[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 102 (Wednesday, July 17, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H4534-H4543]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2668, FAIRNESS FOR AMERICAN
FAMILIES ACT; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2667, AUTHORITY
FOR MANDATE DELAY ACT
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 300 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 300
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
2668) to delay the application of the individual health
insurance mandate. All points of order against consideration
of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read.
All points of order against provisions in the bill are
waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2)
one motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2667) to
delay the application of the employer health insurance
mandate, and for other purposes. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the bill are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways
and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 3. (a) In the engrossment of H.R. 2668, the Clerk
shall--
(1) add the text of H.R. 2667, as passed by the House, as
new matter at the end of H.R. 2668;
(2) conform the title of H.R. 2668 to reflect the addition
of the text of H.R. 2667, as passed by the House, to the
engrossment;
(3) assign appropriate designations to provisions within
the engrossment; and
(4) conform cross-references and provisions for short
titles within the engrossment.
(b) Upon the addition of the text of H.R. 2667, as passed
by the House, to the engrossment of H.R. 2668, H.R. 2667
shall be laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Denham). The gentleman from Texas is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. BURGESS. For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30
minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 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 300 provides for
consideration of two closely related bills, H.R. 2667, the Authority
for Mandate Delay, and H.R. 2668, the Fairness for American Families
Act. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate for each bill,
controlled by the Committee on Ways and Means. Further, the minority
will be offered a motion to recommit on each bill. Because the issues
before us in these two bills are so closely linked, the rule provides
that, upon passage, the Clerk will merge the text
[[Page H4535]]
of both bills into a single measure to send to the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, we're here today because the President has decided that
he alone, without consultation, without advice, consent, or even notice
to the United States Congress, has the sole authority to decide which
laws he will and which laws he will not enforce. The President has done
this with regard to immigration laws; he has done this with regard to
duly enacted marriage laws; and now, in an act of too true hubris, he
has done this with respect to his own signature issue, the President's
health care law.
In a July 2, 2013, blog post--a blog post; not a letter, not a phone
call, not a press conference, not even a press release, but a blog
post--the President announced three significant changes to his health
care law that we have been assured over and over is perfect, it's on
track, it's on schedule, we will be ready. But this announcement,
posted just before the July 4th holiday, 6 p.m. eastern time, on July
2, when the administration knew that everyone in the country was
preparing to celebrate this country's independence, spending time with
their families, everyone's attention was diverted so they did not
notice that two major provisions to the President's signature piece of
legislation were being postponed:
First, the requirement that employers report data to the Internal
Revenue Service are postponed for a year;
Second, the requirement that large employers offer coverage to full-
time workers or pay a penalty. Large employers are defined as having 50
or more full-time equivalent workers. Well, that's postponed; and
Third, the requirement that coverage offered by large companies be
not more than 9.5 percent of an employee's pay for his or her
individual coverage.
With the President's supporters chanting they can't wait any longer
for the benefits of the health care law to go into effect, the
President has responded and told them, ``Just wait.''
In showing that the House Republicans and the President can, in fact,
come together and agree upon an issue, Mr. Griffin from Arkansas
introduced H.R. 2667, the Authority for Mandate Delay Act, providing
the President with the statutory authority that he has already usurped
and codifying the President's announcement.
{time} 1245
Although Republicans have long held that all provisions in the health
care bill should be delayed--delayed permanently--we can at least come
together when we are on the same page as the President and support his
efforts by passing his announcement into law.
However, while he's giving a pass to employers by not requiring them
to offer health care coverage next year, he is giving no such pass to
individual citizens. The individual mandate and other elements of the
Affordable Care Act remain unchanged. Republicans believe providing
relief to businesses while denying that same relief to individuals is
inherently unfair.
For this reason, Representative Todd Young from Indiana has
introduced H.R. 2668, the Fairness for American Families Act. This bill
would provide the same relief to individuals and families that the
President has provided to business owners. It is the fair thing to do.
It is the right thing to do.
The President has justified his postponement of the employer mandate
by pointing out that the regulations surrounding the mandate are just
so very complicated, businesses will need at least one more year to
comply. And, quite frankly, his administration will need at least one
more year to put the regulations into place. This is the same argument
that could be used for the individual mandate. I am highly skeptical,
as are many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, that this
administration will be able to have the exchanges and the insurance
programs up and running.
Remember, open enrollment starts in just a few weeks, October 1 of
this year, a prerequisite for the individual mandate to be able to be
implemented. Although officials from the administration repeatedly
claim they are on track to implement this law and meet its deadlines,
the employer mandate postponement shows that the train, in fact, is not
coming off the rails, it's already off the rails with regard to
implementation.
On October 1, navigating the exchanges will be a nightmare for our
constituents, and yet the administration has turned its back on giving
them any relief from their law. Even the law's original proponents are
beginning to become more vocal about the law's unintended consequences
and negative effects on Americans' lives. In a letter sent to Nancy
Pelosi and Leader Reid last Friday, three major unions wrote:
When you and the President sought our support for the
Affordable Care Act, you pledged that if we liked the health
plans we have now, we could keep them. Sadly, that promise is
under threat. Right now, unless you and the Obama
administration enact an equitable fix, the Affordable Care
Act will shatter not only our hard-earned benefits, but
destroy the foundation of the 40-hour workweek that is the
backbone of the American middle class.
After detailing in the letter how Democrats have repeatedly ignored
the unions' pleas to fix this ill-conceived bill, the letter concludes:
Time is running out: Congress wrote this law; we voted for
you. We have a problem; you need to fix it. The unintended
consequences of the Affordable Care Act are severe. Perverse
incentives are already creating nightmare scenarios.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Democrats will join Republicans today
and, quite frankly, follow the President's lead and postpone this law.
What's good for business should be good for the American people.
Republicans have sided with the American people on this issue time and
again. The American people do not want this law to be implemented as
its written, and we're here today to see that it is not. I am
encouraging my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on
the two underlying bills.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend for yielding me
the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I feel as though I could give the same speech today that
I have delivered repeatedly in the Rules Committee and on the House
floor for the past 3 years. Despite failing 37 times before, the
majority is trying the 38th and 39th time today to repeal, defund, or
otherwise undermine the Affordable Care Act.
However, unlike past votes, today's attempt to undermine the law
occurs on the very same day that my home State of New York delivered
incredible news to New York families. Today we learned that, thanks to
the Affordable Care Act, health insurance premiums for many of my
fellow New Yorkers will be reduced by 50 percent or more. In my
district alone, 56,330 persons will be eligible to access those savings
through New York's new health insurance exchange.
New York is just the latest in a growing number of States finding the
same thing--including Oregon, California, and Washington--where the
cost of health care premiums are being reduced because of the
Affordable Care Act.
As The New York Times reported this morning, some low-income
individuals in New York could see their premiums go from $1,000 a month
to as low as $308 a month, and subsidies provided for lower-income
persons through the Affordable Care Act will drive those premiums even
lower. Believe me when I tell you that New York does not want to be
relieved of the burden of the Affordable Care Act. For many of them, it
will be the first time in their lives they've been able to afford it.
