[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 53 (Wednesday, April 2, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H2813-H2820]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1230
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2575, SAVE AMERICAN WORKERS ACT OF 
                                  2014

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 530 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 530

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2575) to 
     amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the 30-hour 
     threshold for classification as a full-time employee for 
     purposes of the employer mandate in the Patient Protection 
     and Affordable Care Act and replace it with 40 hours. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
     the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill shall 
     be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
     except: (1) three hours 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 
     with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1 
hour.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman 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 
may 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 530 provides for 
consideration of a critical piece of legislation passed out of the Ways 
and Means Committee designed to address a critical flaw in the 
Affordable Care Act, which is causing workers to lose hours at their 
job and thus lose wages to help put food on their tables and feed their 
families and pay their utility bills to heat their homes in the winter 
and cool their homes in the summer.
  H.R. 2575, the bipartisan Save American Workers Act of 2014, fixes 
this flaw by changing the newly created labor rule in the Affordable 
Care Act, which defines full-time work at 30 hours per week and places 
that definition back where the American public has always believed it 
to be, at 40 hours per week.
  The rule before us today provides for 3 hours of debate. That is 
triple the standard hour of debate that most bills before this body 
receive. This is done in order to fully discuss this important labor 
issue affecting so many Americans.
  To maintain this targeted focus--the exact kind of fix that the 
President claims he is interested in discussing with Republicans in 
order to make his law more workable--no amendments were made in order. 
This allows the House to fully debate this crucial issue without the 
possibility of unrelated issues being brought into the debate.
  Indeed, this bill is so targeted, dealing with one single provision 
in the Affordable Care Act, that it does not repeal the Affordable Care 
Act--a charge I have no doubt we will hear several times over today--
but in fact simply changes a definition in the bill.
  Moreover, during the markup of this legislation in the Ways and Means 
Committee, no amendments were offered by either the majority or the 
minority. As always, the minority is afforded the customary motion to 
recommit on the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, as a result of the Affordable Care Act's requirement 
that businesses with 50 or more employees provide health insurance 
coverage to those employees working 30 or more hours a week, employers 
across the Nation--from schools to universities to municipalities to 
restaurants--are being forced to cut workers' hours or face 
unsustainable employment costs to their businesses and organizations.

[[Page H2814]]

  As we are seeing--and indeed, as many on this side predicted prior to 
the controversial and contentious passage of the Affordable Care Act--
the bill fundamentally changed labor law in this country, creating a 
new standard called the 30-hour workweek, a standard 30-hour workweek, 
a shorter workweek than even imposed by the country of France.
  As a result, workers' hours are being cut and productivity in this 
country, a country that has always prided itself on the work ethic of 
its citizens, will decrease over time. This is what an onerous 
government regulation can and will do--suppress innovation and 
disadvantage our businesses.
  Many members of the Democratic Party have been outspoken in clamoring 
for an extension to long-term unemployment benefits, which would extend 
government assistance to unemployed Americans well beyond a year's 
worth of benefits; yet there is something that can be done today which 
will have the actual, practical effect of putting more money into 
people's pockets.
  We have heard story after story, from every State in the Union, that 
employers are dropping workers from even 39 hours per week to 29 or 
fewer hours, potentially 10 work hours a week that workers won't see in 
their paychecks, which could mean hundreds or more dollars that men and 
women won't have to feed their families or pay their bills. Increasing 
workers' hours increases the money that people have in their disposable 
income.
  The Affordable Care Act fundamentally changed labor law in this 
country, and the repercussions of this might not be felt for years to 
come. This is indeed the prototype of the dangerous, slippery slope.
  What other labor laws will be reinterpreted to define full-time 
employment at 30 hours per week? Do people intend to impose overtime 
rules on employers who employ people for over 30 hours per week? It is 
yet another regulation which would only result in businesses cutting 
more hours.
  What will the National Labor Relations Board reinterpret, knowing 
that the very fabric of labor law is based on a 30-hour workweek, 
instead of that previously established standard of 40 hours per week?
  Prior to the passage of the Affordable Care Act, employers were 
already overwhelmingly providing health insurance to their employees 
working 40 hours a week.
  Making the change contained in Mr. Young's legislation will cause the 
least amount of disruption in the labor market, and I would submit, 
with the economy as it is today, making the least disruptive change in 
the labor market would be desirable.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Affordable Care 
Act will reduce the total number of hours worked by about 1.5 percent 
to 2 percent during the period from 2017 to 2024. This is almost 
entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor.
  Because of this, the Congressional Budget Office projects a decline 
in the number of workers of about 2 million in 2017, rising to about 
2.5 million in 2024, all as a net result of the Affordable Care Act.
  The latest Congressional Budget Office figures show that the 
Affordable Care Act will increase spending by almost $2 trillion--
double the estimate from 2010. The Joint Committee on Taxation states 
that taxpayers will be on the hook for another $1.1 trillion over the 
next decade.

