tv House Session CSPAN January 8, 2015 12:00pm-5:01pm EST
debate two bills. one, approving the construction permit for the keystone x.l. pipeline. and that would be debated tomorrow. the other measure would change the definition after full-time worker. full-time employment from 30 hours to 40 hours under the 2010 health care law. debate getting under way soon now. live to the house floor here on c-span. the speaker: the house will be in order. prayer will be offered today by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. eternal god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. we pause now in your presence and acknowledge our dependence on you.
we ask your blessing upon the men and women of this, the people's house, who are settling into new spaces and committees here on capitol hill. as the new session begins, help them and indeed help us all to obey your law to do your will and to walk in your way. grant that they might be good in thought, gracious in word, generous in deed and great in spirit. make this a glorious day in which all are glad to be alive and ready to serve you. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval there. pursuantolaole the journal stands approved. the pledge of alenalsance today will be led by the gentleman from -- allegiance today will be led by the gentlelady from
north carolina, ms. adams. ms. adams: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: will the members-elect gather in the well. please, if all members will please rise. members will raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that you take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which you are about to enter, so help you god? congratulations, you are now members of the 114th conditioning.
-- congress. under clause 5-d of rule 20, the chair announces to the house that in light of the administration of the oath to the gentleman from california and the gentleman from minnesota, the whole number of the house is now 430. the chair will entertain up to 15 requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? without objection. >> mr. speaker, tuesday marked the 10th anniversary of the catastrophic train wreck in graniteville, south carolina. mr. wilson: which sadly is remembered for the death of nine citizens and over 250 persons injured. i appreciate the first responders of akin county and the state for their courageous efforts to help those in need. i commend steve sealing who has promoted train safety after his son, chris died in the incident.
i also appreciate the continued efforts in leadership of phil napier, a volunteer fire chief and now akin county councilmember. this disaster had devastating impacts on graniteville including the closing of a major employer. however, new businesses have emerged and the expansion of bridgestone corporation, with the establishment of m.t.u. america has created nearly 1,500 jobs. while we are grateful for the new jobs a graniteville and look forward to its continued growth, we will never forget those lost in the railroad tragedy 10 years ago. in conclusion, god bless our troops and the president by his actions must never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. as an american grateful for french heritage, our prayers are with the people of france fighting terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? without objection, the
gentleman is recognized. for one minute. mr. higgins: mr. speaker, there are 329 ports of entry across the united states. four of which are located in my district of western new york. these border crossings provide opportunities for trade and commerce requires sufficient levels of security and provide enormous economic benefits to our nation. today i ask the homeland security appropriations subcommittee to include funding to the programs necessary to ensure the free throw flow of people and goods at the northern border. specifically fund something needed to sustain the recent increase in customs and border protection officer staffing levels. this increase offers significant economic benefits by reducing wait times. also, i ask for funding to support the preinspection pilot program which will expedite the flow of traffic by moving primary cargo inspections to canada at crossings in buffalo new york, and blaine, washington. mr. speaker i will continue to push for these and other measures to integrate the
economies of our border communities with our canadian neighbors. i urge the committee to support them as well. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, i rise today to recognize the life and legacy of kita. kita, who passed away one week ago today, was married for 47 years to congressman mike, who represented indiana's ninth congressional district for several years. i know i speak for countless hoosiers in paying our respects to kita and offering our prayers to mike and his family. if you talk to anyone who knew them, you'll learn that mike was able to serve our district with distinction because of the love and support of his wife. kita, i'm told was a model congressional spouse. because she loved southern indiana, she loved the lord and
she loved mike deeply. most of us who served in this body are only able to do so because of the same sort of love and support from our own spouses. as we all remember the family during their time of loss, may kita remind us of the loving, loyal and invaluable service and sacrifice our spouses make for our nation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you madam speaker. now that you have yielded me time i can say anything i want. i can offer any idea and i can criticize anything. no police force, not the greatest military in the world, can stop me from speaking my mind. mr. himes: this is true not because i'm a particularly regular source of good ideas or because we're particularly gracious to one another around here. it's true because we are humble about what we know for sure. we used to know for sure in
this chamber that women should not vote. and that racial discrimination was ok. opposing those ideas used to be offensive and provocative. in paris yesterday, several courageous journalists were murdered because their ideas were provocative to some. they were murdered by cowards who know that their ideas and visions would and will be rejected by civil itesed humans everywhere -- civilized humans everywhere. there is no courage in killing the unarmed. to those who committed these atrocities yesterday, bring your ideas to a forum like this one or to forums like this one all over the democratic world. bring your ideas to be examined and debated. that is the path of courage and honor. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized without objection for one
