordable Care Act actually
does.
Americans should have the freedom to make their own health care
decisions. In March of 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act was signed into law. It was drafted quickly and behind closed
doors. It included secret deals, loopholes, drafting errors, and
funding cliffs that allowed Federal agencies to be created without
congressional knowledge or oversight.
More and more of the Affordable Care Act's supporters are having to
admit to

[[Page H714]]

the American people that, in their rush to pass a bill, the same people
who put their voting cards in the slot and helped the ACA become law
didn't actually know what was in the bill.
Now people are finding out what is in the bill, and they are upset.
So upset are the American people that in every election for the House
and Senate since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, more and more
Republicans were chosen to replace supporters of the flawed law.
Indeed, this past fall, President Obama, in no uncertain terms,
declared:

Make no mistake, my policies are on the ballot.

It is actually one of the few times I have ever agreed with this
President. His policies were on the ballot, and the American people
soundly rejected them, placing a historic majority of Republicans in
the House and taking control of the Senate out of the hands of Harry
Reid.
The bottom line: the drafting and passage of the Affordable Care Act
was not the way to achieve meaningful reform. Many errors occurred
through the language. This is why the Supreme Court this spring will be
hearing a case that could upend the Affordable Care Act's subsidy
structure. This case is entirely the fault of people who drafted and
implemented the bill so poorly.
With the Supreme Court case looming, this body--this body--must be
prepared to work for the American people and stave off the possible
chaos which could ensue. The health care system in America needs reform
and improvement, but the law that was passed will cost the American
taxpayer millions of dollars, will not improve care, nor will it make
it more affordable.
The bill that this House will vote on puts in place a procedure that
will begin the process of crafting a replacement that could truly bring
affordable access to health care to all Americans. The so-called
Affordable Care Act does not accomplish that goal.
We need to start, and start fresh, and we need to address the issues
with commonsense improvements that focus on the real issues at hand:
creating a health care system that is focused on patients instead of
payment, quality instead of quantity, affordability instead of
cheapness, and innovation instead of stagnation. The first step is
eliminating this bad legislation that simply does not work. That is
why, today, I strongly support the repeal of the President's health
care law.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas
for the customary 30 minutes.
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I rise in very strong opposition to this
closed rule and to the underlying bill. Let me just say to my
colleagues, to make it crystal clear, that this is an absolutely closed
rule.
This bill had no hearings in any of the committees of jurisdiction;
it was not reported out by any of the committees of jurisdiction; and
the Committee on Rules decided last night that no Member, no Republican
or Democrat, has the right to offer any amendments. This is a closed
process.
Whatever happened to regular order?
So, Mr. Speaker, here we are again, back on the House floor with yet
another pointless attempt by the Republican majority to repeal the
Affordable Care Act. Today's exercise in time-wasting gamesmanship
marks the 56th time that we have been down this well-traveled road.
Fifty-six. Let's see. That is two score and 16. It is 4\1/2\ dozen.
But no matter how you add it up, it has to be some sort of world record
in political futility.
So it is tempting to say that nothing has changed, but that is not
exactly true because, in fact, a great deal has changed since my
Republican colleagues first tried to repeal the ACA. Here are some of
the things that changed:
The number of uninsured Americans has dropped by 10 million people; 3
million young adults have been able to gain coverage through a parent's
plan; insurance companies can no longer discriminate on the basis of a
so-called preexisting condition, like, say, being a woman; lifetime
limits and caps on coverage have been eliminated; seniors have saved
more than $11 billion in prescription drugs, an average of $1400 per
Medicare beneficiary; copays and deductibles for preventive services
for Medicare patients have been eliminated, and the solvency of the
Medicare trust fund has been extended by 13 years; and the growth in
health care spending in this country is the slowest on record, while
health care price inflation is at its lowest rate in 50 years.
All that has happened thanks to the Affordable Care Act. If the
Republicans get their way, much of it will disappear in an instant. If
Republicans get their way, millions of Americans would lose their
health care coverage, millions more would lose the subsidies they
receive to purchase plans, millions of children would lose CHIP
coverage, millions of seniors would lose benefits, and the deficit
would increase.
So let's be crystal clear, Mr. Speaker: this is no longer a
theoretical political exercise; this is very, very, very real. If this
Republican bill were ever to become law, then real people would see
real benefits taken away. That is why President Obama has said very
plainly that he would veto this bill if it ever reached his desk.
There is something else new about this 56th version of Republicans
banging their heads against a brick wall. For the first time, according
to Politico:

House Republicans want to postpone the full repeal of
ObamaCare for 6 months to allow time to come up with a
replacement plan.

I have to say, Mr. Speaker, when I read that, I actually laughed out
loud. The health care crisis in this country has been happening for
years and years--decades. How many studies have been done? How many
reports issued? How many hearings and debates and news stories? But
after all of that, my Republican friends still need another 6 months to
come up with a replacement plan.
Here is an idea. Let's vote down this rule with the understanding
that in 6 months--actually, I will give you 7, until after Labor Day--
that in 7 months you will be back here with your magic replacement
plan, which I assume will be flown in on a unicorn sliding down a
rainbow.
I will tell you why, Mr. Speaker. Because Republicans have absolutely
no intention of actually doing the hard work of health care reform.
This is just a gimmick. It is a chance for their new freshmen to cast
their symbolic vote against ObamaCare so they can put out a press
release and act like they have accomplished something.

As the Washington Examiner reported:

Republicans know that the repeal legislation isn't ever
going to become law. ``We are just getting it out of the
way,'' one GOP aide told the Examiner when asked about the
repeal vote.

