[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.

                          ____________________