minute. >> madam speaker, i rise today to tell a story about lost opportunity. pennsylvania is the country's fourth highest producer of medical devices. one company in my district, cardiac assist makes devices that treat heart failure and employs over 40 people. mr. rothfus: this improves quality of life and they siany dus e st of care for cardiac patients. the company's mission it is to develop produc that are easier to use and less expensive to make. but obamacare's onerous medical device tax is stifling growth at cardiac assist. since this $30 billion tax took effect, cardiac assist has backed off from hiring five new employees to just one. it has also redulesed its research and development efforts -- reduced its research and development efforts. when we tax the innovation that's the solution to the cost crisis in this country, it directly affects how cardiac assist gets its affordable therapies out to the world. sadly, it also costs jobs. and in this case, four jobs
that a -- at a company trying to grow in western pennsylvania. the protect medical innovation act repeals this tax and allows companies like cardiac assist to get back to growing and creating jobs. i'm a proud co-sponsor of this legislation and look forward to its passage. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. i learned just a few minutes ago that my wonderful senator from the state of california, senator barbara boxer, will not be seeking re-election in 2016. mr. lowenthal: although we do have this wonderful senator for two more years i wanted to say a few words about our wonderful senator. i've been a great admirer for her since the 1980's when she was in the house. i helped work for her when she ran for the united states senate in 1992 she's been a great leader -- 1992. she's been a great leader.
she's a champion voice for the environment. she spoke out about climate change before anyone else spoke out about it. she was one of the first to really speak out for all progressive causes. she's fought for workers. i want her to know that california will miss her. we will count on her leadership for the next two years here in congress and then after and i just want to say it will be a great loss. i will miss her greatly. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from tennessee seek recognition? without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam speaker. i'm rising today in support of h.r. 39. this is a bill i filed yesterday. and it calls for a 1% across the board spending reduction for all discretionary spending, except for homeland security, defense and veterans affairs. that is 1% out of the 2015
budget. the federal government is over $18 trillion in debt. that's why i filed this bill. because it is not fair to hardworking taxpayers and to future generations to be saddled with this debt. do you know, right now $56,600 is each individual's share of the debt. i have a nephew who just recently turned 1 year old. he has $56,600 worth of debt. is that fair? no indeed, it is not. it is important that we begin to cut that one penny out of every dollar in discretionary spending to get our fiscal house in order. i urge consideration of h.r. 39 and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina seek recognition?
without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. >> thank you madam speaker. i come to the floor to pay tribute to the memory of shonda, a native north carolinian admired daughter, sister and friend, who departed this life suddenly on december 12, 2014 in cumberland county, where she lived and worked as a teacher. she was an outstanding educator for more than 0 years. ms. adams: well -- 20 years. ms. adams: well respected, a leader in her church and community and someone who valued all people. genuinely concerned for the welfare of each student, she truly believed that if given the opportunity and resources, every tchiled could seed -- every child could succeed. she left an indelible impression on her community and state and for her many tireless efforts, on behalf of children, i join with her parents, freddie and former state representative mary, and all the citizens of our state in honoring shonda's memory and her legacy. madam speaker i yield back.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you madam speaker. today i stand in solidarity with the people of france. and my thoughts and prayers go out to the families of the victims of the ruthless terrorist attack that happened in paris yesterday. this rampage was perpetrated by terrorists who seek nothing but death and destruction for all of us who embrace something as basic as the freedom of speech. and while we did not need it, this only reinforces and strengthens our resolve in the fight to defend our freedoms and our way of life. mr. dold: it may be an uncomfortable truth, but the reality is that we cannot stick our heads in the sand and hope that threats from radical extremists will go away on their own. nowhere are the stakes bigger today madam speaker, than in
iran. iran and its nuclear weapons program, i believe pose the number one threat to our national security. our resolve in confronting the iranian challenge must never waiver and i call on this new congress to act -- waver and i call on this new congress to act right away on ratcheting up pressure and sanctions on iran. this is not a left versus right issue this is a right versus wrong issue. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? . >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. as a newly elected congressman from the state of washington, i rise to mark the 50th anniversary of the pacific northwest national laboratory in my congressional district. i congratulate all current earn former lab workers and their families. mr. newhouse: their commitment to excellence is apparent from