Just getting it out of the way, Mr. Speaker? What a cynical abuse of
this House. It is a sham. It is a waste of everyone's time. It deserves
to be defeated in this House, and if it ever makes it out of the
Senate, it deserves the quickest veto President Obama can muster.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).
Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill. I may be
new to this Chamber, but it sure seems like Groundhog Day around here
to me. This is the 56th time my friends on the other side of the aisle
have tried to repeal or weaken this landmark law, and the puzzle for me
is that I know that they believe in so many of the provisions and
support them.
Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, millions of people who
didn't have insurance now have it and have signed up for the
marketplace plans; 299,000 in Michigan alone.
I know my friends on the other side of the aisle believe that
nobody's health coverage should be dropped when they suddenly get
diagnosed with cancer. I know my friends on the other side of the aisle
don't want to tell 129 million Americans that they are going to be
denied insurance because they have a preexisting condition. I know my
friends don't want to kick young people off their parents' insurance
plan, and I know they never want to go

[[Page H715]]

back to the days of lifetime caps on health coverage or tell seniors
they have got to start paying more for their medicine again. This is
why I am totally perplexed, because if this bill were to pass, over 9.5
million Americans would be hurt and left behind without access to
quality, affordable coverage.
The ACA may not be perfect. The last perfect law that there was
agreement on was the Ten Commandments; and honestly, in today's
climate, I am not sure we could get it through the Congress today. I
urge my colleagues to work together with us on how to improve the law
instead of constantly trying to do something they don't believe in.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 4
minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), the chairman of the
Committee on Rules.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise on the floor today
really for two reasons, perhaps three. First of all, to support and
defend the Committee on Rules last night where we overwhelmingly are in
favor of making sure that every Member of this body has an opportunity
to vote up or down on this terrible piece of legislation that is the
law that is known as the Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare.
This last election the people of this country openly asked the
question in many districts across this country: Are you for or against
this terrible law that was put through this Congress without one
Republican vote? So it is only obvious that every single new Member of
this body would want to have an opportunity to vote up or down.
Secondly, I want to defend the gentleman, Dr. Burgess, a member of
our committee, who was attacked last night. I unfortunately had taken 2
or 3 minutes away from the chair to attend to some other matters of the
committee and was not available to be in the chair.
Thirdly, I want to stand up for my State of Texas. In defense of the
State of Texas, there has been a lot of talk about Texas lately, not
just last night, but lately. So I want to make sure that people have a
better understanding to know why Texans are being attacked, and that is
because we reject big, liberal government that is embodied in the laws
that are known as ObamaCare, or the Affordable Care Act.
In defense of our great State of Texas, we represent people of the
State of Texas, and I strongly stand with my fellow Texan and fellow
committee member, the gentleman from Lewisville, Texas, Dr. Michael
Burgess. Dr. Burgess is not just a proud member of our delegation and a
proud Member who represents Texas, just as I do, born in Waco, Texas,
but I stand today for why Texas is a great State.
Evidently we have got to defend our honor. It was done last night in
the Committee on Rules; it is being done today on the floor of the
House of Representatives. I stand in defense of Texas; although Texas I
don't think really needs much defense.
Texans are proud people, and we have been a proud people since the
days of the Alamo and San Jacinto. That is when we used to be our own
nation. Texans are fiercely independent, and we, I think, lead to the
very best not only for ourselves, but we are trying to do that also for
America.
Texas is thriving, and the reason why we are thriving is because of
economic growth, robust job creation, and overall quality of life.
American families and businesses all across this country, I think, look
to Texas as the leader in freedom and economic opportunity. That is
what the Lone Star State is.
In our system of federalism, people can also vote with their feet. In
the last 5 years, the Texas population grew by 1.8 million people.
People from all over the United States, all 50 States, found a brighter
future for themselves in Texas.
Over 1.6 million veterans call Texas home. These are men and women
who fought for the freedoms that we enjoy and have today. Because of
our communities, they support our veterans, and people know when they
look to Texas, those people in Texas care about veterans and protecting
our country.

{time} 1245

Our churches, our schools, our hospitals, and our charities all lead
the way in providing our citizens with things so that the government
does not have to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BURGESS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. SESSIONS. Yesterday, in the Rules Committee, Dr. Burgess was
merely reflecting the views of our home State and the people who live
there. Our Nation does better when we allow individuals to succeed,
rather than look to government. We need to have a limited government,
and people will then have more freedom.
While some people may think that limited government and empowering
families is ``crazy,'' I disagree. I think the numbers prove it. Texas
has been called the great American job machine because we are the State
that leads the Nation and the world. In fact, if Texas were its own
country, it would have the 13th highest GDP in the world.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for the wonderful commercial
for Texas. We all should visit Texas.
He said something that I thought was particularly interesting. He
said: We're bringing this bill to the floor because every freshman
deserves a vote on the repeal of the Affordable Care Act.
I guess I would ask the chairman: Does he believe that every freshman
also deserves a vote on increasing the minimum wage or on comprehensive
immigration reform or on adequate child care for our children in this
country or on a whole number of other issues which we have routinely
been denied the right to even have a vote on these issues on the House
floor, which is supposed to be the greatest deliberative body in the
world?
What he neglects to tell everybody, including these freshmen--some of
whom are Republicans--is that under this rule, you can't amend
anything. You have been totally locked out.
The committees of jurisdiction didn't hold a hearing. The committees
of jurisdiction didn't hold a markup. Nothing was reported out of any
of these committees, notwithstanding the fact that they have been
constituted and organized--nothing.
It just shows up in the Rules Committee, and they bring it to the
floor under a completely closed process. This is a lousy way to run a
Congress.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Matsui).
Ms. MATSUI. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the rule and the
underlying legislation.
Here we go again. This bill marks yet another attempt by the
Republican majority to repeal the Affordable Care Act but the first
time after implementation of many of the provisions that Americans have
relied upon.
People think the ACA only provides the ability to buy health
insurance on an exchange or marketplace. Yes, it is a new way to shop
for health insurance in which you can compare plans apples to apples.
Yes, it is a way to obtain subsidies to make that coverage more
affordable. Yes, with all these benefits, people can join the system
and cover themselves prior to a medical catastrophe.
However, the Affordable Care Act has also accomplished so much more
than that. Repealing the law lock, stock, and barrel that has been in
place for nearly 5 years is not in anyone's best interest.
As an example, the ACA created the prevention and public health fund,
an unprecedented mandatory investment in States' public health systems.
The need for this investment has become increasingly evident after
public health emergencies in recent months--evidenced by Ebola and,
today, measles.
Repealing the ACA today would mean 129 million Americans could again
be denied insurance coverage for preexisting conditions. It would mean
Americans would no longer have access to free preventive services such
as vaccines, disease screenings, well-child visits, and tobacco
cessation.
I heard from one of my constituents Lara who, as a freelance film
producer with a former cancer diagnosis, found getting health insurance
to be impossible. Thanks to the ACA, she now has