This is incredibly good news for millions of people in New York and a
realization of the law's promise to provide more affordable health
care.
Among other accomplishments, the Affordable Care Act is increasing
competition in New York because 17 insurers have been approved to
participate in the individual insurance marketplace. That competition,
again, Mr. Speaker, as all of us know, is what helps to bring down the
cost. And that is working. Meanwhile, on top of that, as we know the
Affordable Care Act requires all insurance companies to spend 80 cents
of your premium dollar on your health care, we know that will even add
to the tumbling costs.
And perhaps most importantly, the individual mandate included in the
Affordable Care Act will soon take effect, driving down costs even
more. Given
[[Page H4536]]
this fact alone, it is the height of irresponsibility and nihilistic
obstruction for the majority to attempt to delay its implementation one
more time. Delaying the individual mandate would undermine the very
foundation of the Affordable Care Act and cause health care premiums to
skyrocket. In fact, the Urban Institute has estimated that without the
individual mandate, an extra 13.8 million people would go without
insurance because of the cost.
Everyone from doctors to health insurance companies knows this fact.
And, indeed, they are working together in New York to implement this
act. That's why organizations such as the American Academy of Family
Physicians, the American Heart Association, and the American Diabetes
Association are opposing the majority's proposal today.
In a letter to Congress, the American Academy of Family Physicians
recently wrote that the individual mandate ``is the foundation of
improving access to care and vital to ensuring that everyone has health
insurance coverage. For that reason, the American Academy of Family
Physicians supports the health coverage requirement for individuals''
and urges that we get on with the program.
Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is the majority's proposal is
nothing more than an attempt to score cheap political points. As has
been the case for the last 3 years, the Senate will not take up this
bill, and everybody here knows that. And even if they did by some
strange quirk of fate pass it, the President would veto it. He's said
so already. So we're spending another week of legislative business
doing another meaningless piece of legislation that we know will not go
anywhere.
We should be rejoicing, Mr. Speaker, about the things that are coming
in from States that have already set up their exchanges about the money
that is being saved and the many, many more people being insured. I've
said many times before the estimated cost of running the House of
Representatives is $24 million a week. Of all people, the Members of
the majority who claim to care so dearly for stopping wasteful spending
should be objecting to a legislative agenda that holds a variation of
the same go-nowhere bill for 39 times.
Bridges are collapsing. Our economic growth is anemic. Millions of
Americans are unemployed, and if the farm bill passed here last week
were to become law, they would not only be unemployed, they would not
be allowed to get food stamps to help them feed their families.
Meanwhile, sequestration is closing Head Start programs, furloughing
working moms and dads, and cutting programs that serve vulnerable
populations such as our Indian populations living on reservations who
are hit extremely hard by sequestration.
Yet instead of addressing any of these issues, the majority continues
to play this game. Such a self-serving political pursuit is a shameful
mark on the history of this Chamber and our democracy.
Etched above the Speaker's rostrum is a quote from Daniel Webster
that speaks to the need to end the political games and to focus on
issues that are important to the American people. In part, those words
read:
Let us see whether we also in our day and generation may
not perform something worthy to be remembered.
In 2010, I was proud to play a central role in the passage of the
Affordable Care Act. I faced a lot of vitriol because of it. In the
darkest moments, my district office was vandalized and the lives of my
grandchildren were threatened. Yet I remained dedicated to passing the
law because at the time health care costs were approaching 20 percent
of our Nation's GDP, and an unconscionable number of Americans were
being denied basic health care because of the cost of preexisting
conditions. And in eight States in this United States and the District
of Columbia, violence against women, domestic violence, was considered
a preexisting condition. No more.
Before voting on the legislation, the Democratic Caucus read the bill
three times line by line. By the time it was signed into law, it was
clear this legislation would deliver on the promise of secure and
affordable care for millions who had been denied health care for far
too long.
Looking back at that moment in time, it is my belief that the law we
produced will go down in history, as Webster says, as ``something
worthy to be remembered.''
Already, thanks to the Affordable Care Act, seniors have begun
receiving free preventive screenings and subsidies to cover the cost of
prescription medicines when they fall in the doughnut hole. In a few
years, the doughnut hole will be completely closed.
In addition, children under the age of 26 are now protected under
their parent's insurance coverage while they find their first job and
start a life of their own. Finally, prior to passage of the Affordable
Care Act, in eight States, disgracefully, domestic violence was
considered a preexisting condition. Those policies are now outlawed.
And soon, no health insurance plan in the country will be allowed to
deny an individual coverage because of a preexisting condition, and
women will no longer have to pay a higher price for their insurance
than men simply because of their gender.
All of this incredible progress is because of the Affordable Care
Act. So while repealing the mandate may serve the narrow political
interests of the majority, it is a dangerous proposition for the health
and wellbeing of American families. Americans deserve a Congress
focused on solutions, not a 39th attempt to rehash debates of the past.
Mr. Speaker, as we debate yet another go-nowhere attempt to undermine
the Affordable Care Act, I urge the majority to read the words above
the Speaker's rostrum and put an end to their tired political games. It
is past time for us to get to work on meaningful legislation to help
the American people.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying
legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), the distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr.
Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule and the underlying
legislation.
As the attention of the American people turned to celebrating the
July 4th holiday, the Obama administration quietly announced through a
blog post on the Treasury Department's Web site it would delay
enforcement of a vital part of the President's health care law--the
employer mandate.
The reason for the delay? According to administration officials, the
Federal bureaucracy needs more time to get it right. Let's be honest:
no amount of time or bureaucratic tinkering will ease the pain
ObamaCare is inflicting on workplaces across the country. The employer
mandate will destroy jobs, whether it's implemented a year from now or
10 years from now. In fact, Mr. Speaker, jobs are already being lost
and employees' work hours are being cut today because of the law.
That's the difficult reality facing workers and job creators from my
home State of Minnesota and across the country.
{time} 1300
It's part of the reason we are stuck in a jobs crisis with 12 million
Americans searching for full-time work. Even union leaders are
beginning to realize how the health care law they supported is hurting
workers.
And the quote from my colleague, Mr. Burgess, laid that out very
clearly. They were promised, as all Americans were promised, if they
liked their health care, they could keep it; and they're finding out
that's simply not true.
The delay of the employer mandate is the latest confirmation of the
fatally flawed nature of ObamaCare and the need to dismantle it. That
is why I support the proposal to delay the employer mandate for 1 year,
as well as a bill the House will also consider today to delay
enforcement of the individual mandate.
In less than a year, individuals who fail to purchase government-
approved health insurance will be forced to pay higher taxes. It isn't
right, Mr. Speaker, to deny American families the same relief available
to American businesses.
The American people didn't ask for this government takeover of health
[[Page H4537]]
care, and they don't want it. Let's give every family and business the
reprieve from ObamaCare they deserve.
I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying
legislation.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, before I yield time, I'd like to insert
in the Record the article from The New York Times this morning entitled
``Health Plan Cost For New Yorkers Set to Fall 50 Percent.''
