[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 3 (Thursday, January 8, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H115-H125]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3, KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE ACT, AND
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 30, SAVE AMERICAN WORKERS ACT OF
2015
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 19 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 19
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3) to
approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the bill are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) one hour of debate equally divided among and controlled
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure and the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce; and
(2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 30) 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 bill shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on
any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis),
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. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which 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. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 19 provides for the
consideration of two important pieces of legislation to help the
American economy, both of which passed in the 113th Congress with
bipartisan support. H.R. 30, the Save American Workers Act, is designed
to address a critical flaw in the Affordable Care Act which is causing
workers to lose hours at their jobs and, thus, lose wages--those wages
that help put food on their tables, those wages that help feed their
families, pay their utility bills, heat their homes during the winter,
and cool their homes during the summer. H.R. 30 fixes this flaw by
changing the newly created labor rule in the Affordable Care Act which
defines full-time work at 30 hours a week and places that definition
back where the American public has believed it to be for the last 100
years, that is, at 40 hours.
The second bill contained in today's rule is H.R. 3, the Keystone XL
Pipeline Act, and that would put an end to what has been a 6-year
process for approving a pipeline that should have simply been common
sense for America's economy a long time ago.
{time} 1230
The rule before us today provides for 1 hour of debate for each of
the bills. This allows the House to fully debate these crucial issues.
These bills are targeted pieces of legislation dealing with one single
provision in the Affordable Care Act and one single pipeline,
respectively. No one is trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act today.
For that, stay tuned. But I have no doubt that Members of the minority
will claim that this bill is an attempt to repeal the Affordable Care
Act. But, in fact, it simply makes changes to a definition and
interpretation by the Department of Labor in the bill. As always, the
minority is also afforded the customary motion to recommit on each of
the bills.
Madam 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 hours per 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 to their
organizations. As a result, we are seeing--and this is what Republicans
predicted prior to the controversial and contentious passage of the
Affordable Care Act--but what we are seeing is the bill has
fundamentally changed labor law in this country, creating a new,
standard 30-hour workweek. 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 onerous government regulations do--suppress innovation and
hamper 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 all unemployed Americans well beyond a year's
worth of benefits. Yet there is something that can be done now, there
is something that can be done today, which will have an actual,
practical effect of putting more money in more people's pockets.
We have heard story after story from every State in the Union that
employers are dropping workers' hours from less than 39 hours a week to
perhaps less than 29 hours or fewer--potentially 10 work hours a week
that workers won't see in their paychecks, which could mean hundreds of
dollars that men and women won't have to feed their families and pay
their bills. Increasing workers' hours increases money that people have
to spend.
The Affordable Care Act fundamentally changed labor law in this
country, and the repercussions of this may not be felt for years to
come. This is a dangerous, slippery slope. What other labor laws will
be reinterpreted now to define ``full-time employment'' as 30 hours per
week? Do people intend to impose overtime rules on employers who employ
people for over 30 hours per week? This 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
[[Page H116]]
of labor law is now based on a 30-hour workweek instead of the 100-year
standard of the 40-hour workweek?
Prior to the Affordable Care Act, employers were already
overwhelmingly providing health insurance to their employees working 40
hours per week. Making the change contained in Mr. Young's legislation
will cause the least amount of disruption to the labor market, and that
is an important thing.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Affordable Care
Act will reduce the total number of hours worked, on net, by about 1.5
percent during the period from 2017 to 2024, 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 2.5 million in 2024, as a 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 5 years ago. And the Joint
Committee on Taxation says that taxpayers will be on the hook for over
another $1 trillion over the next decade. Americans earning as little
as $25,000 annually will pay more because of the law, even after
accounting for the $1 trillion in premium cost-sharing subsidies.
H.R. 3, the Keystone XL Pipeline Act, is an issue that Congress and
the American people have been supportive of for the past several years.
It has now been over 6 years since TransCanada first submitted its
application for a Presidential permit to cross the United States-
Canadian border with a pipeline bringing oil to refineries in Houston,
Texas. The President's own State Department, in a several thousand-page
document, stated that the pipeline would be cleaner and more
environmentally friendly. It is a way to transport oil than other
means, namely, with trucks, trains, and ships. This is common sense.
The issue has been debated here in the House I don't know how many
times over the past several years. Enough is enough. It is time to
approve this application and put men and women to work who will be
building this pipeline.
Madam Speaker, let us be clear about what is happening today. We are
not repealing the Affordable Care Act. We are not undermining the
Affordable Care Act. The bill does not take health insurance from a
single person in this country. It is a fix to a fatal flaw in the
legislation, a fix similar to the seven other fixes that have passed
both Houses of Congress and, in fact, been signed by the President. It
is similar to the 37 unilateral fixes that the President and his
Secretary of Health and Human Services have made on their own. This is
a fix to stop this legislation from resulting in people losing work. If
Democrats can't agree to fix a provision in the Affordable Care Act
that is preventing people from working, then it is simply empty
rhetoric to claim that they are interested in any fixes at all.
I will encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and
``yes'' on the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the customary 30
minutes.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and both of the
underlying bills. Let's talk a little bit about how these bills got
before us, what the process of this body is, as well as the content of
these two bills.
I ask my colleague from Texas: Did either of these bills go through
committee here in this 114th Congress, this new Congress?
I am happy to yield to the gentleman.
Mr. BURGESS. Both bills were before the Committee on Rules yesterday,
and you were present.
Mr. POLIS. Let's talk a little bit about what that means. The Rules
Committee is not the committee of jurisdiction for these bills. Now,
that sounds complicated, but what does that mean? We have specialists
here in Congress, specialized staff, Members who really roll up their
sleeves and get to know about natural resources: what is this pipeline,
what does it do about health care. They know far more than I might know
or Mr. Burgess might know or you might know, Madam Speaker, on a
particular topic. We all try to learn about those in our committees.
The Rules Committee simply packages these bills for the floor. All
the Rules Committee did yesterday was say no one can amend these bills.
That is this rule that is before us. The Rules Committee simply said:
These bills--which nobody who has any expertise actually got to vote on
in committee, they just appeared--the Rules Committee said--and, by the
way, no Republican or Democrat can even try to improve these bills,
even Republicans and Democrats who serve on the committees of
jurisdiction.
Now, we are supposed to have something called regular order around
here. What does that mean? It means a bill, somebody has an idea. Let's
have an idea: 40 hours, 30 hours--let's have an idea. Let's talk about
whether this pipeline should be built or where it should be built.
Okay. Well, that goes to a committee, which has Democrats and
Republicans on it. They have the chance to amend that bill, to change
that bill. They report out that bill.
Then it is supposed to go to the Rules Committee, and the Rules
Committee hopefully will say: By the way, we want other good ideas from
other Members of Congress that aren't on that committee. Let's allow a
discussion on this amendment and that amendment. Mr. Courtney had a
great amendment that he offered yesterday. Rules Committee said: No, we
can't even vote on it here on the floor of the House. It doesn't mean
it will pass, but it means that Members have the opportunity to offer
new ideas to improve legislation.
Well, guess what? Guess what, Madam Speaker? This bill didn't have
any hearing or markup in any of the committees of jurisdiction--neither
of them: Energy and Commerce, Natural Resources, Transportation--all
bypassed for this bill that then went directly to Rules Committee. And
the Rules Committee said: By the way, nobody can change these bills
that no committee has even looked at.