  Americans earning as little as $25,000 a year will pay more because 
of the law, even after accounting for the $1 trillion in premium cost-
sharing subsidies.
  Mr. Speaker, let's be clear about what is happening here today. This 
bill before us does not repeal the President's takeover of health care 
in this country. It does not undermine the Affordable Care Act.
  It does not take health insurance from a single person in the 
country. It is a fix to a fatal flaw contained within the law, similar 
to the seven fixes that have passed both Houses of Congress and were 
signed into law by the President.
  Does anyone miss the 1099 paperwork regulation, which was repealed 
early on after the passage of the Affordable Care Act? Does anyone 
legitimately miss the CLASS Act, which was repealed on the very last 
day of the last Congress?
  I think not. Had I not reminded you of those two parts of the bill, I 
doubt you would remember them.
  This is no different from those 37 unilateral fixes that the 
President and his Secretaries of Health and Human Services and Treasury 
have made on their own, with no input from either legislative body. It 
is a fix to stop legislation that will cause people to lose their work.
  If all sides cannot agree to fix a provision within the Affordable 
Care Act that is preventing people from working, then it is simply 
empty rhetoric to claim that the President or the other body or this 
body is interested in any fixes at all.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on 
the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise against the 52nd closed rule and the 52nd attempt 
to dismantle the ACA, the Affordable Care Act.
  Once again, my colleagues in the Republican Party are standing on the 
wrong side of history. In 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt 
proposed an ambitious program called Social Security in order to ensure 
that America's seniors had a measure of financial safety in their old 
age, a floor through which they could not fall; yet as it was being 
debated in the halls of Congress, Republicans and their allies in the 
business community tried to portray Social Security as something far 
more sinister.
  Representative Daniel Reed of New York predicted that, under Social 
Security, Americans would feel ``the lash of the dictator,'' while 
Republican Senator Daniel Hastings of Delaware declared that Social 
Security would ``end the progress of a great country.''
  Republican Congressman John Taber even said of the proposed law:

       Never in the history of the world has any measure been 
     brought here so insidiously designed as to prevent business 
     recovery and to enslave workers.

  Thirty years later, these same arguments are being used to decry the 
creation of Medicare as the beginning of socialized medicine, and it 
was strictly with the votes of Democrats that the legislation to create 
Medicare was passed out of the Ways and Means Committee and the Rules 
Committee before being brought to the floor.
  In other words, Mr. Speaker, we have been through this same story 
many times. A cynical person might believe that one of the reasons that 
the ACA has been fought so hard, as this is the third time Republicans 
failed to come up with any program that would help Americans either 
achieve independence or security in their old age, is that since every 
one of them voted against it, it is in their best interest that it 
fail.
  All those claims that were made were absolutely untrue; and today, 
despite the current majority's attempts to portray the Affordable Care 
Act as another law that will steal personal freedoms, destroy the 
economy, and hurt American workers, the facts are once again proving 
them wrong.
  Instead, it is quickly becoming clear that the Affordable Care Act 
will stand alongside Social Security and Medicare as an enduring 
commitment to the welfare of our fellow citizens.
  Mr. Speaker, when we passed the Affordable Care Act in 2010, our 
Nation had reached the depths of a crisis that was decades in the 
making.
  In fact, Presidents dating back as far as Harry Truman, including 
Republicans like Richard Nixon and Democrats like Bill Clinton, saw the 
urgent need to reform our health care system and expand coverage to 
every American, yet each time that a President tried to act, their 
efforts failed.
  As a result, by 2010, our Nation was spending 17.6 percent of the 
Nation's gross domestic product on health care, and yet a record high 
number of 49.9 million Americans had no care at all.
  With the health care crisis more acute than ever, President Obama and 
Democrats in Congress decided that we had to act. In fact, the 
percentage of GDP that health care was consuming

[[Page H2815]]

was rising beyond 18 percent, causing a serious threat to our economy. 
Thus began one of the most comprehensive legislative debates in 
history, a debate that included the views of both Democrats and 
Republicans, since they occupy all committees, and a debate conducted 
in full view of the American people.
  The House held nearly 100 hours of hearings and 83 hours of committee 
markups. We heard from 181 witnesses, and 239 amendments from both 
Democrats and Republicans were considered in the three committees of 
jurisdiction, and 121 of them were adopted.