[[Page H716]]

coverage and is able to have regular checkups to make sure that the
cancer does not return.
Do you want to take away all of that? The health care providers,
health plans, and consumer advocates in my district and across the
country have worked hard to put these provisions in place and to make
the ACA work.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
Ms. MATSUI. We can't take this away now. It works.
I urge my colleagues to vote down the rule and the underlying
legislation.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), a member of the Energy and
Commerce Committee.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Dr. Burgess. You are doing an outstanding
job with this course and health care in general. I appreciate it so
very much. I know my constituents do.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying
bill to repeal and replace the President's health care law.
Health care reform should lower costs and increase access; instead,
the President's signature piece of legislation didn't let people keep
the plans they liked, raised health care premiums, and cut Medicare by
$500 billion.
When the President said, ``If you like your plan, you can keep it,''
my constituents told me that wasn't true. On average, a 30-year-old
woman in Pasco County, Florida, will see her prices increase over 30
percent. Costs haven't been lowered. It is as simple as that.
The Obama administration willingly cut Medicare to pay for a health
care law that was poorly written and implemented.
Support H.R. 596, and repeal this law, and support a patient-
centered, free market alternative that will lower costs and increase
access to care.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
There is no replacement here. All the Republicans want to do is repeal
the Affordable Care Act and take away all these important benefits that
people have received as a result of it.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Thank you, Mr. McGovern, for giving me a chance to
tell a little personal story about the success of the Affordable Care
Act and its impact on the Perlmutter family.
On election day, my wife, a teacher in the Jeffco school system in
Colorado, who had hardly ever been to the hospital, had something that
they thought was pretty devastating. She went into surgery on election
day.
It turned out it was exploratory. A very rare condition was exposed
which required a second surgery. Only a handful of surgeons across this
country deal with that kind of condition. The surgeons who do it were
outside of the network of the original insurance company that provided
insurance for her.
Because of the Affordable Care Act, we were able to go into the
exchange and find an insurance company through an outstanding insurance
broker. Rocky Mountain Health Plans had a surgeon who could handle this
kind of condition and was within their network.
It provided her with fantastic medical care and peace of mind that
she was going to somebody who knew precisely what they were doing, and
it was all because of the Affordable Care Act.
Under the Affordable Care Act, you cannot discriminate against people
with a preexisting condition; so for her, she was able to have the
peace of mind that is required for recovery. She got the best medical
care possible through a coverage that was professional and prompt in
its service.
Physically, mentally, and emotionally, the Affordable Care Act helped
her find a physician equipped and qualified to help her condition.
The Affordable Care Act is a civil rights act, and it has got to be
upheld.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth), a member of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
Mr. YARMUTH. I thank my friend from Massachusetts.
Mr. Speaker, today, we will take our 56th vote to repeal or undermine
the Affordable Care Act.
In my home State of Kentucky--a nationwide success story of this
law--521,000 Kentuckians enrolled in health coverage last year. That is
more than a half a million people in a State with a population of just
over 4 million. Seventy-five percent of those who signed up were
previously uninsured.
These are maps of before and after uninsured rates in our 120
counties. The orange and red represent uninsured rates of 14 percent to
more than 20 percent. The dark blue is less than 5 percent.
Today, after the Affordable Care Act, every single county has had a
reduction in their uninsured rates. In some areas, uninsured rates have
plummeted by more than 65 percent.
As we watch these uninsured rates drop, as the counties on this map
go from red to green or blue, that is another person getting the care
or treatment they need, a family's future transformed, lives saved.
This law is a success. The Affordable Care Act is working, and you
need to look no further than the Commonwealth of Kentucky to see the
proof.
Repealing the Affordable Care Act at this stage would be an absolute
death sentence to thousands of people in the Commonwealth of Kentucky
and throughout the country. We cannot let this happen.
I urge a vote against the rule and the underlying legislation.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire of the gentleman from Texas
if he has any more speakers?
Mr. BURGESS. Yes.
Mr. McGOVERN. I was just curious because it seems like there is no
enthusiasm on your side for debating this for the 56th time.
Mr. BURGESS. I generally reserve my enthusiasm for closing.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will
offer an amendment to the rule for consideration of legislation that
would encourage schools to provide career education about local
manufacturing jobs.
To discuss our proposal, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Brownley).
Ms. BROWNLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, instead of wasting time on
bills that would strip health care away from millions of Americans, we
should be focusing on legislation like my bill, the American
Manufacturing Jobs for Students Act, which will help connect young
people to highly skilled manufacturing jobs in their own communities. A
strong middle class begins with early and effective career education.
Small business owners in my district have told me time and time again
that they cannot find the workforce they need in the communities where
they are located. Many high school graduates are underemployed and have
trouble finding innovative and inspiring careers close to home.
My bill would bridge that gap by fostering connections between
manufacturing jobs, small businesses, and schools. It will support
student engagement and professional relationships with local businesses
through workplace visits and hands-on learning experiences. It will
strengthen the economy and help employers find the employees they need
close to home.
By giving middle and high school students the opportunity to learn
firsthand about exciting and innovative careers in manufacturing, we
can strengthen our country's economic competitiveness. We can also
encourage manufacturers to keep their production in the United States.
We should do all we can to ensure that job creators stay here to
provide opportunities for our own constituents. We should be working
together on bills like the American Manufacturing Jobs for Students Act
and not on bills which are dead on arrival when they reach the
President's desk.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion on ordering the
previous question on the rule.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, Dr. Dan Benishek.
Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule
and the underlying bill.