So that is how we got to where we are today. That is the wrong
process. A vote against this rule today is a vote for regular order, a
vote for making sure that Members of this body--Democrats and
Republicans--both on the committees of jurisdiction and in the general
body can have their say on bills. That is why it is so important to
defeat this very first rule here today.
Because if this passes, it is very dangerous. It can become the
precedent for all the bills this Congress. This starts with an
innocuous bill. This is the 50th-something repeal of ObamaCare. I don't
know how many times the Keystone pipeline has been passed. So it seems
innocuous. I am not for the policies. We will talk about them in a
minute. Some people are. There is nothing new under the Earth here. We
have seen these are in different forms, different versions, but they
haven't passed through committee.
But the procedure here is saying: Guess what? No committee of
jurisdiction can look at these bills. Rules Committee is not going to
allow any amendments from Democrats or Republicans. If this rule
passes, that has the danger of becoming the precedent for this entire
Congress. The committees of jurisdiction will be avoided and overruled
and gone around, and Members will have no opportunity to even offer
their ideas here on the floor of the House to improve bills.
Now, let's talk a little bit about the content of these two bills
before us today.
First, the so-called Save American Workers Act. Mr. Burgess says that
it changes labor law in this country, somehow defines full-time workers
and full-time work, and that is simply not what it does. It simply
addresses the benefits and whom companies will need to provide benefits
to.
And, frankly, if this bill were to be the law, a company could very
easily say: By the way, Mr. or Ms. full-time worker who works 40 hours
a week, you now get off Friday at 4 o'clock. Sorry, you are 39 hours a
week, you don't get any health care. And they are going to do it. That
is why some companies want this to pass. Most companies provide
benefits to all their employees, and it is not an issue.
But the folks that might be lobbying Members of Congress about it, of
course that is their intention. They want to cut people from 40 hours a
[[Page H117]]
week to 39 hours a week and not give them health care benefits. Ask
them questions, Democrats or Republicans. If you are thinking of voting
for this, ask them why they want it. That is why, of course, they want
this bill. Right now, they would have to cut them all the way down to
30 hours, which is a much more complicated endeavor, because they
probably would have to add new employees and have to manage that from
an HR perspective. It is probably just worth it to let people continue
working 40 hours and give them their benefits.
But if this very dangerous provision were to become law, many, many
Americans would find themselves cut from 40 to 39 hours, 39\1/2\ hours,
go home at 4:30 on Friday. Sorry, no health care. Sorry, no health
care.
Now, look, if there is a real discussion about how to improve health
care in this country, Democrats and Republicans, we are happy to be
part of that. Let's talk about what health care should look like. When
we have an idea to change something, to remove part of the Affordable
Care Act, let's talk about what replaces it. This is simply a bad idea.
It is a disincentive for companies to even provide health care to their
employees.
Not only that, it is a deficit buster. It increases the deficit by
$53 billion. Is the first bill that we are looking to pass under a rule
a bill that didn't even come through a committee, that no Member of
Congress can even offer a pay-for on? If we allowed an open rule here,
I would love to offer a pay-for for that. How are we going to pay for
this $53 billion that this costs?
If you want to do this bad policy, that is one thing. I don't think
we should do it. But if you want to do this policy and risk having
companies cut their employees from 40 hours to 39 hours, if it is going
to cost $53 billion, I want to know how we are going to pay for it. I
don't think that we should go to our Federal deficit and debt and leave
that to the next generation to pay for. How many times does Congress do
that? Oh, we will just have somebody else pay for it. Our kids will pay
for it, our grandkids will pay for it. That is exactly what is going to
happen with this bill, like so many others.
Several third-party economic analyses have found that five times as
many employees would be at risk of having their hours reduced to part-
time status under this bill than under current law. That is right. Five
times as many are at risk of being cut from 40 to 39 hours than are
currently at risk of being cut from 40 to 30 hours. Oh, so endanger the
benefits of more employees--that is exactly what this bill does.
This bill is no way to create jobs. It is a way to prevent many
Americans from having the health care through their employer that they
already enjoy, forcing them to get taxpayer subsidized health care
through the exchange instead.
{time} 1245
That is why it costs money. That is what the $53 billion is. It is a
fact that what Republicans are saying is: Sorry, I don't think you
should pay for your own health care. I think taxpayers should pay for
it. They are trying to force you and me to pay for your health care,
rather than getting your own health care, paying your employees' share.
It is simply bad for the country, bad for the deficit, bad for the
next generation, and as I said, just as importantly, a bad precedent
for the way that this Congress works.
Let's talk about the Keystone pipeline. This is really a phantom
pipeline because yesterday in committee I asked, ``Does anybody
actually want to finance or build this pipeline?'' I haven't seen any
evidence that there is, at the current rate of oil.
Mr. Burgess, have you heard? Yesterday, I asked in committee if
anybody had any evidence that could go out on the floor that anybody
wanted to pay for or build this pipeline. Have you had the opportunity
to hear if anybody wants to build a pipeline?
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. BURGESS. The pipeline, in fact, exists between Cushing, Oklahoma,
and Houston, Texas, this very day.
Mr. POLIS. Reclaiming my time, if it exists already, I don't know why
you are passing this bill. The truth is it does not exist to move the
oil from the tar sands of Canada to our ports for export. That is what
we are talking about here.
As far as I can tell, there is nobody who wants to pay to build it
because it doesn't make economic sense with oil at $52 a barrel. It
might be a different discussion when oil is $110, $100, or even $90 a
barrel.
We had statistics that about 90 percent of the tar sands production
requires oil at $75 a barrel and about 100 percent of it requires oil
at $65 a barrel. When oil is about $52 a barrel, nobody is going to pay
for this pipeline.
It is a phantom pipeline. We are talking about issues that might have
made sense to talk about if somebody actually wanted to do this
pipeline, but before we waste the deliberative efforts of this body on
a topic like this, we would like to see some evidence that somebody
actually wants to build a pipeline there in the first place, not to
mention that the other reason it is a phantom is nobody knows what the
routing is going to be.
It is still in flux. There is a lawsuit. Where is the final routing
going to be? Not only are there serious doubts about who will finance
the pipeline, but in addition, we don't even know where it is going to
be.
By the way, the costs of the pipeline have gone up. Transcorp says
the pipeline will cost $8 billion--up from their estimates of $5.4
billion just a couple of years ago--not to mention that we are being
asked to approve a pipeline that we don't even know the final routing
of.
Again, as one of the very first bills that bypasses committee, that
nobody can amend here on the floor, we are asked to encourage employers
to cut their employees from 40 hours to 39 hours, so they can eliminate
their benefits and force taxpayers to pay for it to the tune of $53
billion over 10 years.
We are being asked to approve a phantom pipeline that nobody wants to
pay for and nobody knows where it is going to go. What a way to start a
Congress. Let's do better. Let's defeat this rule.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, this rule and the underlying bill
should pass. If the underlying bill doesn't pass or gets vetoed, the
Canadians will sell their product someplace else. That is what the
choice is.
The Canadians want to sell their product to us and to use this
pipeline to connect the product with the refineries along the gulf
coast. If they can't do that because the pipeline isn't built because
of political arguments--not economic arguments--then what will happen
is the Canadians will build their own pipeline across the mountains to
a port in Canada on the Pacific Ocean.
Where will that oil go? That oil will go straight to China, so that
they can use that oil to compete against us, to undersell us, and to
take American jobs away.