                              {time}  1245

  Finally, the bill was available for 72 hours before Members were 
asked to vote on it on the House floor. Despite this thorough and 
collaborative process, not a single member of the Republican Party on 
this floor voted for the historic law, true to their pattern of 
decades.
  Today, thanks exclusively to the votes of Democrats, the numbers of 
Americans with access to health care is going up, and most importantly, 
the cost to providing health care to our citizens is slowing down. We 
have seen the slowest growth in the rise of health care in these last 2 
years than we have in 50 years.
  We all know that 7.2 million Americans registered for health 
insurance this year through the online health care exchanges--and even 
more in State exchanges, and we don't have that number yet. Indeed, 
RAND put out a report this week stating that 20 million Americans are 
benefiting, including the number of children under 26 who are on their 
parents' health care insurance. So, this week, in addition to that, the 
Los Angeles Times said at least 9.5 million previously uninsured 
Americans now have health insurance because of the ACA.
  For those of us who have been carrying health insurance and been 
lucky enough to have it from our employers, each of our policies have 
cost $1,000 more because of what we were having to pay for 
uncompensated care for those who had no health insurance. That alone is 
one measure that is going to reduce the cost of insurance.
  In the face of its success, it is not surprising the majority has 
come here today with a 52nd attempt to undermine the Affordable Care 
Act. After unanimously opposing its passage, spending millions of 
dollars campaigning against it, the majority has firmly planted their 
feet on the wrong side of history. Their only way forward is to 
dismantle the ACA as quickly as possible and prevent the American 
people from seeing more benefits under the law.
  Mr. Speaker, even though the majority may claim that today's 
legislation is an attempt to fix the Affordable Care Act, it is, in 
fact, a fiscally irresponsible attempt to undermine the law. First, the 
legislation is not paid for, which flies in the face of the rules of 
all the Republicans in the House. The bill costs $74 million, and there 
is no hint at all of how that is going to be paid for. In fact, the 
Rules Committee last night, as it may, waived the rules of the House 
that require a pay-for, despite denying countless similar waiver 
requests in the past.
  According to analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, this 
legislation would increase the deficit by $74 billion and force 1 
million people to lose their sponsored health care coverage and 
increase the number of uninsured. It is not true that under this piece 
of legislation no one would lose their health care.
  Over the next few hours, we will surely hear many claims about how 
much we care about the American worker. And I have no doubt that each 
claim contains a measure of truth because, after all, those American 
workers are our constituents. Words, no matter how moving, are only as 
powerful as the actions that are taken to back them up. It is the vote 
we take, not the speeches we make, that will show how much we care for 
the well-being of the American people.
  Will we continue the progress being made under the Affordable Care 
Act, progress that is providing millions of Americans with access to 
health care for the very first time, or will we vote to try and 
undermine the progress with a bill that is before us today?
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on today's rule and the 
underlying legislation. The facts become clearer every day. The 
Affordable Care Act is delivering on its promise of lower cost, greater 
access to lifesaving health care for millions of Americans. Millions, 
Mr. Speaker, for the first time, have health care because they had been 
born with a preexisting condition which no longer hampers their having 
health care.
  It is time the majority stop playing political games and start 
supporting the historic law that will benefit Americans now and for 
generations to come. As I have pointed out many times on the floor 
during a rule, running the House of Representatives of the Congress 
costs $24 million a week. This is again another week where we do 
nothing to earn that.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds for a response.
  Of course, the President did come out for a big photo op and press 
conference in the Rose Garden yesterday and talked about a number of 7 
million. Discounted in that is the 6 million people who lost their 
health insurance in October, November, and December of last year who 
have now, thankfully, reclaimed insurance.
  So, the actual numbers, we will see those posted later in the year; 
but isn't it interesting, the President can have a press conference, 
but they cannot provide our committee with the actual detail on those 
numbers, which we have been asking for for months.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Collins).
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend from 
Texas for yielding.
  I rise in strong support of the rule and on, also, the underlying 
bill, the Save American Workers Act.
  Four years after ObamaCare's passage, this law's implementation is a 
patchwork of delays stitched together with miles of bureaucratic red 
tape. Unfortunately, the arbitrary delays and the exemptions this 
administration has granted help only a small segment of workers and 
businesses. Part-time workers have been among those most deeply 
affected by ObamaCare, yet this administration has shown little 
interest in providing the relief to these folks that is extended to 
unions and favored business entities.
  It was said just a moment ago that this is the 52nd time that we are 
doing something like this, but I will say this: I will stand on the 
side of history that says for 52 times it will stand to stand against 
something that is wrong. I will stand in this well 52 more times when 
it is wrong and hurting the American people. Right is right, and this 
bill is wrong.
  The underlying bill seeks to help moms and dads, businesses 
understand what we have always known. ObamaCare's 30-hour definition of 
full-time employee demonstrates how little the authors of the bill know 
about running a business. The vast majority of American employers and 
employees have understood full time as being 40 hours a week for nearly 
a century. It is time to replace ObamaCare's definition of full-time 
employee with one that makes sense and will help American workers meet 
their financial goals.
  As an original cosponsor of the Save American Workers Act, I stand 
with all those in Georgia's Ninth District whose livelihood has been 
impacted by ObamaCare's definition of a full-time employee. These 
include employees of the City of Gainesville, which is limiting 
workers' hours to avoid ObamaCare's employer mandate. Reduced hours 
make a tremendous impact on the household budgets of the men and women 
serving the people of Gainesville. While many of these folks have had 
the option of working additional hours to make ends meet in the past, 
they must now seek employment elsewhere or find a second job.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a situation that is not unique. We have heard 
similar stories from both the private and public sector told in this 
Chamber. It is time for this administration and its allies to stop 
writing off these realities as lies or untruths being circulated for 
political purposes.