[[Page H717]]

I have been a doctor in northern Michigan for 30 years, and I have
always put the needs of my patients first. I believe it is time for
Congress to do the same thing today.
We need to get to work on finding bipartisan and commonsense
solutions that will put the patient and their doctor back in control of
health care decisions and help lower the cost of health care while
maintaining the quality.

{time} 1300

We need to focus on things like allowing people to purchase health
insurance across State lines, just like we can already do with car
insurance, making health insurance portable so you can take it with you
from job to job, another simple change that would improve access to
health care. A few of these simple changes would dramatically improve
the quality of care available while lowering the overall cost.
Many of the patients that I have been talking to tell me their health
insurance has gone up, their deductible has gone up. This is not
bringing more health care to the American people. This is bringing less
health care to the American people. They have less access to care now
than they have had in the past.
I hope all my colleagues today will join me in voting ``yes'' on H.R.
596 so that we can finally pass patient-centered improvements to our
Nation's health care system.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am puzzled by what I just heard from the gentleman
about all these alternatives to fix and improve our health care system.
Four years ago, the Republicans passed an identical bill like the one
we are considering today in which they said they ordered their
committees to report out alternative replacement language or their
vision of what a health care reform should be. That was 4 years ago.
They have done nothing but demagogue this issue for 4 years, and here
we are again today, playing political gamesmanship with a bill to
repeal the Affordable Care Act and take away health insurance for
millions of Americans, increase prescription drug prices for our senior
citizens, raise taxes on middle class families, and they have nothing
to replace it with. This is a waste of our time. This is an insult to
the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for
his leadership on this important issue, as important as the health of
the American people.
I salute Congresswoman Brownley for her alternative bill that we
should be voting on, if we can defeat this rule, that helps students
get manufacturing jobs, just what we have been asking for, a
collaboration between business and education where kids are trained for
good-paying jobs as they leave school.
Instead, the Republicans are putting forth this rule that would, once
again, for the 56th time, repeal the Affordable Care Act.
We come together on the floor of the House right now, when we need to
pass a homeland security bill to protect the American people. The
Speaker said in December, when we didn't pass the appropriation bill
for the year, we will do it after the first of the year.
In January, the world was alarmed by what they saw in Paris. The
whole world was galvanized around the issue of fighting terrorism and
protecting homeland security, except in this hermetically sealed House
Chamber.
We still haven't done what we take an oath to do: support and protect
the American people when we take an oath of office to uphold the
Constitution of the United States. Instead, we have the Republicans
continuing to bay at the Moon. They are baying at the Moon, something
that is not going to work; and instead of proposing any, which we would
be welcome to hear, good suggestions they may have to approve the
Affordable Care Act, they are baying at the Moon--56 times.
We have important work to do for the American people. They want us
here to create jobs. They want us here to protect them. We need to pass
that homeland security bill. Instead, in our hermetically sealed world,
oblivious to what is going on outside, we are taking this up.
They want to strip health security from America's families. They are
willing to threaten what that means to our economy, willing to
jeopardize the need for us to lower costs for businesses is what this
bill does.
I have said over and over again, even if everyone loves his or her
health insurance or his or her health care, even if that were the case
in our country, we would still have had to pass the Affordable Care Act
because the cost to individuals, to families, to businesses large and
small, to governments--local, State, and national--the cost was
unsustainable. That was one of the things the Affordable Care Act set
out to do, and I am so pleased to show that the statistics show that
the rate of growth of health costs is going at a lower rate than ever
in our history--very important.
The CBO projected that this bill would save--what?--hundreds of
billions of dollars, maybe up to $1 trillion over its projected life,
the life that we have to account for when we put it before us.
So this is about the health of our people. It is about the health of
our economy. It is about lowering costs.
It is important to know what is at stake, because families are seeing
the full promise of the Affordable Care Act emerge, to make health care
a right for all, not a privilege for the few:
8.2 million seniors have saved more than $11.5 billion on their
prescription drugs since this bill passed, an average of $1,407 per
senior;
105 million Americans no longer have a lifetime limit or an annual
limit on their coverage. This is what you want to repeal today;
129 million Americans with preexisting conditions no longer have to
worry about being denied coverage because of their health status. That
is what you want to repeal today.
It is also important to note that, with the success of the Affordable
Care Act and the 9.5 million people who are signed up in marketplaces,
including Medicaid expansion, 19 million uninsured Americans will be
covered in 2015.
In addition to that, the Affordable Care Act has pushed forth the
solvency of Medicare for 13 years longer. That is what you want to
repeal today.
Our Founders, how beautiful they were in all that they did and wrote
and their courage and their optimism for the future. They wrote about
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of
Independence. In that Declaration of Independence, that is the
independence we want to give people: for a healthier life, the liberty
to pursue their happiness without being job-locked because of a health
care policy, free to be self-employed, to start a business, to change
jobs, to pursue their happiness.
So this is about, again, the health of our country, not just the
health care of our country. On our path forward today, and in the
future, the Affordable Care Act will continue to rank up there with
Social Security, with Medicare, a third pillar of economic and health
security for the American people.
So I urge our colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule. Enable
Congresswoman Brownley's education proposal to match kids up with
skills and jobs, something that this country needs to move on to
legislation to create good-paying jobs, to add bigger paychecks for
America's working families, to stop the stagnation of wages, and to do
so in a way that understands how important health care is to reducing
the deficit in addition to improving the health of our country.

