[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.''
____________________