  Those who still stand by ObamaCare need to spend some time face-to-
face with the workers whose hours have been cut because of this law. It 
is time for them to look in the eyes of a mom and dad who won't have as 
much time with their children this year because

[[Page H2816]]

they will have to take on yet another job to make ends meet.
  I hope my fair-minded colleagues on both sides of the aisle will come 
together to support this commonsense legislation and provide some 
relief to the folks who deserve it most--America's working men and 
women.
  The gentlewoman from New York is right; it is about our votes, not 
our speeches. The American people can look to the Republican majority 
and they can see whom we stand with. We stand with the people who have 
been hurt, who are suffering, who are having to work extra jobs. It is 
about those moms and dads. It is not about the exemptions and special 
privileges given to friends of this administration on the delays and a 
whim and a notice.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my fellow New 
Yorker, Mr. Bishop.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak with respect to 
the previous question. I would urge my colleagues to defeat the 
previous question so we could vote on H.R. 1010, a bill that would 
raise the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour over a 3-year period.
  Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I don't get it. I don't understand what the 
problem is. We are the people's House. More than 70 percent of the 
American people have indicated that they support an increase in the 
minimum wage. This isn't a partisan issue. Majorities of Republicans, 
Democrats, and unaffiliateds all support an increase in the minimum 
wage by overwhelming numbers.
  There are studies that indicate that if we increase the minimum wage, 
we will pump $35 billion into the economy over a 3-year span of phasing 
it in. That is $35 billion worth of economic activity without spending 
a dime of Federal money. That economic activity, it is estimated, would 
create 85,000 jobs.
  Again, I will say, I don't get it. This Congress ought to be about 
creating jobs. Here is an opportunity to do that without spending a 
dime of Federal money, and yet we can't even get a vote.
  While we're here in this Chamber, the so-called Ryan budget, the 
Republican budget resolution, is being marked up. That budget 
resolution seeks to cut $135 billion out of the SNAP program over the 
next 10 years. In order for that cut to be effective, if it were to 
ever take on the force of law, millions of people would lose their SNAP 
eligibility.
  But get this, if we raise the minimum wage, it has been estimated 
that we would save $4.6 billion a year, in other words, roughly $50 
billion over 10 years in SNAP costs because people would be making more 
money and, thus, have their eligibility for SNAP reduced. Isn't it 
preferable to help people earn more money and reduce their dependence 
on Federal programs?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman another 1 minute.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, wouldn't it be vastly preferable 
to reduce Federal expenditures for a safety net program by virtue of 
lifting the economic status of the people that received them? Isn't 
that what we should be doing, trying to lift people up and give them 
opportunity as opposed to taking away from them benefits that they very 
badly need and benefits that they need because the jobs they have are 
such low-wage jobs?
  All we are asking for is a vote. We simply want a vote. The previous 
speaker said that we were sent here to vote. That is right. We were 
sent here to vote. This is a very simple, straightforward provision. It 
used to get passed with bipartisan support. All we are asking for is a 
vote. If Members don't support the measure, vote against it. Let the 
American people know where they stand. But if Members do support it, 
they should have the opportunity to vote for it; and hopefully, giving 
us that opportunity, we will pass it so that we can help lift people up 
without spending a dime of Federal money.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Sessions), the chairman of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, really, today's legislation is simple. It 
is about protecting American workers from job-destroying regulations 
contained in the Affordable Care Act. As written, ObamaCare establishes 