Again, by the way, the clock is ticking on the bill for homeland
security. That is our responsibility: to support and protect. Let's get
about the business that we take an oath to do instead of, for the 56th
time, bay at the Moon. It is hard to understand why we would waste the
time of this Chamber and the American people on this frivolous
resolution.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes for the purpose of
response.
First off, I don't know. Maybe people weren't paying attention, but
the House has passed a funding bill for the Department of Homeland
Security. It awaits action over in the Senate. So if the minority
leader is concerned, perhaps she can talk to people in the other

[[Page H718]]

body about whether or not it might be a good idea for them to take some
action, and that would be the correct way to proceed. The House acts;
the Senate acts. I refer people who are unclear on that concept to
``Schoolhouse Rock,'' and it will tell you how a bill becomes law.
People talk about the 56th time we have had something on the floor.
Obviously, I don't know that I can attest to the accuracy of that
count, but what I can attest to the accuracy of is that 11 times the
President of the United States has signed into law some action passed
by the House of Representatives and the Senate and then subsequently
signed by the President--11 times--modifying or changing his signature
legislation, the Affordable Care Act. Probably what is more telling is
the 28 times--28 times--that the President has simply set aside part of
his law because it wasn't convenient.
If the other side wants, I can go through and delineate these one by
one. I have, actually, a document prepared by the Galen Institute, and
I would refer people to them if they would like to look at this.
But really, some of the things that the President himself has set
aside--I mean, who can forget, in a blog post, the administration
setting aside the employer mandate, the entire employer mandate. Not
surprising, because when the President was a candidate and he came down
to Texas and debated Hillary Clinton for the nomination in 2008, he was
against the mandate, and then he was for it. So then he set it aside
right before the Fourth of July in 2013. And for people who aren't
paying attention, guess what? It actually started January 1 of this
year.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, if only we were debating another subsidy
for Big Oil or another tax break for some special corporate interest,
my colleagues would be down here with great joy advocating for it.
But when it comes to a bill to ensure that millions and millions of
our citizens get health insurance, they want to repeal it. When it
comes to protecting our senior citizens who are seeing their
prescription drugs being lowered because of this bill, they want to
repeal it. When it comes to eliminating preexisting conditions, they
want to repeal it. I mean, that tells you all you need to know about
where their priorities are.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Boyle).
Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the
gentleman from Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the
Republican majority.
As a new Member, I haven't had the opportunity to speak on this issue
on the House floor or vote on it. When I saw that the previous Congress
had voted 55 times to repeal the Affordable Care Act, I was a little
concerned that I would miss all the fun. So I am very happy that we now
have a 56th vote on this issue, and it gives me an opportunity to say
what a strong supporter I am of the Affordable Care Act.
This has worked. More than 10 million Americans have health insurance
today that otherwise would not have it. More than 3 million children
have been able to stay on their parents' plan who otherwise would not
have had health insurance. And another 3 million, on top of that, have
extra protections through State-affiliated agencies, such as CHIP, that
would not have it today if not for the Affordable Care Act.
Now, with the rate of the uninsured at its lowest percentage in
American history, you would think that with this success that maybe the
downside would be that health care costs would have gone through the
roof. In fact, quite the opposite has happened. We have just had a year
in which health care costs rose by the lowest rate in 50 years--and
this is something that all Americans can celebrate, Democrats and
Republicans.
So, Mr. Speaker, for the 56th time, this Congress will attempt to
repeal the entire Affordable Care Act. It is a mistake. I will join my
colleagues in voting against it.
I would say sincerely to Members on the other side, if there are
those who are willing to look openly at this issue and say, yes, it has
largely worked but let's address those areas that could do better, I
think you will find those, particularly new Members on this side of the
aisle, who are open-minded toward that and want to address areas that
can be improved. Look at all the times that Medicare has been improved
since its initial passage in 1965.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. King).