The XL pipeline is a job-creator both for American workers in
building the pipeline, as well as American workers who will be
utilizing the oil that comes through the pipeline. We should not listen
to what we hear on the other side of the aisle, which will end up being
a huge job-outsourcing bill to China. We have done enough of that in
the past. We shouldn't do any more of that in the future.
I urge the passage of the rule and passage of the bill.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my distinguished colleague on the Rules
Committee.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, it appears that the more things change,
the more they stay the same. The Republican majority talks a good game.
They talk about an open process, but when push comes to shove, they
fall back on the same old tired, closed, heavy-handed, undemocratic
business as usual.
If you believe their speeches, you would think they believe in
regular order. You would think that they believe that all Members,
Republicans and Democrats, deserve to be heard and that a fair and
substantive process will be the practice of this body. But actions
speak louder than words, Madam Speaker, and if the American people
judge us by our actions, as they should, the House is off to a very,
very bad start.
[[Page H118]]
Just look at the rule before us today. On two incredibly important
and controversial issues, the Keystone pipeline and making major
changes to the Affordable Care Act, the Republican majority has decided
to shut the House down, to say to every single member of this House,
``Take it or leave it.''
Do you believe that the Keystone pipeline won't actually do much to
move the United States toward energy dependence or might harm our
environment? Too bad, your amendment won't be made in order.
Do you believe that the 54th vote to undermine the Affordable Care
Act is a waste of time? Too bad, the Republican leadership doesn't want
to hear about it.
Are you a duly-elected Member of the House of Representatives with an
interesting and substantive idea about how to change the underlying
legislation? Too bad, according to the Republican leadership, your
voice doesn't matter.
It is no wonder that an almost unprecedented number of Republican
Members voted against the current leadership. They are fed up, and I
don't blame them. That is where we are in the House of Representatives.
What about the Senate? According to Jennifer Rubin of The Washington
Post, a Republican spokesman for Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said:
Restoring the Senate to a place where legislation is
debated and voted on, rather than simply using it as a
campaign studio, is a priority for Senator McConnell.
Frankly, Madam Speaker, given Mitch McConnell's past record, I will
believe it when I see it, but at least he is saying something
constructive. Unfortunately, here in the House, we have the same old-
same old: a completely closed process that denies all Members the
opportunity to be heard.
If this week is any indication, it is clear that the Republican
leadership will keep using the House of Representatives as a campaign
studio. They will continue to bring legislation to the floor that the
President will veto, with no chance of amendments.
What a waste of time, what a squandered opportunity--but I have got
an idea. This is a radical idea. Let's restore the House of
Representatives to a place where substantive issues are debated and
considered and voted on. My friends on the other side of the aisle like
to talk about democracy. Let's restore a little bit of democracy in the
House of Representatives.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject the temptation to close
this process down. I urge them to vote ``no'' on rules like this one
that are closed for no good reason.
Let me just say to my Republican colleagues: this is a lousy way to
start the new Congress.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Courtney) who, by the way, had an idea to try to
improve one of these bills, and his idea is not even allowed to be
discussed or debated or voted on here on the floor of the House.
Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and
both underlying bills, particularly the misnamed Save American Workers
Act.
I would like to just cite very quickly from the Congressional
Research Service, which is one of the gems of quality, neutral,
nonpartisan analysis for this body, which took a look at this bill and
said very clearly:
Changing the cutoff from 30 hours per week to 40 hours per
week would not eliminate the incentive for employers to shift
more workers to part-time status and could actually provide a
greater incentive for firms not to offer health insurance to
their employees.
In theory, changing the definition of a full-time worker to
40 hours a week would shift, not eliminate, the incentive for
employers to reduce workers' hours. Additionally, more
employers could be inclined to shift more workers to ``part-
time'' status under a 40-hour definition because the
disruption to their workforce is smaller from 40 to 39 hours
per week than 40 to 29 hours per week.
I will submit this report for the Record.
Change the Definition of ``Full-Time'' to 40 Hours Per Week
Multiple bills introduced in the 113th Congress propose
changing ACA's definition of ``full-time'' from 30 hours per
week to 40 hours per week. Proponents of this revision argue
that the current, 30-hour per-week definition is unusually
low compared with ``traditional standards'' of a full-time
worker in many industries, thus increasing employer's
calculations and compliance costs. In addition, proponents of
the revision argue that the 30-hour definition encourages
employers to reduce the number of hours allotted to each
worker (thereby reducing their pay) in order to reduce the
number of ``full-time'' workers and reduce their compliance
costs with ACA (or the size of their employer penalty,
because the penalty is only based on full-time workers).
Note, as discussed below, that the incentive for firms paying
the penalty could be eliminated by imposing the penalty to
apply to FTEs.
As shown in Table 3, 2012 Census data indicates that the
majority (67.8%) of workers usually work 40 hours or more per
week. The average work week for people who typically work
``full time'' is 42.5 hours per week--more than the 30-hour
definition of an ``FTE'' in ACA. However, the data in Table 3
does not provide much behavioral insight into the responses
of firms to ACA, as they were collected prior to the initial
measurement period for ACA's employer penalty that began in
January 2013.
TABLE 3. PERSONS AT WORK, BY AVERAGE HOURS WORKED PER WEEK, 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution of workers
Hours of work across all industries
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 to 14........................................ 5.0%
15 to 29....................................... 12.5%
30 to 34....................................... 7.6%
35 to 39....................................... 7.1%
40............................................. 42.8%
41+............................................ 25.0%
Average Hours, Total at Work................... 38.5 hours
Average Hours, Persons Who Usually Work ``Full 42.5 hours
Time'' a......................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Current Population Survey, ``Household
Data--Annual Averages--19. Persons at work in agricultural and
nonagricultural industries by hours of work,'' http://www.bls.gov/cps/
cpsaat19.htm.
a The Census Bureau defines a ``full-time worker'' as someone working 35
hours or more per week.
Several employer surveys indicate that most respondents are
not reducing their employees' hours in response to ACA's
definition of a full-time worker. According to a 2013 survey
conducted by the International Foundation of Employee
Benefits Plans, a non-profit foundation, 16% of the 966
employers surveyed said they have adjusted or plan to adjust
hours so that fewer employees qualify for full-time.
According to a 2012 survey of 1,203 employers conducted by
Mercer, a global business consulting firm, 68% of survey
respondents indicated that they will begin offering health
coverage to all employees working 30 or more hours per week.
Other surveys with fewer respondents support these findings.
In addition to surveys (which could or could not be
representative of the firms that could be affected by the
employer penalty), some researchers have conducted empirical
analysis of broad, public-use data. A 2013 study conducted by
the U.C. Berkeley Labor Center estimated that approximately
2.3 million workers in firms with 100 or more employees
(representing 3.1% of all workers) were most vulnerable to a
reduction in their payroll hours from above 30 hours per week
to below 30 hours per week. These workers were mostly
concentrated in the restaurant industry. In contrast, a 2013
study conducted by Helen Jorgensen and Dean Baker of the
Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) found that
less than 1% of all workers in 2013 fall just below ACA's
full-time threshold (26-29 hours per week). Jorgensen and
Baker's study uses more recent data and is probably a more
reliable study to forecast future conditions. Unlike the U.C.