a definition of full-time employees as anyone working 30 hours per week 
and requires that business provide each of these workers with employer-
sponsored health care or to pay a penalty.
  Mr. Speaker, what we are here for is not the minimum wage today; that 
is another time. I am sure that as the other body debates this and as 
the administration trots around the country opportunities to sell their 
end of that, the American people will get that message. Today, this is 
about a group of people who are arbitrarily losing and having 
diminished from 40 hours down to 30 hours their work, their job, 
directly as a result of ObamaCare.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in testimony before the House of 
Representatives, there was discussion about a Hoover Institution study 
that was done by Dr. Chen. Dr. Chen specifically went and looked at the 
impact that the Affordable Care Act was having upon employers and 
employees. This really was put into context when we realized that this 
is a net $74 billion change in the law--$74 billion that the 
administration was counting on American people paying into the 
Affordable Care Act to support this by diminishing the amount of hours 
that a person works.
  So, what did Dr. Chen say? Dr. Chen took just one part of our 
marketplace--education. Here is what he said:
  The final reason I argue the 30-hour rule must be addressed is 
because of the negative impact it is having--in this case--on school 
districts, colleges, and universities. The analysis of vulnerable 
workers referenced earlier was that we focused on 225,000 workers who 
have a history of working in the education industry.
  And they found out that, because of the 30-hour rule, that over 100 
school districts across the country, including dozens in Indiana, which 
is where the study took place, would have either cut workers' hours or 
outsourced jobs to avoid the Affordable Care Act's employee mandate.

                              {time}  1300

  What we are saying is that the Federal law--which is not a mistake; 
it is on purpose--was specifically designed to bring $74 billion to the 
Affordable Care Act by diminishing the hours that the American worker 
can have. And when we bring this to the floor, they are arguing, oh, my 
gosh; Republicans, they want to have a $74 billion higher deficit. It 
could not be further from the truth. This is money that comes from 
American workers, $74 billion. And this commonsense legislation that we 
are handling today will say that we are going to turn back the clock to 
where there will not be a penalty for having a 40-hour workweek in 
America.
  Today, the Democratic Party and President Obama want to reduce the 
number of hours that an American worker will have and take $74 billion 
off, diminishing what would be in their pockets, to move it directly to 
the Federal Government.
  No doubt you will see other Democrats come to the floor, just as we 
saw the gentleman from New York, arguing not about the substance of 
this bill but talking about why we ought to do a minimum wage bill. Yet 
their same arguments are, we should have a government that allows 
people to keep more money in their pockets. Mr. Speaker, that is what 
we are doing today.
  We are with a commonsense bill on the floor of the House of 
Representatives. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young) carefully, 
thoughtfully went and sold this bill across this body, a bipartisan 
bill to say that the $74 billion impact on the middle class of this 
country--in particular, universities, those in education, those workers 
who needed jobs--will lose, in essence, one-fourth of the hours that 
they have worked because of the Affordable Care Act, President Barack 
Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid, who jammed this bill down the 
American people's throats. And now Republicans are taking it on one at 
a time. This is our 51st slice at explaining to the American people why 
this is a bad bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the $74 billion belongs to the American worker, not to 
bigger government. The $74 billion is exactly why the Republican Party 
is here today. And I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Burgess), who has worked not only on the Rules Committee but also in 
Energy and Commerce, for taking his private sector experience as a 
doctor to Washington, D.C. Having a doctor in the House, as

[[Page H2817]]