{time} 1315

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for
yielding and for leading around this Nation on this issue. So far away
from Texas as even Iowa, the gentleman from Texas has fought for the
full 100 percent repeal of ObamaCare and laid out, I think, a good
strategy for the future health care circumstances in America.
First, Mr. Speaker, I would say that, when this passed, many of us
went through a long battle here on the floor of the House of
Representatives and outside among the masses of people that came here
and surrounded the United States Capitol to plead: Do not take our
liberty. Let us manage our own health and our own health care, and let
us purchase a health insurance policy that is right for us, not one
that the government thinks is right for us, and let's do something that
is constitutional.
Well, we watched as that drama unfolded and engaged in that drama. I
have a number of scars left over from that. In the end, ObamaCare
passed by hook, by crook, and by legislative shenanigan. History shows
that. The litigation that has emerged and the litigation yet to emerge
will shape this to some degree, but this Congress needs to resolve
this.
What had happened was, in the election in 2010, 87 freshmen
Republicans were elected into office here to come, and every single one
of them ran on the full 100 percent repeal of ObamaCare. That was a
transformative election. It shifted the majority from the Democrats to
the Republicans, Mr. Speaker, a mandate to repeal ObamaCare. We acted
on that mandate.
In fact, the morning after ObamaCare was passed, I was at the door--
my staff was actually at the door. I had written a bill in the middle
of the night to repeal ObamaCare. I had the first draft to repeal
ObamaCare, a component of 40 words, and it applies to two sections of
the bill. That bill was drafted March 24, 2010. It was filed March 25,
2010. I filed a discharge petition down here on the floor on the 16th
of June 2010--it received 173 signatures--with Republicans in the
minority, Mr. Speaker. It has been a long effort.
We voted on the full repeal of ObamaCare, H.R. 2 by the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), on the 19th of January 2011; another repeal
by Mr. Cantor on the 9th of July 2012, always with the 40-word King
language in it; and again on the 16th of May 2013, H.R. 45.
We have been bringing the full repeal of ObamaCare here to the floor
over and over again to give everybody an opportunity--even those who
didn't have an opportunity to get involved in this debate--to go on
record and tell us where you want to see the future of the health care
circumstances here in the United States. Every Republican up to this
point has voted to repeal ObamaCare.
Every Member of the House, with the exception of those that were
sworn in for the first time this Congress, has had that chance. Now we
give everyone that chance, and we will send a full repeal over to the
Senate so the nine freshmen Republicans over there can clearly also go
on record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BURGESS. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
Because we want to elect a President who will take the oath on
January 20, 2017, to sign the repeal of ObamaCare at the podium on the
west portico of the Capitol as the very first act of the next President
of the United States.
So I thank the leadership for incorporating my language into this
bill. I thank those all across this country who have stepped up to
defend our constitutional liberties, our personal liberties. When this
is done, we will get to work on putting together a good health
insurance and health care delivery system in America in spite of all of
the

[[Page H719]]

time that we have lost fighting over this unconstitutional mess called
ObamaCare.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I just would remind the gentleman from
Iowa that there was a Republican Presidential candidate named Mitt
Romney who ran on the platform of total repeal of the Affordable Care
Act, and he lost. And, by the way, Obama won Iowa by 51-46.
With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms.
DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, yesterday was Groundhog Day. How
appropriate that the Republican majority chose today for their 56th
attempt to repeal or to undermine the Affordable Care Act. These
futile, ideological gestures are getting old.
The vote I cast for the health care law is one of the proudest I have
cast in my political career because the reforms that we put in place
are helping millions of families across the Nation. Americans can no
longer be denied coverage for a preexisting condition. Preventive
screenings, maternity care, and pediatric care are now all covered.
Seniors enjoy relief from high drug costs. Millions of low-income
children have health care through the CHIP program. Women's health has
been put on an equal footing. Insurers can no longer subject families
to lifetime caps on coverage. Annual caps are being phased out.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Affordable Care Act
has reduced the number of uninsured people by 12 million last year, 19
million this year. My Republican colleagues don't really care about
that because they have health care as a Member of Congress. Why should
they worry about people who do not have health care?
The CBO has also cut its estimate of the cost of rolling out coverage
to millions of Americans, a saving of $140 billion compared to previous
estimates. This is good news. It should be on the front page of every
newspaper.
The Affordable Care Act has succeeded by putting people--not
insurance companies--in charge of health care. It has given millions of
families care that they can depend on. We are a better country because
of it.
Let me say to my colleagues in the majority: Give it a rest. Get a
life. The American people like this law. The Supreme Court has upheld
it. We have had two elections around it. Stop trying to take away
people's health care benefits.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts for being astute in reminding us of the vast bipartisan
support for the important Affordable Care Act. If I might add, the past
Presidential candidate who lost was the same Governor, however, I
understand, that supported it and succeeded in his support of it at
that time.
But I think what is important is to again remind this Nation that we
are now on the 56th annual trip to repeal what has been a lifesaver to
Americans across the country. Let me simply share these very potent
points:
People not having health insurance include 20 percent of the
underinsured who delay receiving care when signs of illness appear; 15
percent of the underinsured had problems paying medical bills; 10
percent of the underinsured needed prescription drugs but could not
afford them; 8 percent were hounded by collection agencies, many of
them went into bankruptcy because of health issues--of course we have
tried to reform that--6 percent did not seek treatment even though they
needed it; and, of course, a report by the Congressional Budget Office,
The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2015 to 2025 states that the actual
cost of the Affordable Care Act is 7 percent lower than first
calculated in 2010.