[The New York Times, Jul. 16, 2013]
Health Plan Cost for New Yorkers Set To Fall 50%
(By Roni Caryn Rabin and Reed Abelson)
Individuals buying health insurance on their own will see
their premiums tumble next year in New York State as changes
under the federal health care law take effect, Gov. Andrew M.
Cuomo announced on Wednesday.
State insurance regulators say they have approved rates for
2014 that are at least 50 percent lower on average than those
currently available in New York. Beginning in October,
individuals in New York City who now pay $1,000 a month or
more for coverage will be able to shop for health insurance
for as little as $308 monthly. With federal subsidies, the
cost will be even lower.
Supporters of the new health care law, the Affordable Care
Act, credited the drop in rates to the online purchasing
exchanges the law created, which they say are spurring
competition among insurers that are anticipating an influx of
new customers. The law requires that an exchange be started
in every state.
``Health insurance has suddenly become affordable in New
York,'' said Elisabeth Benjamin, vice president for health
initiatives with the Community Service Society of New York.
``It's not bargain-basement prices, but we're going from
Bergdorf's to Filene's here.''
``The extraordinary decline in New York's insurance rates
for individual consumers demonstrates the profound promise of
the Affordable Care Act,'' she added.
Administration officials, long confronted by Republicans
and other critics of President Obama's signature law, were
quick to add New York to the list of states that appear to be
successfully carrying out the law and setting up exchanges.
``We're seeing in New York what we've seen in other states
like California and Oregon--that competition and transparency
in the marketplaces are leading to affordable and new choices
for families,'' said Joanne Peters, a spokeswoman for the
Department of Health and Human Services.
The new premium rates do not affect a majority of New
Yorkers, who receive insurance through their employers, only
those who must purchase it on their own. Because the cost of
individual coverage has soared, only 17,000 New Yorkers
currently buy insurance on their own. About 2.6 million are
uninsured in New York State.
State officials estimate as many as 615,000 individuals
will buy health insurance on their own in the first few years
the health law is in effect. In addition to lower premiums,
about three-quarters of those people will be eligible for the
subsidies available to lower-income individuals.
``New York's health benefits exchange will offer the type
of real competition that helps drive down health insurance
costs for consumers and businesses,'' said Mr. Cuomo.
The plans to be offered on the exchanges all meet certain
basic requirements, as laid out in the law, but are in four
categories from most generous to least: platinum, gold,
silver and bronze. An individual with annual income of
$17,000 will pay about $55 a month for a silver plan, state
regulators said. A person with a $20,000 income will pay
about $85 a month for a silver plan, while someone earning
$25,000 will pay about $145 a month for a silver plan.
The least expensive plans, some offered by newcomers to the
market, may not offer wide access to hospitals and doctors,
experts said.
While the rates will fall over all, apples-to-apples
comparisons are impossible from this year to next because all
of the plans are essentially new insurance products.
The rates for small businesses, which are considerably
lower than for individuals, will not fall as precipitously.
But small businesses will be eligible for tax credits, and
the exchanges will make it easier for them to select a plan.
Roughly 15,000 plans are available today to small businesses,
and choosing among them is particularly challenging.
``Where New York previously had a dizzying array of
thousands upon thousands of plans, small businesses will now
be able to truly comparison-shop for the best prices,'' said
Benjamin M. Lawsky, the state's top financial regulator.
Officials at the state Department of Financial Services say
they have approved 17 insurers to sell individual coverage
through the New York exchange, including eight that are just
entering the state's commercial market. Many of these are
insurers specializing in Medicaid plans that cater to low-
income individuals.
North Shore-LIJ Health System, the large hospital system on
Long Island, intends to offer a health plan for individuals
as well as businesses for the first time. Some of the state's
best-known insurers, UnitedHealth Group and WellPoint, are
also expected to participate. Insurers may decline to
participate after they receive approval for their rates, but
this is unlikely.
For years, New York has represented much that can go wrong
with insurance markets. The state required insurers to cover
everyone regardless of pre-existing conditions, but did not
require everyone to purchase insurance--a feature of the new
health care law--and did not offer generous subsidies so
people could afford coverage.
With no ability to persuade the young and the healthy to
buy policies, the state's premiums have long been among the
highest in the nation. ``If there was any state that the
A.C.A. could bring rates down, it was New York,'' said
Timothy Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee
University who closely follows the federal law.
Mr. Jost and other policy experts say the new health
exchanges appear to be creating sufficient competition,
particularly in states that have embraced the exchanges and
are trying to create a marketplace that allows consumers to
shop easily.
``That's a very different dynamic for these companies, and
it's prodding them to be more aggressive and competitive in
their pricing,'' said Sabrina Corlette, a professor at
Georgetown University's Center on Health Insurance Reform.
But some consumers may still find the prices and plans
disappointing. Jerry Ball, 46, who owns a recycling business
in Queens, said the cost of covering his family increased so
rapidly in the last few years that he had to scale back their
coverage. Still, he pays nearly $18,000 a year for a high-
deductible policy for a family of three.
He said he would be reluctant to part ways with his
insurer, Oxford, and was disappointed that even the least
expensive Oxford plan being offered next year would cost
about as much as he pays now.
With another plan, he said: ``Will I be able to maintain my
doctors? I'm concerned that some of the better doctors aren't
going to take health insurance.''
He acknowledged that the new law would allow him for the
first time to easily switch plans, but it is still hard for
him to believe it guarantees coverage for pre-existing
conditions. ``I have to be careful. I can't be denied
coverage, right?'' he asked.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).
Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, the premise of H.R. 2667, the employer
mandate bill, which is part of the rule here today, is that somehow the
administration overreached by announcing this postponement of the
employer tax measure which was part of the Affordable Care Act.
The fact of the matter is, if the proponents had picked up the phone
and called the Congressional Research Service and asked them if the IRS
has postponed imposition of statutorily required requirements, the fact
of the matter, they would have found out what I hold in my hand, which
is a memo that was issued today that cites four examples, just within
the last 2 or 3 years, where the IRS delayed statutory reporting
requirements because of the fact that comments from private sector
voices around the country warned that it needed more time to be
implemented.
The 2006 law imposing a 3 percent withholding requirement effective
December 31, 2010, was delayed till 2012. The 2009 Worker Home
Ownership and Business Assistance Act was delayed for a year for a
statutory electronic filing requirement.
The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Withholding Act was postponed 2
years, again, because of a comment that came in from the private
sector.
And the FAA law, which was passed in 2011, which had a retroactive
collection of excise tax, that was waived by the IRS, again, because of
the fact that, after passage of the act, they listened to the American
people and to the American business community about the fact that there
were some honest-to-God logistical issues that needed to be worked out.
That's exactly what was announced right before the July 4 weekend.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that this Congressional Research Service
memo be admitted to the Record so that we at least have some reality
basis about what exactly occurred here. This is totally within the
IRS's province of authority, with well-established precedent.
The fact of the matter is that this vote is a nullity. It does
nothing as a matter of law. CBO has scored it as zero. So the fact of
the matter is we're just filling up more time here.