Dr. Burgess has done, makes a huge difference. That is why the 
Republican Party is on the floor today saying, let's pass this piece of 
legislation.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  Mr. COHEN. I thank the gentlewoman for the opportunity to speak.
  Mr. Speaker, the Affordable Care Act hit a significant milestone 
yesterday: over 7 million people signed up for health care. I was very 
proud of it. I voted for the Affordable Care Act.
  I suffered a debilitating illness when I was 5 years old, and my 
father was a doctor, but, beyond that, just knowing human beings and 
the need for health care, it was so important for me to see that people 
got health care. Fifty million Americans don't have it.
  It was a great day when we gave the opportunity to these 7 million 
people, plus the many people that got Medicaid extended to them in 
States where the Governors were responsible and are accepting money to 
provide health care to people who needed it, while some other States 
are not, and the children who are able to stay on their parents' health 
care until they are 26. We are talking over 7 million people. When you 
add in the children and the Medicaid folks, it is a lot more people. It 
is a day America should be celebrating. It boggles my mind to see the 
other side bringing, for the 51st or 52nd time, a bill to repeal what 
is an effort to give 10 million Americans, or more, health care. We 
should be celebrating.
  What you do unto the least of these, you do unto me. Health care is 
an essential basic element of life, and if you don't have health care, 
you are not going to have a fruitful and long life.
  So I celebrate the passage of the bill and am in bewilderment at the 
fact that the Republicans are proudly having a 51st or 52nd opportunity 
to attack what is a bill that gives health care to people; gives 
parents the knowledge that their children are getting health care; 
gives children the relief that their parents, when they have illnesses, 
will be treated; and that nobody will be shut out because they have a 
preexisting condition. Being a woman won't be treated as a preexisting 
condition, and insurers will not be allowed to deny them health care 
because of their gender. The doughnut hole will be filled. This is a 
day to celebrate.
  Above the Speaker's rostrum, Daniel Webster says: Let's do something 
great in our time here. Well, we did it, and we need to be proud of it.
  Mr. BURGESS. I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, a very important point of what we are doing here today--
look, when the junior Senator from my State stands up back home and 
says that he wants to repeal every syllable of ObamaCare, I will stand 
on my chair and cheer because I think that is the right approach.
  But that is not what we are doing today. We are fixing a problem, as 
it exists in the body of the law, that is redefining full-time work as 
30 hours per week. We are fundamentally reestablishing the relationship 
that occurs with America's working class.
  Now, I would submit that in Politico magazine, on March 26, 2014, 
there was an opinion piece written, ``How to Fix the Affordable Care 
Act.'' And who was this opinion piece written by? Well, it was written 
by Members of the other body, Democratic Senators who had voted in 
favor of the passage of the Affordable Care Act in the first place. But 
they have proposals that they put forward in an opinion piece on how to 
fix the Affordable Care Act.
  One of the things they say is, maybe we ought to allow selling across 
State lines. Maybe we ought to allow for a catastrophic policy to be 
sold again because that has, after all, been prohibited under the 
Affordable Care Act. They are valid suggestions. They are trying to fix 
the problems contained within the Affordable Care Act because they 
recognize it is unsustainable and unmanageable. Perhaps they are a 
little bit embarrassed because each one of them was the 60th vote that 
allowed the Affordable Care Act to come back over to the House and be 
passed.
  Now, today we are talking about a fix to a problem within the 
Affordable Care Act that allows full-time employment to be 
reestablished and redefined at 40 hours per week.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire if my colleague has more 
speakers?
  Mr. BURGESS. Your colleague always has more speakers as long as he is 
seated in the House. But I see no one else waiting, so we can proceed.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Then I am prepared to close and yield myself the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, we heard, again, today that the Affordable Care Act has 
caused a lot of job loss, which simply flies in the face of reality 
because since the bill was passed, 8.6 million new jobs have been 
created in the United States. And every time we see one of those ads 
where somebody says, oh, I couldn't do this, I couldn't do that because 
of the health care bill, we have discovered that, generally, oftentimes 
people have been paid to say that on ads or that they have, 
unfortunately, been mistaken.
  Now, today's rule grants 3 hours of debate on a bill going nowhere 
because we don't have anything else to do. We all know that the Senate 
will never take up this legislation, and if it did, the President has 
already said he would veto it. So instead of wasting 3 hours of debate 
on a 52nd attempt to undermine the Affordable Care Act, I urge my 
colleagues to finally hold a vote to reform our immigration system, 
renew unemployment benefits, raise the minimum wage, or create jobs.
  This economy would be roaring if we could pass some of our bills. We 
have 48 bills ready to go that would create new jobs that we can't put 
on the floor because of our single occupation here of trying to 
dismantle the Affordable Care Act.
  So if we defeat the previous question today--and I hope everybody 
will vote ``no'' on it--it will give us a chance to do something that 
cries out to be done.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to bring up legislation to raise the minimum wage 
to $10.10 an hour. The American people are calling for an economy that 
works for everyone, not just for those at the top.