Let me tell you the real issues, the story of a lady written up in
The Ledger, dated January 8, 2015, who was diagnosed with leukemia in
2013. She determined that her insurance at that time would not allow
her to have health insurance. Her words are: ``I thought I was going to
die,'' Ms. Gray said. In her scramble to try to get drugs, she was left
holding the bag, yet she was able to get the Affordable Care Act
starting on January 1, 2014. It gave her access to the recommended
chemotherapy. Her cancer went into remission in the fall, and she is
alive.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds
Ms. JACKSON LEE. What about the situation of the measles? Why do we
have this dead-end road again, repetitiously voting against the
valuable Affordable Care Act that has saved lives?
Does anybody know about Medicare? It goes on and on and on. And many
on the other side of the aisle opposed it in 1965.
I am going to stand on the right side of history and support the
Affordable Care Act. Vote against this untimely bill.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes for the purpose of
a response.
First off, when Medicare passed, it was passed with a bipartisan vote
in the House of Representatives, and that is a matter of historic
record. In fact, that is one of the weaknesses of the President's
takeover of health care in this country is that it passed only with
Democratic votes in both the House and the Senate on final passage.
Mr. Speaker, I also went through the number of times that the
President has unilaterally delayed, deferred, or simply dismissed parts
of his own law. One of, perhaps, the most troublesome, one of the most
curious, is when the President set aside entry into his own preexisting
pool in January of 2013, they did that because they were worried that
they were going to run out of money in the preexisting fund. But the
reality was that for anyone who was hoping to get coverage under the
preexisting pool beginning in January-February of 2013, they were told:
Sorry. Window closed. Go somewhere else.
Then to add further insult to injury, when they couldn't get the Web
site up and working at the end of 2013, they actually had to extend
coverage in the Federal preexisting pool until March of 2014 so those
patients would not be left out in the cold.
So the President has been deeply involved in delaying parts and
deferring parts and repealing parts of his very own law.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text
of the amendment that I intend to offer in the Record along with
extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous
question. This would be the amendment that Ms. Brownley of California
talked about, providing manufacturing training for our high school
students.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Now, Mr. Speaker, let me begin by talking about the
process. Let me say two words about this process: it stinks.
We have a bill before us today on the House floor that bypassed all
of the committees of jurisdiction. And I say to my colleagues,
Republicans and Democrats alike, if you are on the Energy and Commerce
Committee, on the Education and the Workforce Committee, or on the Ways
and Means Committee, you should be outraged that legislation that is
under your jurisdiction never went to your committees. It just showed
up in the Rules Committee last night. And on top of all of that, no
amendments are allowed; nobody can offer any ideas.
I have heard some of my Republican colleagues talk about they have
ideas for making the Affordable Care Act better or for replacing it.
They don't have the opportunity even to bring those ideas to this House
floor.
Four years ago, we voted on a similar measure which said that the
Republicans would have the committees of jurisdiction report out
alternatives. It is 4 years later, and we are doing the same thing over
and over and over again. It is a waste of taxpayer time. It is an
insult to the American people.
And as far as the substance of what my Republican friends are trying
to do, I just wonder if any of my friends on the other side of the
aisle would have the courage to say to people face to face, ``I am
going to take your health care away,'' because that is what this

[[Page H720]]

bill would do. That is what this bill would do, and it is shameful.
When I first ran for office, I said to my constituents that one of
the things I was committed to was to making sure that everybody in this
country had health insurance. Health care ought to be a right. Nobody
should have to worry whether or not they can afford to get the health
care that, quite frankly, every American is entitled to and deserves.
We have made a great stride forward with the Affordable Care Act.
Is it perfect? No.
Could it be better? Yes.
But to come up with bill after bill after bill, 56 times of repeal,
repeal, it is getting old. It is getting boring. People are sick of
this.
Let me just remind my colleagues about what this bill has
accomplished, just because this is no longer a theoretical, abstract
debate. These are some real things that have changed.
The number of insured Americans has dropped by about 10 million
people. I mean, that is a good thing. I am sorry my colleagues have a
problem with that. But I think most Americans, Democrats and
Republicans, think that is a good thing.
Three million young adults have been able to gain coverage through a
parent's plan. I think that is good.
Insurance companies can no longer discriminate on the basis of a so-
called preexisting condition, like, say, being a woman. I think that is
a great thing. I am sorry my colleagues have a problem with that.
Lifetime limits and caps on coverage have been eliminated. That is
wonderful.
Seniors have saved more than $11 billion in prescription drugs, an
average of $1,400 per Medicare beneficiary. That is positive. We knew
that there was a flaw, the doughnut hole, in the Medicare prescription
drug bill. This fixed it.
Copays and deductibles for preventive services for Medicare patients
have been eliminated, and the solvency of the Medicare trust fund has
been extended by 13 years. That is a good thing. Now, I know my friends
on the other side of the aisle want to privatize Medicare or have no
use for Medicare, but for those of us who want to see this program move
well into the next century in complete solvency, this is a good thing.