Berkeley Labor Center's study, Jorgensen and Baker's study
likely captured any initial employers' responses to shifting
workers below the 30 hour per week cutoff because, according
to ACA, the baseline measurement period for measuring a
firm's FTE employees begins in 2013. Also, Jorgensen and
Baker's study better captures more recent improvements in the
labor market; there are likely to be more ``underemployed''
workers (working under 40 hours) in the older data because
the macroeconomy was in an earlier stage of recovery.
Changing the cutoff from 30 hours per week to 40 hours per
week would not eliminate the incentive for employers to shift
more workers to part-time status, and could actually provide
a greater incentive for firms not to offer health insurance
to their employees. In theory, changing the definition of a
full-time worker to 40 hours per week would shift, not
eliminate, the incentive for employers to reduce workers'
hours. Additionally, more employers could be inclined to
shift more workers to ``part-time'' status (in terms of the
ACA) under a 40-hour definition, because the disruption to
their workforce is smaller from 40 to 39 hours than 40 to 29
hours. If the incentive to retain their workers on full-time
status is diminished, then fewer firms could be compelled by
the employer penalty to offer health care coverage relative
to current law. As shown in Table 3, more workers are also
clustered around the 40-hour per-week threshold than the 30-
hour threshold.
Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Speaker, I had an amendment, which is being shut
off today, which I think actually really addresses the problem. Under
the structure of the employer mandate that came out of the Senate, when
an employer goes from 49 to 50 employees, the employer is taxed for 20
employees. Again, that is a cliff. There is just no denying that fact.
When the House passed the Affordable Care Act, we had a smooth,
gradual, incremental increase based on payroll which, again, did not
create a cliff.
[[Page H119]]
My amendment would simply say that the exempt number of employees
before the tax kicked in would be raised from 30 to 49, so that when an
additional employee was hired above the 50 threshold, there would be a
tax, there still would be an incentive, but there would not be a cliff.
Unbelievably, the committee just totally refused to allow this
amendment to be considered. It was a strike-everything substitute
amendment because the underlying bill does not accomplish the ends that
its sponsors claim--and the CRS has verified that--but in fact, the
Small Business Majority, which represents a large contingent of small
employers across the country, endorsed my amendment.
Madam Speaker, sadly, under this rule--which, again, just completely
shuts off any ability for Members to do their job, represent their
district, come up with ideas that are well-founded in independent
analysis--we are not going to have that opportunity.
I will submit a copy of the amendment which is not going to be
discussed and the statement of support from the Small Business Majority
in the Record.
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. ___
Offered by Mr. Courtney of Connecticut
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Eliminate the Small Employer
Tax Cliff Act''.
SEC. 2. INCREASE IN REDUCTION IN DETERMINING APPLICATION OF
EMPLOYER SIZE TO ASSESSABLE PENALTIES.
(a) In General.--Clause (i) of section 4980H(c)(2)(D) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking
``30'' and inserting ``49''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013.
SEC. 3. BUDGETARY EFFECTS.
The budgetary effects of this Act shall not be entered on
either PAYGO scorecard maintained pursuant to section 4(d) of
the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010.
Amend the title so as to read: ``A bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the reduction in
determining the application of employer size to assessable
penalties under the employer mandate.''.
____
[From Small Business Majority]
Statement of Support for the Eliminate the Small Employer Tax Cliff Act
(Statement from John Arensmeyer, Founder & CEO of Small Business
Majority)
Small Business Majority supports Congressman Courtney's
amendment to increase the cliff of the employer penalty in
the Affordable Care Act from 30 to 49 employees because it
will provide small business owners with more flexibility and
can relieve some of the burden on those few who have more
than 50 employees but do not provide health insurance.
Ninety-six percent of businesses in this country have fewer
than 50 employees. For larger businesses with more than 50
employees, 96% already offer insurance. Only the 4% of larger
employers that do not offer health insurance are impacted by
the penalty.
However, the Congressman's amendment will mean fewer small
business owners with more than 50 employees will have to pay
a penalty if they do not offer insurance.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman from California and the
gentleman from Texas.
Madam Speaker, I wonder: Does anyone know who Lisa Gray is? Or the
many Lisa Grays across America? Lisa Gray is a woman who, as a small
business owner, admitted that if it had not been for the Affordable
Care Act, she would not have been able to get the chemo treatment for
her leukemia.
Just think of the workers who are now getting affordable care access.
Now, with this legislation, they will be cut to 39 or 38 or 32 hours,
so as not to have the employee-mandated and responsible way of treating
their health insurance.
This bill that is on the floor today will give us a $53 billion
deficit. It will result in 1 million people losing their employee-
sponsored coverage like Lisa Gray or families that I saw coming for
enrollment in Texas.
It will increase the number of people obtaining coverage through
Medicaid, CHIP, and the health insurance marketplace between 500,000
and 1 million and increase the number of uninsured by upwards of
500,000.
Do we realize what we have gained through the Affordable Care Act?
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the average annual premium
for employer-sponsored family health insurance rose just 3 percent.
That is far different from 7.9 percent before the Affordable Care Act.
Where is all this noise that our insurance premiums are going up?
I will tell you what will be going up: it will cause an additional
6.5 million workers to find that their employers have cut their hours,
and it will result in $19.6 billion in additional costs to the Federal
health care program.
Are we talking about deficit? I am talking about lives, Madam
Speaker, and I am talking about the ability to save lives. This
legislation is not interested in doing so.
What about my State of Texas? We have not opted in to the expanded
Medicaid. Twenty-three States--what will that do to individuals below
100 percent of the Federal poverty line if they had any ability to
access the marketplace? They won't have the ability to access the
marketplace because they will be in those who are cut down.
Let me just say that we have the ability to realize and do better.
Let me stop people from saying there is no Federal law that requires
employers, Madam Speaker, to cover employees. You won't face penalties.
You can do better. I believe this bill does not answer our concerns.
I don't want Lisa Gray to lose her insurance.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 30, the so-called
``Save American Workers Act of 2014,'' which is the latest attempt by
the House Republican majority to impede the implementation of the
Affordable Care Act and deny Americans the security that comes from
having access to affordable, high-quality health care.
At the start of the new Congress the American people expect the
``People's House'' to take up matters of central concern to their
lives: jobs, affordable education; and initiatives to close the income
gap.
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.
The majority is bringing before the House of Representatives a bill
that was brought before the last Congress, and the Obama Administration
said that it would be vetoed.
The majority has attempted over 50 times to end the Affordable Care
Act with no hope of accomplishing their goal. Today's vote is no
different from past attempts to take away Americans' right to
affordable health care insurance.
Further, should the Republican majority in the Senate decide to take
up this bill--they do not have the 60 votes to bring H.R. 30 before the
Senate for a final vote.
If they could get H.R. 30 out of the Senate the President would veto
the bill and neither the House nor the Senate has the two-thirds
majority necessary to overcome a veto.
This is a waste of limited legislative days for 2015, and a poor
start to the 114th Congress.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that H.R. 30, the Save
American Workers Act would: Increase the federal deficit by $53 billion
over the next decade; Result in one million people losing sponsoring
coverage; Increase the number of people obtaining coverage through
Medicaid, CHIP, and the Health Insurance Marketplaces by between
500,000 and one million people; and Increase the number of uninsured by
up to 500,000.
Since 2013, over 10 million Americans now have health insurance
because they took advantage of the Affordable Care Act.
An independent analysis conducted by the University of California
Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education found that increasing
the threshold from 30 to 40 hours would result in nearly three times as
many workers, about 6.5 million in total, being vulnerable to hour
reductions than under current law.