  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'' to 
defeat the previous question, vote ``no'' on the underlying bill, and 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, to the issue of jobs created in the last 5 years, let me 
point out that the State of Texas has been responsible for the creation 
of about one-third of those jobs. It is our robust oil and gas business 
and the manufacturing sector in the State of Texas that have been 
responsible for that job growth.
  So when the President comes in front of a joint session of Congress 
for the State of the Union address and wants to talk about the jobs 
created since he became President, my belief is, he should say in the 
next statement, May God bless Texas, because Texas is responsible for 
that job growth, and it had nothing to do with the Affordable Care Act.
  Let me talk briefly about why we are here today. Of course the 
gentlelady mentioned about the passage of the Affordable Care Act. She 
mentioned the detailed analysis that was done by Democrats, who were 
then in the majority, how they pored over every word in the 
legislation.
  Let me read you the paragraph that is under question today. I am 
reading from section 1513 of the consolidated Patient Protection and 
Affordable Care Act: ``The number of full-time employees for any month 
otherwise determined include for such month a number of employees 
determined by dividing the aggregate number of hours of service of 
employees who are not full-time employees for the month by 120.'' 
Period, end of sentence.
  What does that mean, Mr. Speaker? Well, fortunately, we don't have to 
wonder what it means because we have a rule that was promulgated by the 
Department of the Treasury which came out this past February. It is 
about a 55-page rule based upon what I just read

[[Page H2818]]

to the House. It is a long recitation. It contains a lot of things, but 
here is the bottom line: For employees who average at least 30 hours of 
service per week during a measurement period, who thus must be treated 
as full-time employees during an associated 6-month stability period. 
That is the bottom line.
  I don't know how we went from 120 per month to 30 hours per week, but 
they figured it out at the Department of Treasury at some great 
expense, I rather suspect, because here is this rule that came to the 
American people in February of this year when the actual law was passed 
almost 4 years prior. Nevertheless, we have the rule, and people are 
welcome to read it in the Federal Register. It was published on 
Wednesday, February 12, 2014, 2 days before Valentine's Day. We love 
you, America.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule that governs the debate on this bill before us 
today keeps that fundamental contract with employers and their workers 
that full-time employment will be 40 weeks. If you accept the 
definition from the Department of Labor that it is now 30 weeks and an 
employer is trying to reduce the cost of providing employment, they may 
make the logical assumption that if someone only works 28 or 29 hours, 
then they are not full-time; therefore, they do not need to be 
providing health insurance.
  And what we have done is, we have shifted that entire equation and 
robbed people of 10 hours of employment every week. That is a 
significant change in their take-home pay.
  Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for consideration of a critical 
bill to ensure that Americans are not forced to work fewer hours than 
they otherwise would without these draconian labor laws included in the 
Affordable Care Act.