{time} 1330

The growth in health care spending in this country is the slowest on
record while health care price inflation is at its lowest rate in 50
years. This didn't happen by accident. This happened because we passed
the Affordable Care Act, and if Republicans get their way, all of these
things will disappear.
This is a debate, I think, about values more than anything else. This
is about whether or not we believe that everybody in this country ought
to have health insurance, whether or not we ought to make the reforms
that I have just mentioned part of the permanent culture of this
country.
I think this is good. I voted for the Affordable Care Act. I am proud
I voted for the Affordable Care Act. My friends, this issue about
health care and access to health care has been around for decades and
decades and decades, and my friends have done nothing.
Their prescription for health care reform has been: take two tax
breaks, and call me in the morning. That is the total reform that they
have advocated in the time I have been here and in the time I have been
paying attention to what has been going on in this Congress.
Mr. Speaker, it is time for us to appreciate that this Congress did
something positive in passing the Affordable Care Act, and we ought not
to let extremists on the other side take the protections away from the
American people.
We are going to fight you every step of the way because we believe
that people in this country are entitled to health insurance.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the
previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, let me first address the question of process because the
Affordable Care Act did pass in the 111th Congress. The Affordable Care
Act, as it came to the 111th Congress under then-Speaker Pelosi, was
not a bill that had been considered in any of the committees of
jurisdiction. H.R. 3590 came to us from the Senate of the United
States.
Now, in fairness, H.R. 3590 had passed the floor of the House, I
believe it was July of 2009; but H.R. 3590, when it passed the floor of
the House, was a bill dealing with veterans housing.
So it goes over to the Senate to await further work, and to be sure,
in the meantime, H.R. 3200 and then a couple of follow-on bills were
marked up in committees, and then the Speaker condensed things and
introduced her own bill.
We heard it on the floor of the House; and, indeed, it passed in
November of 2009. Mr. Speaker, that was the end of the line for that
bill. No one has seen or heard from it again.
My friends on the other side may remember some parts of that bill.
What about the Independent Payment Advisory Board? Was that included in
the House-passed bill? No, it was not.
Well, there was a public option because the Democrats felt very
strongly about having a public option. Really, they wanted a single-
payer system, so a way to move to a single-payer system was to include
the public option, but the public option wasn't in H.R. 3590.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3590, a House-passed bill dealing with veterans
housing, went over to the Senate where, sometime between Thanksgiving
and Christmas, it was pulled out of Harry Reid's desk and amended.
The amendment read ``strike all after the enacting clause and
insert.'' All of the housing language was removed, and all of the
health care language was inserted. This travesty was passed on
Christmas Eve in 2009.
A big snowstorm was bearing down on Washington, D.C., Senators wanted
to get home to be with their families before the airport closed, and so
it was passed in the early hours of Christmas Eve in 2009.
Now, shortly after that, Massachusetts had a special election to fill
the vacancy that occurred after the unfortunate death of Senator
Kennedy. That vacancy was filled for the first time by a Republican
from Massachusetts.
I think that was really the first time since the Earth cooled, the
first time that a Republican had been elected from Massachusetts. The
critical point on that was that Harry Reid no longer had 60 votes over
in the Senate.
Prior to that, he had been pretty much impervious: I have got 60
votes. I am going to do what I want. Democrats can bust a filibuster on
anything because they have got 60 votes.
After the loss of that 60th vote, H.R. 3590 could not be changed--or
at least Harry Reid's assertion was that it could not be changed, and
Speaker Pelosi would simply have to pass what he gave her.
Now, there was a lot of resistance here on the House to passing--even
on the Democratic side--there was a lot of resistance to passing that
bill that came over from the Senate because it was not a House product.
It had the Independent Payment Advisory Board in it. It didn't have a
public option in it. Many of the Democratic Members were reluctant to
engage on this. In fact, I think the quote from Speaker Pelosi that day
was: I don't have 100 votes for this thing over on the House side.
Over the ensuing 3 months, they did convince and cajole enough of
their Members to pass this by the slimmest of majorities in the early
part of March of 2010, and that leads us to where we are today.
Mr. Speaker, it was the 111th Congress that passed this thing. I had
18 amendments to the Affordable Care Act that I dutifully took up to
the Rules Committee when we were in the minority and said: Look, I
don't like what you are doing, but let's at least keep it from being
quite the problem that it is going to be.
Every one of those was rejected. I lost on a 9-4 vote. No surprise--
it is the Speaker's committee, she held the votes on the committee, but
don't tell me that this was a process of anything other than what was a
very flawed and partisan process.
Now, several people today have referenced the Founders and the
Declaration of Independence. The reality is,

[[Page H721]]

Mr. Speaker, we are a country that was founded on the principle of
government with the consent of the governed.
No one was asking for this thing. No one wanted this thing. Sure, 14
percent of people in this country have been helped, so they like it.
Seventeen percent have been hurt, such as myself. I lost my health
savings account under the Affordable Care Act. Seventeen percent of the
country doesn't like it.
Most everyone else feels as if, ``I am basically unaffected, I may
have a problem ideologically either pro or con, but I have not been
affected.''
Mr. Speaker, I do recommend that people pay attention. The employer
mandate actually became effective January 1 of this year. It won't
really affect people until next year when medium-sized businesses begin
to file their taxes and find that if they have not kept up with all of
the laborious reporting requirements and paperwork requirements under
the employer mandate, they are going to be in a world of hurt when they
file their taxes for calendar year 2015.
Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of a bill to
repeal the Affordable Care Act, a piece of legislation that the
American people have time and again said they do not want.
I thank Mr. Byrne for his legislation and for working on this matter.
I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying bill.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 70 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
That immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
645) to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 to provide career education pathways in manufacturing.
The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and
the Workforce. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All
points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At
the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports
that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the
next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the
third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,
resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.

Sec. 2. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of
H.R. 645.
____

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. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on adopting House Resolution 70, if ordered,
and agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 242,
nays 176, not voting 15, as follows:

[Roll No. 54]

YEAS--242

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

[[Page H722]]

Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke

NAYS--176

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

NOT VOTING--15

Cardenas
Chu (CA)
Davis, Danny
Duckworth
Gutierrez
Langevin
Lee
Lofgren
Nunnelee
Roe (TN)
Rush
Smith (WA)
Tsongas
Wilson (FL)
Young (AK)

{time} 1405

Messrs. CARSON of Indiana, CUELLAR, Ms. HAHN, Mr. COOPER, Mrs.
TORRES, Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, and Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 242,
noes 178, not voting 13, as follows:

[Roll No. 55]

AYES--242

NOES--178

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

NOT VOTING--13

Chu (CA)
Duckworth
Gutierrez
Langevin
Lee
Lofgren
Nunnelee
Roe (TN)
Rush
Smith (WA)
Tsongas
Wilson (FL)
Young (AK)

{time} 1413

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.

____________________