Premiums for employer-sponsored insurance grew in 2014 at the lowest
rate on record back to 1999, tied with 2010. According to the Kaiser
Family Foundation data, the average annual premium for employer-
sponsored family health insurance coverage rose just 3.0 percent (1.2
percent adjusted for inflation) to $16,834 in 2out, far below the 7.9
percent (5.6 percent adjusted for inflation) rate seen from 2000-2010.
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 nation because of the Affordable Care Act has 7.3 million people
signed up for Marketplace plans, paid their premiums, and accessed
quality, affordable coverage.
An additionally, 8 million individuals enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP
since the beginning
[[Page H120]]
2015 Open Enrollment--that's an increase of nearly 14 percent compared
to average monthly signups before this year's enrollment period began.
Millions of young adults have gotten covered on their parent's plan,
because the law says they can now do so until they turn 26.
An article in the New England Journal of Medicine found that 10.3
million uninsured Americans have gotten since the start of Open
Enrollment.
In just one year (since the start of Open Enrollment), we've reduced
the number of uninsured adults by 26 percent.
Americans have more choices. During Open Enrollment 21314, consumers
could choose from an average of 47 plans. Contrast that to before the
Affordable Care Act when many consumers had few, if any, real choices.
Today, we're able to announce that in 2015 there is a 25 percent
increase in the total number of insurers selling health insurance plans
in the Marketplace in 44 states.
Seventy-six million Americans with private health insurance can
finally get preventive services such as vaccines, cancer screenings,
and yearly wellness visits without cost sharing, because the law says
your insurance company must provide you with these services with no
copay or other out-of-pocket expense.
This includes nearly 30 million women and over 18 million children.
Millions of families have real financial security because insurance
companies can no longer deny them coverage because of a pre-existing
condition or because they reach an annual or lifetime limit in
coverage. Insurance companies must include things like prescription
drugs and hospital stays in their coverage. And being a woman is no
longer a pre-existing condition.
H.R. 30 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.
The bill would redefine ``full-time employee,'' for purposes of
determining which employees an employer must provide health insurance
coverage to only those hourly wageworkers who work 40 hours a week. The
Affordable Care Act for the purpose of employers providing health care
to workers defined a full time employee as any worker who works 30
hours a week or more.
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.
In the 115th Congress wants to help Americans with access to
affordable health care insurance they would address the issue of states
that are not participating in the Medicaid expansion in states like the
state of Texas where millions of uninsured low wage workers do not have
access to health care insurance.
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 party that is
causing headaches and heartaches to doctors and their patients.
I ask that my Colleagues vote against the rule for H.R. 30.
[From The Ledger.com, Jan. 8, 2015]
Stories Behind the Legislation: Woman--Obama's Health Coverage Saved Me
(By Noam N. Levey)
Alexandria, VA.--Like many working Americans, Lisa Gray
thought she had good health insurance.
That was until she was diagnosed with leukemia in mid-2013,
and the self-employed businesswoman made a startling
discovery: Her health plan didn't cover the chemotherapy she
needed. ``I thought I was going to die,'' Gray, 62, said
recently, recalling her desperate scramble to get lifesaving
drugs.
Through a mix of temporary measures, doctors and patient
advocates managed to keep Gray stable for a few months.
But it was a new health plan through the Affordable Care
Act that Gray credits with saving her life. The plan, which
started Jan. 1, 2014, gave her access to the recommended
chemotherapy. Her cancer went into remission in the fall.
It's been one year since the federal law began guaranteeing
coverage to most Americans for the first time, even if they
are sick.
Some consumers pay more for insurance. Some pay less.
Doctors, hospitals and businesses are laboring to keep up
with new requirements. And across the country, ``Obamacare''
remains a polarizing political issue.
For many Americans like Gray--who were stuck in plans that
didn't cover vital services or who couldn't get insurance
because of a pre-existing medical condition--the law has had
a personal, even life-changing impact.
``A couple years earlier, I think I would have been done,''
Gray said.
Even the law's supporters concede more must be done to
control health care costs and ensure access to care.
But the insurance guarantee--which includes billions of
dollars in aid to low- and middle-income Americans--has
extended coverage to about 10 million people who previously
had no insurance, surveys indicate.
That cut the nation's uninsured rate more than 20 percent
last year, the largest drop in half a century.
The law also changed coverage for millions more people who
were in plans like Gray's that capped or excluded benefits.
Gray thought little of these potential changes when
President Barack Obama signed the health law in the spring of
2010. She'd had health insurance for decades.
With a monthly $1,095 premium, the Kaiser Permanente plan
that she had gotten through her husband's employer wasn't
cheap.
But it was her only option. As a breast cancer survivor,
Gray probably wouldn't have been able to find a new plan.
On the morning of May 20, 2013, Gray skidded off the road
driving to her vacation condominium on Maryland's Eastern
Shore. Aside from a few bruises, she was unhurt.
But she had a bigger surprise at the emergency room. A
routine blood test showed an unusually high white blood cell
count.
Gray had chronic myeloid leukemia, a relatively uncommon
form of cancer that starts in the bone marrow and leads to
the production of abnormal blood cells.
The disease is now considered highly treatable. Gray's
oncologist at Kaiser prescribed the standard oral
chemotherapy, a medication known as Gleevec.
Gray called her pharmacy to pick up the prescription.
There was a pause on the line. The pharmacist asked Gray
whether she knew the drug would cost $6,809 per month.
``I freaked out,'' she recalled. ``Why would they even make
this drug if people can't afford it?''
Neither Gray nor her doctor realized her Kaiser plan
covered only $1,500 worth of prescription drugs a year, a
provision spelled out in small type in Appendix B of her 80-
page plan brochure.
Gray's family explored going to Canada, where
pharmaceuticals are often less expensive. They finally found
a clinical trial closer to home at the University of
Maryland, Baltimore, where researchers were testing an
alternative to Gleevec called ponatinib.
Gray's cancer quickly responded. The relief was only
temporary, however. The next month, Gray had to stop the
ponatinib. Without access to either drug, she was again
scrambling.
Bristol-Myers Squibb, which provides cancer patients with a
temporary insurance card for a 30-day supply of yet another
cancer drug, seemed to offer hope. But the card wasn't
accepted at the Kaiser pharmacy where Gray had to get her
prescriptions.
American Cancer Society advocate Brandon Costantino
persuaded a company sales representative to give Gray a
month's supply anyway.
Even the promise of a new insurance plan under the
Affordable Care Act seemed elusive at first. Gray, like
others, battled through the problems that hobbled
HealthCare.gov after it opened.
Finally, on Dec. 2, 2013, she selected a new Kaiser
Permanente health plan for $780 per month. That was $315 less
than her current plan. Most important, the plan covered
Gleevec for a $30-a-month co-pay.
Gray broke down in the pharmacy when she picked up her
first prescription.
She admits she's ``kind of a crier.''
Nine months later, a bone marrow biopsy showed no further
sign of leukemia.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership on
the Rules Committee and on so many issues.
I rise today, Madam Speaker, in strong opposition to this rule and to
H.R. 3, the Keystone XL Pipeline Act, and H.R. 30, the so-called Save
American Workers Act of 2015.
Madam Speaker, both of these bills are damaging to the health of
Americans, with one aimed at denying access to affordable health care
and the other designed to strike a blow to our environment.
