ADOPTING THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE 116TH CONGRESS; Congressional Record Vol. 165, No. 4
(House of Representatives - January 09, 2019)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.


[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, Ben Ray
     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.

                          ____________________