The fact is that we've got people all over this country whose
paychecks are being furloughed because of inaction by this Congress.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman another minute.
Mr. COURTNEY. Because of inaction of this Congress, people are losing
20
[[Page H4538]]
percent of their paycheck. That's what's hurting the American economy
right now.
We have a bipartisan immigration bill which cleared the Senate which
we know, from CBO, would actually reduce the deficit and grow the
economy. That's what we should be voting on.
We had a bipartisan farm bill which passed the Senate which, again,
provides a real horizon for rural America. That's what we should be
voting on.
Instead, we are filling this Chamber up with more of the tired
rhetoric for a bill that does absolutely nothing and which the
Congressional Research Service shows us is completely, totally outside
of well-established precedent of American law.
Congressional Research Service,
Washington, DC, July 16, 2013.
Memorandum
To: Honorable Joe Courtney--Attention: Maija Welton
From: Erika K. Lunder, Legislative Attorney; Carol A. Pettit,
Legislative Attorney
Subject: Recent Examples of IRS Postponement of Statutory
Effective Dates
This memorandum responds to your request for examples of
instances in which the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has
postponed statutorily imposed effective dates. This
memorandum does not discuss the July 2013 announcement by the
Obama Administration to delay implementation of the employer
reporting responsibility requirements in the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act. Four recent examples
where the Treasury Department, through IRS, has postponed
statutorily imposed effective dates are detailed in this
memorandum.
1. The IRS postponed the effective date for a requirement
that federal and state governments, along with their
political subdivisions and instrumentalities, withhold 3% of
payments to persons providing property or services. The 2006
law imposing the requirement stated the withholding provision
``shall apply to payments made after December 31, 2010.'' In
2008, the IRS issued proposed regulations that would
``generally be effective for payments made after the later of
December 31, 2010, or the date that is 6 months after the
publication of final regulations.'' In 2009, and prior to the
regulations being finalized, Congress extended the effective
date in the original Act, from December 31, 2010, to December
31, 2011. In May 2011, the IRS issued final regulations,
which provided that the withholding requirements would
``apply to payments made after December 31, 2012.'' The IRS
explained the reasons for the postponed effective date:
Numerous commenters indicated that an extended period of
time following the issuance of final regulations would be
necessary for government entities to adopt the systems and
processes necessary to comply with the Sec. 3402(t)
withholding and related reporting requirements. Noting the
necessity to formulate government acquisition rules that are
consistent with the final regulations, as well as the
infrastructure needed to apply those rules, some commenters
stated that government entities would need at least 18 months
from the issuance of final regulations under section 3402(t)
to be able to comply.
In response to these practical considerations, the final
regulations provide that the withholding and reporting
requirements under these regulations apply to payments made
after December 31, 2012, subject to an existing contract
exception . . . With respect to payments before January 1,
2013, government entities are not required to apply section
3402(t) withholding and the related reporting, and
accordingly will not be subject to any liability, penalties
or interest for failure to do so.
In November 2011, Congress repealed the 3% withholding
requirement, so it never went into effect.
2. The IRS provided a transitional period for the
electronic filing mandate enacted by the Worker,
Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009. As a
result, the effective date of the provision was postponed for
one year for preparers who anticipated filing more than 10
but fewer than 100 returns during calendar year 2011.
As enacted, the provision generally required that tax
return preparers who anticipated filing more than 10
individual tax returns during a calendar year must file those
returns on magnetic media. The requirement was statutorily
effective for returns filed after December 31, 2010. However,
on December 2, 2010, the IRS issued both a notice and
proposed regulation postponing the electronic filing mandate
for those otherwise affected preparers who anticipated filing
fewer than 100 individual tax returns. Those preparers
generally would only be required to electronically file
returns that they filed after December 31, 2011. The reason
given for the transition period was ``to promote the
effective and efficient administration of the electronic
filing requirement in section 6011(e)(3).'' The final
regulation basically adopted the proposed regulation and was
effective March 30, 2011.
3. The IRS has extended various deadlines under the Foreign
Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA). FATCA imposes reporting,
withholding, and other requirements on certain foreign
financial institutions (FFIs) and payments. The 2010 law
enacting FATCA provides that, in general, ``the amendments
made by this section shall apply to payments made after
December 31. 2012.'' In July 2011, the IRS released a notice
that provided a timeline for implementing some of the Act's
requirements. For example, the notice provided that certain
reporting requirements would start in 2014, and that the
withholding requirements would begin on January 1, 2014, and
be fully phased in on January 1, 2015. The notice explained
the reasons for the phased-in implementation:
Treasury and the IRS have received numerous comments
concerning the practical difficulties in implementing aspects
of the Chapter 4 rules within the time frames provided in the
Act and under Notice 2010-60 and Notice 2011-34. The
challenges identified relate to the time to develop
compliance, reporting, and withholding systems necessary to
comply with Chapter 4 and the implementing notices. In
addition, a number of stakeholders have noted that complying
with certain provisions may require coordination with a
number of foreign governments. Treasury and the IRS have met
with stakeholders and foreign governments to understand the
specific administrative and legal challenges that must be
addressed and the time necessary to do so. While the Act
provides that the provisions of Chapter 4 are effective
beginning in 2013, Treasury and the IRS have determined that
because Chapter 4 creates the need for significant
modifications to the information management systems of FFIs,
withholding agents, and the IRS, it is reasonable for
regulations to provide for a phased implementation of the
various provisions of Chapter 4.
The IRS subsequently issued proposed regulations in
February 2012, and in October 2012 released an announcement
that extended an additional deadline, citing to practical
concerns with the proposed regulations' time frames. The
announcement explained that:
The Treasury Department and the IRS have received comments
identifying certain practical issues in implementing the
chapter 4 rules within the time frames prescribed in the
proposed regulations. In particular, comments have noted that
the chapter 4 status of entity account holders may change
during 2013 as FFIs enter into FFI agreements with the IRS,
with the result that withholding agents that put in place new
account opening procedures by January 1, 2013, could be
required to undertake duplicative efforts to verify an FFI's
status as a participating, deemed-compliant, or
nonparticipating FFI. Furthermore, comments have indicated
that global financial institutions intend to implement
uniform due diligence procedures for all affiliates.
Accordingly, these comments have suggested aligning the
timelines for due diligence for U.S. withholding agents, FFIs
in countries with Intergovernmental Agreements, and FF Is in
countries without Intergovernmental Agreements in order to
significantly reduce administrative burden.
On July 13, 2013, the IRS issued another notice, which
extended the effective date for withholding on some payments
to July 1, 2014.
4. The IRS extended the effective date of legislation that
had provided for retroactive application of several aviation-
related taxes. On July 23, 2011, the federal excise taxes on
amounts paid for air transportation of people and property
expired, and the tax rates on aviation fuel and gasoline were
reduced. The Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2011,
enacted into law on August 5, 2011, extended the two taxes
and the prior rates, retroactive back to July 23, 2011. On
August 5, 2011, the IRS announced that it would not require
the payment or collection of the two air transportation taxes
until August 8, 2011, due to the administrative burden that
would arise from requiring payment and collection on past
purchases, and would provide penalty relief for taxpayers
paying the fuel taxes until that same day.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), the distinguished chairman of
the Rules Committee.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman, the member
of the Rules Committee, Dr. Michael Burgess, from Lewisville, Texas.