Madam Speaker, approval of Keystone XL would worsen climate change by
expanding the extraction of the dirtiest oil on the planet. Emissions
from extracting the dirty tar sands oil that would flow through the
Keystone XL pipeline would be equal to the tailpipe emissions from 5.7
million cars. That is not the air that we want to breathe.
We must reject this assault on our environment, especially at a time
when so many communities across our country are experiencing the
impacts of climate change through severe weather, coastal storms, and
crippling droughts.
Let me turn quickly to H.R. 30, the so-called ``Save Health Care for
Working Families Act.''
[[Page H121]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15
seconds.
Ms. LEE. Sadly, this bill is nothing more than the latest Republican
attack on the Affordable Care Act and would result in an estimated 1
million people losing access to their health care coverage. This is
unacceptable.
We should be in the business of providing hardworking Americans
access to affordable health care, not taking it away.
I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this rule and these damaging bills.
{time} 1300
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Mrs. Miller), the chairwoman of the House Administration
Committee.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I certainly thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the combined rule, but
specifically I want to talk in favor of the Keystone XL Pipeline Act,
which will finally approve this very, very long overdue project. The
act that we are going to be passing will certainly show this House's
intent to pass it, and I do believe that now the Senate will pass the
Keystone Pipeline project as well.
There are just so many reasons--so many reasons--to vote in favor of
this bill:
First of all, tens of thousands of good-paying jobs, American jobs,
at zero cost to the American taxpayers.
Greater American access to safe and reliable North American energy
resources, because certainly getting more energy from our close
friends, our neighbors, our closest ally, the Canadians, makes perfect
sense.
Reduced energy costs for American families. How important is that?
Enhanced American energy security. And in today's modern world, more
than ever, energy independence and energy security equals national
security.
So no wonder, Madam Speaker, that this project is supported by so
many groups from all across the spectrum: labor organizations, so many
labor organizations are supportive of this because of the jobs that it
will bring; so many business organizations because of what it is going
to do to help turbocharge our economy; and certainly the vast majority
of American people, in poll after poll after poll, have demonstrated
that they want this project to happen. They are totally cognizant, very
aware of what this project means, again, to reducing our reliance that
we have currently on fossil fuel from foreign sources, some countries
that are not particularly favorable to American values and our way of
life, and the American people are very, very supportive of this
project.
I say now, Madam Speaker, that it is time to turn away from the
extreme environmentalists and work toward the priorities of the
American people. The time to act is now.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, today the House is scheduled to
consider H.R. 30, which is really more properly called the ``Sabotage
American Workers Act,'' a bill to provide a major change in ACA's
requirement that larger employers offer health coverage to employees
who work 30 or more hours a week or face a penalty, raising the
threshold to 40 hours instead.
The GOP claims the 30-hour threshold is a destructive barrier to more
hours for workers. However, in reality, this GOP bill would lead to
fewer hours and more part-time workers, the exact opposite of what the
Republican rhetoric about restoring the 40-hour
workweek implies.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the Urban Institute
have found no compelling evidence that part-time employment has
increased as a result of ObamaCare. H.R. 30 would lead to more part-
time work, since large employers could avoid providing health care
coverage by reducing employees' work schedules by even just an hour.
Even conservative analysts agree. Yuval Levin recently wrote in the
National Review that changing the definition to 40 hours ``would likely
put far, far more people at risk of having their hours cut'' and
``would make for a worse effect on workers.''
Unfortunately, Congressional Republicans remain unmoved by the facts,
choosing instead to launch yet another attack on working families.
According to the CBO, this bill would increase the Federal deficit by
$53 billion over the next decade. So I would urge all of my colleagues
to vote ``no'' on this rule and then ``no'' on H.R. 30.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my
opposition both to the rule and also to the underlying legislation,
Save American Workers Act of 2015.
To paraphrase President Reagan: There you go again. This bill is
another effort to undermine the Affordable Care Act, and, even worse,
this significantly makes the problem worse. Raising the threshold for
full-time employees from 30 hours a week to 40 hours a week would
result in lost work hours for 6.5 million people. This essentially guts
the employer responsibility requirement at the direct expense of the
hardworking employees and of the taxpayers who end up subsidizing these
employees' health care coverage.
According to the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee
on Taxation, the misnamed Save American Workers Act will cause 1
million people to lose their employer-based health insurance coverage,
increase the number of uninsured Americans by 500,000, and add $74
billion to the deficit over the next 10 years.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. It will make shifts toward part-time
employment more likely rather than less.
Starting the 114th Congress with the 54th attempt to undermine or
repeal the Affordable Care Act is disappointing, and the American
people deserve better.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Castro).
Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Thank you, Congressman Polis.
Mr. Speaker, Democrats have said all along that we understand that
when you have a bill that is this wide in scope, whether it is hundreds
of pages or thousands of pages, regardless of the subject matter,
whether it is health care or education or banking or anything else,
that it is likely not going to be perfect, that we are always willing
to come back and look at making reasonable changes and tweaking it to
make it better, and that we would be willing to work with Republicans
to do it. We demonstrated that a few days ago when Congressman Davis
received overwhelming support from both Republicans and Democrats to
make sure that employers don't have to count folks who are receiving
coverage through the VA or through some other VA-related health care
coverage.
This, however, is unreasonable. This action, this bill, would mean
that a million Americans would lose health care coverage--a million
Americans. We are expecting, because the ACA has been so successful,
that 9 million Americans will enroll by the end of this enrollment
period.
Now, at the beginning, Republicans were saying that this would be the
biggest job killer there was, that the economy would suffer, that
businesses would be cutting employees.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoder). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Those predictions have turned out to be
completely misguided and false.
This country is going through an incredible economic expansion,
almost 5 percent. The unemployment rate is below 6 percent. And so, as
we go through this debate, I hope that we will keep those
considerations in mind.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois
[[Page H122]]
(Mr. Shimkus), a fellow member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend.
This is a debate that we shouldn't even have to have had since this
should have been approved 6 years ago. If you understand how Keystone
was supposed to happen, all it took was the President and, really, his
Cabinet, Secretary of State, to approve the cross-border passage 6
years ago. But because of politics and the President making a
decision--we thought this was going to be done 6 years ago, hence, the
legislative body getting involved.
And what has happened over the past 6 years? Fifteen hearings, four
markups. This is our 10th vote, and it is time to move on.
Moving liquid crude by pipeline is the safest way to move product--
the safest. In the Energy and Commerce Committee, people have no
understanding how many pipelines we have in this country--thousands of
miles and multiple cross-border. The only reason this got involved in a
political debate is the whole debate on climate change and fossil fuel.
That is the debate.
Now, you put more bulk crude product on the world market, that lowers
the prices for all Americans. Why are we seeing low gasoline prices
today? It is because there is a glut of crude oil on the entire world
market. Moving Keystone XL allows even more bulk crude oil to get on
the world market. Most of that would be refined in our country.
Major refiners have done billions of dollars of investments--next to
my district in Ohio, up in Chicagoland--to be prepared to refine this
type of crude oil, so this is, unfortunately, a problem that we need to
move and fix.
I appreciate the rule, and I look forward to debating the bill.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 15 seconds to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to my friend from
Illinois that, yes, this is politicized all right, and now we have got
Congress in the business of permitting. And if we are going to go down
that route, I have a 7-Eleven in my home county that can't get a
permit. Maybe I will bring it to Congress.
This is not the way to solve environmental problems, and this oil is
for export from Port Arthur, Texas. It is not designed to help domestic
supply in the United States.
Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle have now tried
more than 54 times to repeal the Affordable Care Act in some fashion.
Today they are at it once again, offering the so-called, Orwellian-
named Save American Workers Act.
I am still trying to figure out what they are trying to save the
American workers from. Good health care? Doctors? Nurses? Free
preventative checkups? The denial of insurance based on a preexisting
condition?
Exactly what are you trying to save them from?
Despite the repeated distortions and assaults, the Affordable Care
Act is working. In the most recent open enrollment, more than 6.5
million people have registered for or renewed their health insurance
coverage through the marketplace exchange, and open enrollment will
continue through February 15 of this year.
Just this week, new data show the uninsured rate has sunk to 12.9
percent, a 4-point drop in the past year, and one of the lowest in
decades. Many of these are our constituents who, without the Affordable
Care Act, would not have health insurance. They are realizing the
benefits of a patient-centered insurance model in which their coverage
cannot be rescinded or denied because of a preexisting condition and
does not put them at risk of bankruptcy in the event of an emergency.
But my friends on the other side will not be deterred in their zeal
to repeal, at any cost, no matter who it hurts, even if it means
abandoning their own professed principles.
The Congressional Budget Office says this bill would increase the
Federal deficit by at least $53.2 billion over the next 10 years. I
thought my colleagues wanted to reduce the deficit, which is exactly
what the Affordable Care Act does do, to the tune of $109 billion over
the same period.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
Mr. CONNOLLY. But rather than save workers, as its title would
suggest, this bill will actually sabotage them. Again, CBO says 1
million people who currently have insurance will lose it under the
Republican plan today, half of whom will have to go to Medicaid, and
the other half will just be left on the street.
Mr. Speaker, American workers need the Affordable Care Act. I urge my
colleagues to oppose the rule and the underlying H.R. 30.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer) for his very first speech here on
the floor of the House of Representatives.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to the rule.
With my brother, I have owned and managed a small business for 40
years, and I know well that the most important asset of any business is
its workers.
H.R. 30 creates perverse incentives to cut employee hours and to
eliminate the health care benefits entitled to full-time workers. It
would allow employers like me to easily cut back full-time employees
from the usual 40 hours to 39 hours, just so we don't have to offer
health care coverage. Work 12 minutes fewer a day and have no health
insurance coverage.
This bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It doesn't save American
workers. It does just the opposite.
Forty-four percent of all American workers will be at risk of losing
their health care benefits, and at least a half a million will be
forced onto public welfare rolls.
{time} 1315
According to the CBO, we hear it will increase the budget deficit by
$53.2 billion over the next 10 years. You don't have to have a
background in business to know that doesn't make good business sense.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule. This is not a job-
creating bill--it is a job-destroying bill--and that is not why we are
here.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
So here we are, Mr. Speaker. We have two bills that didn't go through
any committee and that no Member of this body, Democrat or Republican,
had a chance to amend. They went to the Rules Committee. No Members are
allowed to amend them on the floor of the House, and they have to vote
for them.
One of those bills is for a phantom pipeline. We don't even know if
anybody wants to build it, and we don't know where it is going to go.
We don't even know whether this right of eminent domain might be given
to a private company over this so that a company can condemn private
property of a private landowner's and take it away. Those are some of
the things that are being fought out in court and in law in States like
Nebraska. Without even knowing where it is going to go or if anybody
wants to pay for it or build it, somehow we are engaged with a
permitting process. Let's go ahead and approve a 7-Eleven in Gerry
Connolly's district. I would like a hotel at the corner of 29th and
Arapahoe in my district, if we can do that, too.
What are we doing--seizing all control here in Washington and taking
it away from States and local governments and individual landowners,
who normally have a say in these matters?
Of course, there is the other bill that we have here. Again, it
didn't go through committee. Nobody could amend it. It is a bill that
increases the deficit by $52 billion by forcing Americans to take
taxpayer subsidies for their health care rather than buying it
themselves with their employee's share and their employer's share. It
is a bill that encourages companies to cut their employees from 40
hours a week to 39 hours a week. It is a bill that will lead hundreds
of thousands or millions of Americans to lose their health care and
have to take taxpayer subsidies through the exchange to be able to even
have any kind of health care.
Look, instead of rehashing proposals that we voted on I don't even
know how many times--in fact, we voted on
[[Page H123]]
this phantom pipeline when it was a little less phantom. I think there
were actually people who wanted to build it when oil was $110 a barrel.
Guess what? The costs of the pipeline have gone up by about 30 percent,
and as far as we can tell, there has been no evidence presented, either
in the Rules Committee or here on the floor, that anybody wants to
build it. By the way, that is what congressional hearings are about in
normal regular order, where there would be somebody to testify: ``Well,
yes, we can build it at $70 a barrel. No, we can't build it at $70 a
barrel.'' We don't even have that information. I have seen an
independent report that said that the tar sands are not profitable at
anything less than $65 a barrel. We are at $52 a barrel now.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber).
Mr. WEBER of Texas. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and of the two
underlying bills, one of which is H.R. 3, the Keystone XL Pipeline Act,
which comes into my district.
I thank Congressman Cramer for introducing legislation approving this
project and for the leadership in making it a priority at the beginning
of this Congress.
It has been 2,302 days since the first permit application was filed
for Keystone XL. Now, folks, that is before the Apple iPad was released
6 years ago. The State Department's exhaustive study of this project
has led many to conclude that the Keystone XL is the most studied
pipeline in history. It looks like the only job this has produced has
been for those who are studying it. The Department has concluded that
this pipeline will be safe and environmentally sound. Despite this
favorable review, the administration has failed to make a decision on a
project that will strengthen our relationship with an important ally
and create American jobs--40,000, to use their number.
In addition to Canadian oil, this pipeline will also transport
American oil from North Dakota and Montana. This will make our roads
and communities safer as fewer trucks and fewer railcars will be needed
to transport oil to energy-hungry communities all across our great
country. The Keystone pipeline is supported by over 70 percent of the
American people, and there is no further reason for any kind of delay
for this project.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 35 seconds to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill.
By cutting full-time workers from 40 hours per week to 39, an
employer could escape having to pay for health care. This bill would
put millions of workers at risk of losing both wages and health care.
It is wrong for our country, wrong for public health, and it is wrong
for the middle class. It leaves the American people worse off, with
smaller paychecks and with bigger insurance bills. I urge my colleagues
to vote against this bill.
Mr. POLIS. We are prepared to close if the gentleman from Texas is
prepared to close.
Mr. BURGESS. I have no additional speakers.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado has 15 seconds
remaining.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and on the underlying
bills--no committee hearings, no committee markup, no amendments on the
floor of the House, a phantom pipeline, job-destroying, deficit-
busting.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 15\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
It has been an interesting afternoon, and we have heard a lot of
discussion. The first week of a new Congress is a little bit different
from other times. None of our committees have been constituted. Yet, in
this Congress--in this historic Congress--we have been left an enormous
amount of work by the previous Congress, not because the House wouldn't
do its work. Republicans and Democrats showed up and passed bills and
sent them over to the Senate, and there they languished. Well over 300
bills are stacked up on the former majority leader's desk. I stress the
word ``former'' in that statement, and I believe that is why he is the
former majority leader.