                              {time}  1315

  I want to thank Mr. Young for his thoughtful legislation, working 
across the aisle to offer a bill that both Republicans and Democrats 
have accepted in the committee by passing it through the committee with 
no amendments. He has bipartisan cosponsors, and he has public support.
  I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying 
bill.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 
2575, the so-called ``Save American Workers Act of 2014,'' which 
represents the 52nd attempt by House Republicans to impede the 
Affordable Care Act and deny Americans the security that comes from 
having access to affordable, high-quality health care.
  I oppose this bill because its effect would be to deny employer 
provided health insurance to hard working employees who work more than 
30 hours but less than 40 hours per week.
  If this bill were to become law in its current form, the health 
security of 10.2 percent of the workforce, or approximately 19.8 
million workers, would be placed at risk.
  I offered two amendments to H.R. 2575 that would prevent this 
travesty but regrettably neither was made in order by the Rules 
Committee.
  Jackson Lee Amendment #1 would have improved this bad bill by 
amending the bill's 40 hour work week definition to include the 
employee's average commuting time in the computation of hours worked 
for purposes of determining ``full-time employment.''
  Commuting time has become a major issue for those who work hourly 
wage jobs because their workday is much longer.
  According to the Bureau of the Census nearly 8.1% of American workers 
commute 60 minutes or longer.
  In 2011, almost 600,000 full-time workers had ``mega-commutes'' of at 
least 90 minutes and travel 50 miles or more from their homes. The 
daily average one-way travel to work for employees nationally is 25.5 
minutes, and 1 out of 4 workers cross county lines to reach their jobs.
  Jackson Lee Amendment #2 would have amended the bill by delaying the 
effective date of the bill until the first month after there has been 
two consecutive quarters in which the national unemployment rate is 
below 5 percent, which would indicate the nation has reached a full 
employment economy.
  Our nation has taken a momentous step in creating a mindset that 
health insurance is a personal responsibility with the enactment of the 
Affordable Care Act. The law did not automatically enroll all citizens 
into the program because it was specifically designed to be an opt-in 
process.
  This week all over the nation, over 4 millions of Americans took the 
first step toward taking control of their lives by purchasing their 
first personal or family health insurance policy.
  Over the course of the sign-up process for the Affordable Care Act 
tens of thousands of visitors each day shopped the website and over 7.1 
million people were added to private insurance roles as customers or 
have enrolled into Medicaid.
  Despite problems with the initial rollout of the online health 
insurance registration process, people were patient and persistent 
about getting coverage for themselves and their families.
  I have held many events in my District to inform and connect people 
with Navigators and Community Health Centers to support the message 
that it was time to get health insurance for yourself and your family.
  Why with 60 legislative days remaining in the Second Session of the 
113th Congress before the end of the 2014 fiscal year, we are still 
seeing attempts to end the Affordable Care Act is a mystery to the 
American public who are voting with their own healthcare dollars for 
Obamacare.
  H.R. 2575 proposes to amend the Internal Revenue Code by redefining a 
full time employee for purposes of providing health insurance to only 
those workers who work a 40-hour workweek.
  Mr. Speaker, few hourly workers in low-wage jobs work a 40-hour work 
week. These employees often rely on government assistance, which 
amounts to a hidden tax break to employers.
  Low wageworkers often rely upon public housing assistance, SNAP, WIC 
or Medicaid to make ends meet.
  Health insurance should not be used as a status symbol, but a basic 
right for people who live in the world's most prosperous nation.
  I know that many predicted that the Affordable Care Act would cause 
havoc on the nation's health care system, but it is not the ACA that is 
causing havoc--it is a small vocal minority within the majority part 
that is causing headaches and heartaches to doctors and their patients.
  I ask that my colleagues to join me in protecting workers by voting 
down this rule and the underlying bill.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

    An amendment to H. Res. 530 offered by Ms. Slaughter of New York

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. 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. 
     1010) to provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage. 
     The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and 
     the Workforce. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All 
     points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At 
     the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the 
     next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the 
     third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, 
     resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 1010.


        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

[[Page H2819]]

     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. 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 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of House Resolution 530, if 
ordered, and approval of the Journal.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 229, 
nays 194, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 152]

                               YEAS--229

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--194

     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Capuano
     Clark (MA)
     Coffman
     Conyers
     Lynch
     McAllister
     Miller, Gary
     Peters (MI)

                              {time}  1347

  Mr. CUMMINGS, Ms. SINEMA, Messrs. CARNEY, OWENS, CROWLEY, and 
SCHRADER changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. STIVERS and SESSIONS changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. COFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 152 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holding). The question is on the 
resolution.
  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. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 236, 
nays 186, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 153]

                               YEAS--236

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney

[[Page H2820]]


     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--186

     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters (CA)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Capuano
     Clark (MA)
     Conyers
     Fortenberry
     Lynch
     Miller, Gary
     Perlmutter
     Peters (MI)
     Stivers

                              {time}  1355

  Mr. HUFFMAN changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. SINEMA and Mr. RICE of South Carolina changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. COFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 153, I was unavoidably 
detained and unable to cast my vote. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``yes.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, on April 2, 2014, I was traveling with 
President Obama for his address at the University of Michigan and 
unable to vote on the rule for H.R. 2575. Had I been present, I would 
have voted ``nay.''

                          ____________________