Dr. Burgess is a brand-new member of the Rules Committee and came to
the Rules Committee because of his understanding, not just of medicine
and health care as a doctor and a provider for many, many years, but
also because of his grasp of knowledge of this health care bill which
is an enormous bill, which, while we are talking about the economic
consequences primarily today on the marketplace where this bill is
causing employers to not hire more employees, is causing more employers
to take to part-time worker status their employees because of the
extreme ramifications of this, what was called Affordable Care Act,
known as the ObamaCare Act.
And today we are here for the simple purpose to say what the
President of the United States has now recognized, without comment, and
done, not just in the middle of the night on a Web site, but even done
on a weekend, and
[[Page H4539]]
I believe when the President potentially was out of the country.
We're now dealing with the United States Congress speaking our
viewpoints about that bill. And the gentleman, Dr. Burgess, is going to
consume time today where he's going to talk about also the problems
that physicians have, that patients have, that we look at from a family
perspective of trying to make sure we get health care in an affordable
way without ruining it.
But today I'd like to focus, if I can, my comments on that it's not a
surprise that we have a problem. It's not a surprise that we have a
problem with this ObamaCare, or is known as the Affordable Care Act,
not just because of the concept that it is, and not just because of how
it was run through this Congress, but really, the concept that the
Democrats are trying to overlay on the American people a system of
government-controlled health care that does not work.
It does not work and will not work in America because America has a
vibrant free-enterprise system whereby a person, whether they're an
employer or an employee or just as a regular citizen, could contract to
get the health care that they would choose to have.
And the reason why health care has become more expensive is that the
Federal Government does not pay their fair share for Medicare or
Medicaid. This United States Congress does not adequately pay their
fair share for our seniors or for poor people, and so what happens is
it's taken out on people that work. It is showing up in their cost of
health care.
So rather than trying to fix their problem and their responsibility,
what President Obama and Democrats did is stick it, more of it, the
cost, and a system on the American worker, rather than living up to
their responsibility.
And we are here today because the President of the United States got
worried because he's hearing so many people come back and say this
won't work in America; this is harming job creation; this is harming
businesses that want to employ people, and it's causing a huge
distortion in the marketplace.
So what the President did, literally, without comment, except on a
Web site, he said, we will back off this for 1 year.
Now, we heard testimony last night at the Rules Committee, everything
is okay. Everything is okay. We just are trying to hear feedback from
business, and we're going to back off for a year.
That's not really the case. The facts of the case are that this
administration, from top to bottom, has failed to provide information
to the American people and to business about how they intended for
their socialist, government-run plan to work. And they have not
provided leadership for 3 years. They've not answered questions.
They've not made decisions. They've not been open about how it would
really work.
So business has the problem of a legal side. They have a legal
responsibility.
Now, you won't have the White House come out and admit this, but they
have failed to do their job. And so business has a legal requirement on
them of providing notice. They have notice that they have to provide to
consumers under State laws and under Federal law.
The facts of the case are they couldn't figure it out because they
did not know enough about how this government-run health care system
would work. They didn't understand legal consequences. They don't
understand reporting consequences. They don't understand consequences
because this government is so big and so powerful that they control too
much of our life.
Now, in this equation, we also see where a number of unions have now
let their opinion be known, and they are directly on the side of this
bill today because now they have learned more about this bill, and they
are worried. They're worried sick about not just the health care for
their members, but how it will individually affect their own families'
lives.
The facts of the case are simple. The Democrat Party here is trying
to do everything they can do to cover up what is a monster mistake, an
inability by the Obama administration to effectively lead on a
government-run health care system.
Their only back-up point is to say, if you do this, you're going to
put everything in jeopardy. My response is, thank goodness. It needs to
be in jeopardy.
What they have done is, effectively, picked on, by doing what they've
done, individuals who are not as powerful as groups of individuals
collectively under business or under labor unions.
We need to look at the entire scope of this. What is bad for business
is superbad for individuals. And individuals are going to find
themselves at the behest of working with the IRS on their health care.
They're going to work with the IRS, an organization that is incapable
of effectively delivering a fair product and rationally following the
law. They think they're above the law. They think that they can control
our lives, and, in fact, Mr. Speaker, they can.
So there's far more to this entire debate than simply we're trying to
go against precedent of what this President has within his authorities
or responsibilities or precedents. Far bigger than that.
What we're here to say today is this Obama health care plan, and his
decision that he has made about not moving forward with the law, is a
selective enforcement, and it's really their fault. It is their fault
for a lack of leadership. It is their fault because they passed a bill
that was entirely done by the United States Senate.
And we agreed up in the Rules Committee, no Republican in this House,
that we would simply take it as it was, without understanding it,
without making it workable and without ever understanding the
consequences, because the bottom line is Democrats have been trying to
do this for 50 years. And what they're really after is a single-payer
system, where the government literally, completely makes every
decision, not some of the decisions.
So Republicans are on the floor of the House today to say we ought to
repeal the whole thing. We're going to start by this action today, and
we're going to follow it up by saying we ought to give individuals the
same opportunity to evade this that the President has given to special
interests and to business.
It's a sad day today, but let's not twist the facts of the case. A
government-run health care system is, at it's very basis, a beginning
of socialism in medicine, and we oppose that.
I thank the Speaker for the time. I thank the gentleman for the time.
{time} 1315
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
By happenstance, I have some figures here that will explain to my
colleague and friend, Mr. Sessions, the chair of the Rules Committee,
what will really happen in his district if he should have his way and
this were to go away, and who is really going to be hurt and who really
is going to be in jeopardy:
9,200 young adults right now are on their parents' health insurance
in his district; more than 6,600 seniors receive prescription drug
discounts worth $10.1 million, or an average discount of $700 a person;
66,000 seniors are now eligible for Medicare preventive services
without paying copays, coinsurance, or a deductible; 182,000
individuals in his district, including 39,000 children and 74,000
women, now have health insurance that covers preventive services
without copays, coinsurance or a deductible; 182,000 individuals are
saving money due to the ACA provisions that prevent insurance companies
from spending more than 20 percent of their premiums on profits and
administrative overhead.
Over 46,000 customers in his district received approximately $6.5
million in insurance company rebates. That's pretty impressive--$6.5
million. I wonder how many in my district. They will receive an average
rebate of at least $95 a family.
Up to 42,000 children in his district with preexisting health
conditions can no longer be denied coverage, and 237,000 individuals--
that's a lot of constituents--in his district now have insurance that
cannot place a lifetime limit on their coverage and will not face an
annual limit for what will be covered. Up to 152,000 individuals in his
district who lack health insurance will have access to quality,
affordable coverage without fear of discrimination or
[[Page H4540]]
higher rates because of a preexisting condition. In addition, the
43,000 individuals who currently purchase private health insurance on
the individual or small group market will have access to a more secure,
higher quality coverage. And many will be eligible for financial
assistance.