Now it is a new day and a new Congress. No, the committees have not
yet been constituted, but there is an enormous amount of work--there is
an enormous body of work--that has already been accomplished by the
House of Representatives that now needs to move forward on behalf of
the American people, on behalf of our economy, on behalf of our jobs,
on behalf of heating our homes. Look, I am old enough to remember when
the Democrats assumed power in 2007, in the 110th Congress. It was kind
of an unusual time for me because I had been in the majority
previously, and I didn't know what it was like to be in the minority,
but let me just take everyone back for a moment.
The rules package that the Democrats passed in the 110th Congress--
their first year of the majority--provided for the consideration of
five measures. I never quite understood that because the Democrats ran
on ``six for '06.'' Nevertheless, five measures were included in their
rules package. They went directly to the floor with these bills, with
no committee consideration, not even the consideration of a hearing in
the House Rules Committee, which they controlled at the time. So it is
a little disingenuous to say, ``Oh, we are rushing things. Oh, we have
not had adequate consideration.'' You heard the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Shimkus) describe the number of hearings and markups that have
been done on just the Keystone pipeline.
In the time I have been sitting here I have heard discussions that
there is nothing in the Affordable Care Act that actually cuts a
worker's hours, but a plain reading of the legislation--of section
1513, page 158, paragraph four, for those who are keeping score at
home--reads:
A full-time employee, section A, in general: The term
``full-time employee'' means, with respect to any month, an
employee who is employed at least 30 hours of service per
week.
That seems pretty straightforward.
What has happened as a result of that very plain language even before
the Department of Labor issued its rules, which were even more
restrictive, is employers made the decision of: Do you know what? We
are not going to employ anyone over 29 hours because we don't want to
run the risk of invoking this employer mandate.
Now, it is true enough that the administration did delay the mandate.
Yes, we are criticized for passing things that are restrictive on the
Affordable Care Act. The administration has done so so many times--30,
35--I don't even remember how many. One of the things they delayed was
the employer mandate. In fact, later on, in this very section, section
1513, it states:
On the effective date of the employer mandate, the
amendments made by this section shall apply to months
beginning after December 31, 2013.
That is in the past.
It is important to bring this up. It is not part of our discussion
today on the rules, but it is for employers--for small businesses--in
this country to recognize, with the delay of the employer mandate--
actually, it started last week, January 1 of 2015--no taxes for
calendar year 2015 will be paid until next year. So the fines under the
Affordable Care Act will, in fact, not start until next year, but the
reporting requirements started 7 days ago. Big companies understand
this. Big companies get this. Big companies have got lots of lawyers on
retainer who are working on this every day. It is the small employers
with 50 employees back home in our districts who need to understand
that they have to be keeping these records today so that they will be
able to go back and verify the statements on their tax bills next year.
Mr. Shimkus said it very well. On the Keystone pipeline, there have
been 15 hearings in the House and Senate, four markups, 10 votes--10
votes on the Keystone pipeline. Tell me we haven't studied this
situation.
[[Page H124]]
We heard discussion from the other side that this was a phantom
pipeline, that no one is even interested in building it anymore, and
that the price of gas is so low that no one would be interested in
building the Keystone pipeline. In fact, the president and CEO of
TransCanada, in a statement yesterday, said that Keystone XL is a
project that was needed when oil prices were less than $40 a barrel.
That was in 2008 that it was less than $40 a barrel. It is a project
that was needed when oil prices were less than $40 a barrel. It was
needed when prices were over $100 a barrel, and it is certainly needed
when prices are $50 a barrel, as they are today.
He went on to say that the review process for the Keystone XL has
been anything but a well-established process. For decades, the normal
process to review and make a decision on an infrastructure project like
Keystone would take 2 years. He went on to say that we are well over
the 6-year mark in reviewing the final phase of Keystone with,
seemingly, no end in sight. The bar continues to move again and again.
What business can function like that, Mr. Speaker?
TransCanada has patiently and diligently worked since 2008 to comply
with every twist and turn in this unparalleled process. We have done
this to ensure that the Keystone XL is built and operated safely. The
State Department has concluded this to be the case time and time again,
and it can be done.
Mr. Speaker, I would just submit that that does not sound like a CEO
who is not willing to invest his money. We are not even talking about
government money here. We are talking about private money. This private
investment, indeed, is going forward. I would just submit again, from
Cushing, Oklahoma, to Port Arthur, Texas, the pipeline is actually in
the ground and exists today--far from a phantom pipeline.
Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of important
bills pertaining to health care and energy--the two very centers of
excellence within the Energy and Commerce Committee.
I applaud Mr. Young and Mr. Cramer for their thoughtful pieces of
legislation. I applaud them for working across the aisle to offer bills
that both Republicans and Democrats have publicly supported. Over two-
dozen Democrats voted for the 40-hour workweek the last time it came to
the floor. I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the
underlying bills.
For that reason, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 240,
nays 180, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 11]
YEAS--240
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emmer
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NAYS--180
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle (PA)
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu (CA)
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle (PA)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu (CA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--9
Duckworth
Fleming
Gallego
Gosar
O'Rourke
Rush
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Stivers
{time} 1353
Mr. NORCROSS changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I was unavoidably
detained during the vote on the Motion on Ordering the Previous
Question on the Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 30, the Save
American Workers Act of 2015 and H.R. 3, the Keystone XL Pipeline Act.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
(By unanimous consent, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ was allowed to speak out
of order.)
Moment of Silence on Tucson Shootings'
4-Year Anniversary
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise to lead my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle in a moment of silence to honor the victims of
the
[[Page H125]]
Tucson, Arizona, mass shooting that took place 4 years ago today.
On that bright winter day, a gunman struck directly at a cornerstone
of American democracy by murdering six innocent people and wounding 13
others during a Congress on Your Corner event. Among the injured were
our dear colleague and friend, Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, and her
aide and future colleague, Ron Barber.
In spite of her near-fatal wounds and with the memory of her
constituents and staff whom she lost that day guiding her, Gabby has
moved this Congress, this Nation, and arguably the world with her
remarkable recovery, her poignance, and her passion.
She has also channeled her poise, her strength, and her determination
into an effort with her husband, Mark, by her side to ensure that
similar episodes of violence do not befall other mothers, fathers,
husbands, sisters, daughters, sons, friends, and neighbors. How very
extraordinary, how very bold, and how very Gabby.
It is not easy work, and we all have our differences. Mr. Speaker, I
know I am joined by so many of you in asking, hoping, and praying in
Gabby's name that we can set aside some of our deeply-held differences
and find a way to work together on this very challenging and difficult
subject of gun violence and keeping people safe and make a commitment
this Congress to find common ground finally.
In doing so, we will be more pragmatic, more thoughtful, and more
engaged citizens in this great and enduring experiment that we call
American democracy. It would be a fitting tribute to those individuals
whose lives were lost and irreparably altered that Saturday in Tucson.
In that spirit, in the spirit of working together, in the spirit of
reaffirming our commitment to American representative democracy, and
defying against violence against this great institution, I ask you to
please rise and join me for a moment of silence to honor the lives of
Gabe Zimmerman, Dorwan Stoddard, Phyllis Schneck, Judge John Roll, Dot
Morris, and Christina-Taylor Green.
The SPEAKER. Without objection, 5-minute voting will continue.
The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 244,
noes 181, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 12]
AYES--244
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emmer
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOES--181
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle (PA)
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu (CA)
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle (PA)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu (CA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--4
Duckworth
Gallego
Gosar
O'Rourke
{time} 1410
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.
____________________