I think I've made the point that those are the people who are really
going to be hurt, should he get his wishes today.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, one of the gentlemen who spoke a few
minutes ago said the facts should not be twisted. I completely agree.
Here are some facts that the House and the country should have under
consideration as we debate this bill. We hear repeatedly on the other
side that the Affordable Care Act is a job-killing health care law. In
the months prior to the enactment of the Affordable Care Act, the
economy lost 6.9 million jobs. In the months since the enactment of the
Affordable Care Act, the economy has gained 6.5 million jobs. If it
were true that the Affordable Care Act is a job-killing health care
law, then why did the number of jobs go up and not down?
Second, we hear that the Affordable Care Act is responsible for an
explosion in health care premiums. Today, the State of New York
reported that the bids on offering coverage through the new New York
health insurance exchange have come in. The typical New Yorker who buys
health care for himself or herself will have a premium 50 percent lower
than they do today.
Similar numbers have been reflected in California, Oregon,
Washington, and other States around the country. If it were true that
the Affordable Care Act has led to an explosion of premiums, how do we
explain what has happened in New York, California, Oregon, Washington,
and other States?
Finally, we hear the conclusion that this is a socialist takeover of
the health care system by the government. Well, here's the way it
works. A person who goes into the exchange receives a voucher, a tax
credit, and shops among competing private health insurance plans and
chooses the one that they like best for their family, much in the
nature of a Pell Grant or an FHA loan when one is borrowing a house.
The House deserves the facts. It is not factual that jobs have gone
down since the law was passed. They have gone up. It is not factual
that premiums have skyrocketed. In the places where the law has been
implemented, they have gone down. Finally, a government takeover is
false. This is a consumer takeover of health care away from the
insurance companies.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the remaining time?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 10\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the
Education and Workforce Committee, the gentleman from Indiana, Dr.
Bucshon.
Mr. BUCSHON. Mr. Speaker, I was a practicing physician for 15 years,
and I rise today to support the rule and support delaying the
Affordable Care Act's employer and individual mandates. I support these
delays because it's unfair to employees in my district who have
suffered lost wages and lost hours at work because of these mandates:
the 54 employees in the Greencastle, Indiana, school district who had
their hours cut from full time to part time;
the 150 employees in the Washington/Greene County school district who
had their hours cut from full time to part time;
the Spencer County employees who saw their hours cut from 40 hours a
week to 28 hours a week;
Wolfe's Auto Auction in Terre Haute, which I recently visited, that
has had to cut many employees from full to part time.
There are countless other middle-class Hoosiers who are suffering
across Indiana because of these mandates. They're schoolbus drivers,
teachers, hospital nurses, and county government employees. Hoosiers
work hard every day to provide for their families. Rather than helping
them, the government is keeping them from doing it.
This administration would like everybody to believe the economy is
growing and over 700,000 jobs were recently created. They failed to
mention that 500,000 of those jobs were part time. It's hard to find a
full-time job when the government penalizes your employer for giving
you more than 30 hours of work.
We talk a lot in this body about how we need to help everyone in
these difficult economic times. Yet my colleagues have supported
legislation that they know has compromised the opportunity to find a
good-paying job and provide for your family. But they stand here and
argue that that has not been the case.
A 1-year delay to these mandates is just a Band-Aid. I'll be voting
in favor of the rule and the bill. Ultimately, we need to fully repeal
the Affordable Care Act.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. If we defeat the previous question, we want to offer
an amendment to the rule that would allow the House to consider the
Invest in American Jobs Act of 2013. This bill would ensure, at last,
that Federally funded transportation and infrastructure projects are
constructed with steel, iron, and manufactured goods that are made in
America.
To discuss this proposal, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the distinguished ranking member of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Mr. RAHALL. I appreciate the gentlewoman's kind words.
Mr. Speaker, when I go home to West Virginia each week and discuss
the state of our Nation with my friends and neighbors, I hear about
three things: jobs, jobs, jobs.
That's what this Congress should focus on.
We should stop the political charade of spending time on one bill
after another which will not see the light of day in the other body and
work together on something that Members of all political stripes should
be able to agree upon: creating American jobs and ensuring that our
Federal tax dollars are spent wisely.
We are here today in support of those twin goals by ensuring that the
investments that we make in our Nation's transportation infrastructure
truly help rebuild America--our infrastructure, our companies, and our
workers.
Mr. Speaker, in just a few months' time, one of the largest publicly
supported infrastructure projects in this country is scheduled to be
completed with the opening of the $6.3 billion east span of the San
Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. But instead of steel cast in the
Alleghenies or roadbed segments assembled in Alameda, cars and trucks
using the bridge will be driving over 43,000 tons of steel imported
from China, which supported 3,000 Chinese jobs and was financed by U.S.
taxpayers.
Last year, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Democrats
insisted on closing the loopholes in our ``Buy America'' laws to
prevent the continuation of this outrageous and economically harmful
practice of outsourcing our Federal highway and transit construction as
part of the Surface Transportation Reauthorization Act, known as MAP-
21. Unfortunately, despite being passed out of committee and attracting
245 votes on the House floor as part of a motion to instruct, many
provisions we pushed for that would have guaranteed strong Buy America
requirements for all surface transportation infrastructure investments
were left on the cutting-room floor during the conference process.
Today, we're here to finish the job and ensure that all taxpayer-
funded infrastructure investments support American jobs.
If we defeat the previous question, the gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Slaughter), the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, will
offer an amendment that will make in order H.R. 949, the Invest in
American Jobs Act of 2013, under an open rule. The bill spurs job
creation and fosters domestic manufacturing. It will ensure that
investments in highways, bridges, public transit and passenger rail
systems, airport projects and water infrastructure projects will be
stamped Made in America and crafted with American workmanship.
By closing critical loopholes in our Buy America laws and changing
domestic content requirements for public transit rolling stock and
aviation facilities and equipment, our bill ensures that these
investments, financed by
[[Page H4541]]
U.S. taxpayers, will be used to create and sustain good-paying jobs in
our local communities, not outsourced overseas.
Right now we have a lot of Federal transportation and infrastructure
dollars in the pipeline and coming down the pike: more than $50 billion
of Federal funding is being invested this year in highway and transit
infrastructure projects alone. In the coming months, Congress is also
expected to consider legislation to provide significant Federal
investment in rail and water infrastructure.
All too often we are giving these contracts--and these high-skill
jobs--away to foreign manufacturers and workers. Giving our tax dollars
away to support jobs overseas is inexcusable in any instance, but is
downright unconscionable when millions of Americans are looking for
work.
Let's close these loopholes in our Buy America laws and unleash the
American entrepreneurial spirit.
Mr. Speaker, let the House of Representatives vote on H.R. 949, the
``Invest in American Jobs Act'', because when we make it in America,
more Americans can make it.
I urge my colleagues to join me in defeating the previous question.
Mr. BURGESS. I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas
(Ms. Jackson Lee) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to oppose the
rule and the underlying bill because it takes health care away from
America's children, seniors, and others. Again, getting a sound bite
for America.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Rule and the
underlying legislation because this bill would delay the implementation
of the employer mandate a key provision of the Affordable Care Act
until 2014.
The House majority on May 16, 2013 placed before this body another
bill in another attempt to end the Affordable Care Act also known as
Obama Care. Their efforts to do anything and everything they can think
of to stop millions of Americans from enjoying the security of health
care enjoyed by all of my colleagues in this body is astounding. The
health care we enjoy is at the taxpayer expense so we do know what a
federally-supported health plan can do. 27.6% of Texans are without
health care coverage.
The Department of Health and Human Services announced over $9 million
in grants to fund community health centers all over the state of Texas.
The funds will be used to enroll the uninsured in new health coverage
options made available under the Affordable Care Act--or Obama Care
Act.
The Affordable Care Act is needed and we should not pretend
otherwise. The Administration announced that it would on its own allow
a delay to work with the 5% of employers who are having difficulty
meeting the mandate for providing health insurance for all of their
employees. This means that 95% have met the obligation so the need for
this change in law is not founded in fact.
In my district over the weekend, I held a press conference to
congratulate Community Health Centers in the City of Houston who
received part of $9 million to the State by the Department of Health
and Human Services. The Grants to Community Health Centers will fund
work to enroll the uninsured in new health coverage options made
available under the Affordable Care Act--or Obama Care Act.
Community Health Centers are non-profit, community focused health
care providers who serve low-income and medically underserved
communities. Community Health Centers care for over 22 million people
nationally.
In 2012, 50 million people in the United States had no health
insurance coverage, with many losing insurance as a result of the
recent recession.
The grants provided to Community Health Care Centers like Legacy
Community Health Services located in my district will help millions of
uninsured people in our nation get the medical care they need and
deserve.
LIST OF COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS AWARDED FUNDS IN THE CITY OF HOUSTON
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fourth Ward Clinic................................... $124,395
El Centro Del Corazon................................ 144,525
Houston Community Health Care........................ 90,691
South Central Houston Community...................... 165,755
Asian American Health Coalition of the Greater 90,867
Houston Area........................................
Spring Branch Community Health Center................ 108,346
Houston Area Community Services...................... 73,981
Legacy Community Health Services..................... 267,747
Health Care for the Homeless......................... 104,000
Harris County Hospital District...................... 154,326
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2012, Texas had 67 health centers operating in 388 sites providing
services to over 1 million patients. Fifty-one percent of the 1 million
people cared for in my state were uninsured.
Statistics on the Affordable Care Act: Affordable Care Act Benefits
to the 18th Congressional District: 11,400 young adults have insurance
through their parents; 4,100 seniors received $5.4 million in discounts
for prescription medication an average of $600 per person. This was a
cost savings of $650 on average and so far in 2013 the savings are
$1,040. 71,000 seniors are now eligible for Medicare prevention
services without paying co-pays.
121,000 individuals, including 23,000 children and 50,000 women now
have health insurance that prevents insurance companies from spending
more than 20% of their premium dollars on profits and administrative
overhead; 46,000 children with pre-existing illnesses can no longer be
denied insurance; 153,000 people in my district have health insurance
that has no lifetime limits on their coverage and will not face annual
limits.
Up to 193,000 people in the 18th Congressional District of Houston
Texas will have access to quality affordable health care without fear
of discrimination or higher rates because of preexisting health
conditions.
17,000 individuals who purchase insurance on the private health
insurance market established for individuals or small groups will have
access to more secure, higher quality coverage and many will have
access to financial assistance.
National Benefit of Obama Care: 13 million Americans received $1.1
billion in rebates from their health insurance companies last year. 105
million Americans have free preventive services. Millions of women now
have free coverage for comprehensive women's preventive medical
services.
100 million Americans no longer have a life-time limit on healthcare
coverage. 17 million children with pre-existing conditions can no
longer be denied coverage by insurers. 6.6 million young-adults up to
age 26 can stay on their parents' health insurance plans.
6.3 million Seniors in the ``donut hole'' have saved $6.1 billion on
their prescription drugs. 3.2 million Seniors have access to free
annual wellness visits under Medicare, and
360,000 Small Businesses are using the Health Care Tax Credit to help
them provide health insurance to their workers.
Statistics on Texas and the Affordable Care Act: 3.8 million Texas
residents receive preventative care services. 7 million Texans no
longer have lifetime limits on their healthcare insurance. 300,731
young adults can remain on their parents' health insurance until age
26.
5 million Texas residents can receive a rebate check from their
insurance company if it does not spend 80 percent of premium dollars on
healthcare. 4,029 people with pre-existing conditions now have health
insurance.
In 2014, Insurance companies will be banned from: Discriminating
against anyone with a preexisting condition; charging higher rates
based on gender or health status; enforcing lifetime dollar limits;
enforcing annual dollar limits on health benefits.
The healthcare law has many benefits. For these reasons, I urge my
Colleagues to join me in voting no on the rule for this bad bill.
The House and the Senate have real work to create jobs, strengthen
the food security for our most vulnerable--children, elderly, disabled
and low-wage workers. We need to address immigration reform and Border
Security and we should be focused on the need to pass appropriations
bills that eliminate Sequestration that is strangling the financial
security of millions of federal workers. Sequestration not only hurt
federal workers but the local economies that no longer have the incomes
provided by federal agencies to stimulate the recovery our nation is
now entering.
We should be about the business of the people sent us to Washington
to work in their interest.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop), who got great news this morning.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, we did indeed get great news in
New York today with respect to how the exchanges in the Affordable Care
Act will affect premiums.
I rise to oppose the rule and urge Members to defeat the previous
question so that the House may consider the Invest in American Jobs Act
introduced by my friend and colleague, Mr. Rahall, the distinguished
ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. This
critically important legislation will support domestic manufacturing
and create American jobs by strengthening Buy America requirements for
investment in our Nation's infrastructure. I strongly support the
provisions of this legislation that will permanently codify Buy America
requirements for our Nation's preeminent Federal clean water
infrastructure program, the Clean Water State Revolving Fund.
[[Page H4542]]
When Congress first enacted the Clean Water Act in 1972, it required
that any grant funding for wastewater infrastructure--then funded
through the Construction Grants program--be used to support ``articles,
materials or supplies mined, produced, or manufactured in the United
States.'' Unfortunately, in 1987, when then-President Ronald Reagan
urged Congress to abolish the Construction Grants program in favor of
the current Clean Water SRF, these initial Buy America requirements
expired. It was not until 2009, when Congress enacted the Recovery Act,
that Buy America provisions were restored for Federal investment in
wastewater infrastructure through the Clean Water SRF.
What was remarkable was both how adept the Nation's wastewater
industry and the States were at implementing these commonsense domestic
preference reforms and how important these were to breathing life back
into a faltering domestic supply chain for wastewater infrastructure.
As the Recovery Act demonstrated, Buy America requirements for
wastewater infrastructure can work, can be implemented with relative
efficiency, and most importantly, create jobs--both in the casting of
raw materials as well as in the finishing work.
I strongly support reinstatement of the Buy America requirements for
the Clean Water SRF program that are contained in this bill. I urge
Members to support American jobs by defeating the previous question.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown).
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Today, we are here to finish the job of
ensuring that all taxpayer-funded infrastructure investments support
American jobs.
If we defeat the previous question, the gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Slaughter), the ranking member on the Committee on Rules, will
offer an amendment to the rules that will make in order H.R. 949, the
Invest in American Jobs Act of 2013, under an open rule.
{time} 1330
H.R. 949 strengthens domestic manufacturing requirements not only for
Federal-aid highways, transit, aviation, and other Federal
infrastructure investments, but also in rail.
When I was chair of the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and
Hazardous Materials, I held a roundtable of the importance of buying
American in passenger rail projects. Well over 100 American companies
participated and advocated for stronger rules. As a result, we included
a provision in the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of
2008 which required that the federally funded rail projects use
domestic steel, iron, and other manufactured goods.
We heard a lot of complaints, but 5 years later we know that it
works. Let me just say that in Rochelle, Illinois, they just created
more than 300 jobs using American companies. H.R. 949 would extend this
same Buy America requirements to Amtrak and the Railroad Rehabilitation
and Improvement Financing loan program.
When it comes to transportation, every $1 billion we spend in
infrastructure creates 33,000 new jobs. Now, because of the provision,
Buy America, for every $1 billion we spend, it creates 43,890 good-
paying American jobs.
I urge the House to defeat the previous question so we can consider
this important bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, before I close, Dr. Burgess is a good
doctor. I want to put in the same statistics that I read for Chairman
Sessions for his district. Almost a third of his constituents would be
involved, and I know he's going to want to read that in the Record.
But let me get to closing. As I have repeatedly said over the last 3
years, the majority is again wasting valuable time, millions of
taxpayer dollars to vote today, for the 39th time, to undermine the
Affordable Care Act. Meanwhile, they have not taken a single vote on
jobs in this Congress, so we are going to be able to give you a chance
to remedy that.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and
defeat the previous question so that we can really begin to work on our
infrastructure and get Americans back to work.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Benefits of the Health Care Reform Law in the 26th Congressional
District of Texas
Committees on Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Education and
the Workforce, Democratic Staff Report, July 2013
The landmark Affordable Care Act (ACA) began delivering
important new benefits and protections to tens of millions of
American families almost immediately after it was signed into
law by President Obama. But the largest benefits of the law
will become available to consumers on October 1, 2013, when
health insurance marketplaces open in all 50 states. These
marketplaces will offer individuals, families, and small
businesses an efficient, transparent one-stop shop to compare
health insurance policies, receive financial assistance, and
sign up for high-quality, affordable, and secure insurance
coverage.
This fact sheet summarizes new data on the significant
benefits of the health care reform law in Rep. Burgess's
district. It also provides the first picture of the impacts
of the law in districts redrawn or newly created following
the 2010 Census. As a result of the law:
9,500 young adults in the district now have health
insurance through their parents' plan.
More than 4,900 seniors in the district received
prescription drug discounts worth $7 million, an average
discount of $650 per person in 2011, $720 in 2012, and $850
thus far in 2013.
55,000 seniors in the district are now eligible for
Medicare preventive services without paying any co-pays,
coinsurance, or deductible.
232,000 individuals in the district--including 66,000
children and 86,000 women--now have health insurance that
covers preventive services without any co-pays, coinsurance,
or deductible.
230,000 individuals in the district are saving money due to
ACA provisions that prevent insurance companies from spending
more than 20% of their premiums on profits and administrative
overhead. Because of these protections, over 59,300 consumers
in the district received approximately $8.3 million in
insurance company rebates in 2012 and 2011--an average rebate
of $95 per family in 2012 and $187 per family in 2011.
Up to 48,000 children in the district with preexisting
health conditions can no longer be denied coverage by health
insurers.
305,000 individuals in the district now have insurance that
cannot place lifetime limits on their coverage and will not
face annual limits on coverage starting in 2014.
Up to 90,000 individuals in the district who lack health
insurance will have access to quality, affordable coverage
without fear of discrimination or higher rates because of a
preexisting health condition. In addition, the 44,000
individuals who currently purchase private health insurance
on the individual or small group market will have access to
more secure, higher quality coverage and many will be
eligible for financial assistance.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let's also just deal with a couple of things that have been said
during the last hour of debate.
The gentleman from Connecticut stood up and provided a CRS report
that detailed various times in the past where rules have been delayed,
the Department of the Treasury, regarding tax law. But what he listed
were all bills that have passed since President Obama came into office,
and they all had to be postponed because they were ill-conceived and
ill-thought-out.
I would just submit that it was December 24 of 2009 when this thing
passed out of the United States Senate. If, as the gentlelady says is
correct, they sat down and read this thing line by line three times,
they were bound to have encountered page 159, paragraph D:
Effective Date. The amendments made by this section shall
apply to the months beginning after December 31, 2013.
Mr. Speaker, I would just submit, if the Department of the Treasury
said this was going to be a problem--they've known about it for almost
4 years--where have they been? And why was it necessary for it to come
up on July 2 at 6 p.m.?
Mr. Speaker, I have asked representatives from the administration,
representatives from the agencies: What are you doing? Are there
contingency plans? This thing looks awfully complicated. This thing
looks awfully complex. Can you get it done? Are you
[[Page H4543]]
thinking about delaying it? Are you thinking about jettisoning other
parts? And as late as the end of April, the first of May, I was told,
no, there are no such plans.
Now, the Administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services apparently today, in a hearing, testified that, Yes, sometime
in June we had actually made the decision that we were going to have to
do something here. This is inconsistency coming from the
administration.
We ask for information, and no information is forthcoming. And then
we're accused of being obstructionists and saying, Well, you never
wanted the law in the first place. Maybe so. But how in the world can
we even have a meaningful dialogue if, when you come into the committee
and you're asked a direct question under oath, you won't respond
accurately? The propensity for prevarication of this administration has
been absolutely stunning.
Now, we're here today because of a blog post on July 2 at 6 p.m. I
would very much like to get the author of this blog post into our
Committee on Oversight and Investigations on Energy and Commerce and
ask her just exactly what was going on, what led to this decision: Did
you get a legal memo? Did you get information from some legal counsel
as to the fact that this was okay? I would welcome that opportunity.
But, Mr. Speaker, you and I know that that opportunity is never going
to occur.
So, Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of two
critical bills, ensuring that the American people are not penalized for
this administration's inability to implement its own law properly.
I applaud the efforts of my colleagues, Mr. Griffin and Mr. Young,
and I look forward to the spirited debate on these two bills in the
ensuing hours, and I'm sure this House will produce spirited debate.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 300 Offered by Ms. Slaughter of New York
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 4. 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.
949) to ensure that transportation and infrastructure
projects carried out using Federal financial assistance are
constructed with steel, iron, and manufactured goods that are
produced in the United States, and for other purposes. 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 among and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure and the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Financial Services. 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. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 949 as specified in section 4 of this
resolution.
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.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________