the contributions the lab has made both to the local community and to our nation. this world class facility is key to the long-term growth of the tricities because of the leading role the lab plays in national security, clean renewable american energy, efforts to clean up our nation's nuclear defense, waste, chemistry, and more. originally created for the manhattan project, the lab has adapted to address our nation's most pressing needs. i look forward to visiting the lab in the coming weeks, to congratulate them in person, and i am committed to providing the support the lab needs to continue serving our nation for the next 50 years. congratulations to the pnnl family. thank you madam speaker the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. today i recognize the bishop
gilford football team who capped off an undefeated season. their offense plowed their their opponents. while i don't hold it against them, it became obvious that b.g. was destined for a championship when i watched them defeat my nephew michael shuster, and the lions. mr. shuster: defense wins championships and in the final minutes of the state championship, they held the goal line securing a one-point lead a 19-18 victory. the character displayed by the young men give us reason to be proud of the place we call home. i also recognize the seniors who played their last games. and their honorary captain who truly exemplifies the spirit of b.g. football. congratulations to them for bringing home a state championship. if you're watching today, take notice, i got the team colors
on. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, as i come to the floor i have been on the floor earlier today and i offer again my deepest sympathy to the people of france and mourn with them for the heinous tragedy yesterday. i know all americans will do so. i come however, to talk of an issue that i hope i will draw bipartisan recognition of the importance of ensuring the support and the lack of reduction of s.s.i. benefits. there are 300 million-plus americans in this country, but 5,581,000 americans receive
s.s.i. 4.6 million of them are disabled. 1.3 million are children. my office is in the federal building in houston texas. i watch individuals come to our social security office. they don't look rich. they don't look fraudulent. they don't look like they are trying to take advantage of the system of help that america's giving them. i'm sending out an s.o.s. alert to all the families who have loved family ones on s.s.i. or the children receiving death benefits because their parents are dead. and i am asking that we commit to ensuring and providing the support for the s.s.i. account not reducing it, to the reducing benefits, because these are the neediest americans who i would be in utter shame to point out that they are fraudulent. we'll be having a teach-in in my district. we'll ask them to come and tell their stories, madam speaker, because i am insisting and refusing to allow their benefits to be cut. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new hampshire seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. guinta: madam speaker, i rise today to honor and recognize the third battalion, 197th field ari tillry regiment of the new hampshire army national guard. this week they deploy to the central command area of responsibility in support of operation spartan shield. to the 370-some granite staters who are employing, and also your families who are constantly supporting you thank you for your service, your commitment, and your sacrifice. this is the first army national guard unit to support this artillery mission, you carry forward the national guard's mantra, always ready, always there. as my two children join me on the house floor, i'm reminded of
how grateful i am to you, the rest of our soldiers sailors airmen, and marines. for protecting our country our safety, our liberties. you are the very best our nation has to offer. the granite state and our nation are forever indebted to you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, should we reward american companies and entrepreneurs for their hard work and productivity, or should we reward them for having the best lobbyists in washington? mr. polis: unfortunately today with our bloated corporate tax code full of special interest loopholes, we effectively reward corporations that have the best lobbyists in washington rather than corporations that are creating jobs or profits for their shareholders. that's why we need to work together, republicans and democrats, with the administration, to reform our bloated corporate tax code.
eliminating loopholes and tax expenditures and bringing down the rates. did you know, madam speaker, we have the highest nominal corporate tax rate in the world of the industrialized countries at 35%? we can work together to bring that down to 28%, maybe even 25% in a revenue neutral basis by getting rid of special interest provisions of lobbyists have inserted in the tax code and finally rewarding americans for hard work and productivity rather than simply being good at working congress to get a special interest advantage. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized f o mut >> thank you, madam speaker. last week on the evening of new year's day i had the honor and privilege of being invited to
attend the fallen officers memorial in my district. mr. lamalfa: in paying tribute to members of our law enforcement who made the ultimate sacrifice in the previous year. in the u.s. we lost 118 officers nationwide, 14 in california. we are still mourning and feeling the sting of the loss of officers davis and officers oliver in a horrific spree of crime that went on in northern california. yet what we hear in the news isn't really consistent with how we value our law enforcement, at least the way we should. nearly 50,000 officers in 2013 were physically assaulted in the line of duty but all we hear about is the other way where less than one in 1,000 contacts officers have result in any kind of physical need with the public. indeed that's less than one half percent of an estimated million contacts our officers
have. now, in light of what we saw in paris yesterday, where their officers in many cases are disarmed and what looks like what's happening in america, we are disarming the confidence in our officers and our law enforcement, we better change our attitude really quick and value what our men and women in blue do for us so we don't have a worsening situation like we see going on around the world. i stand today in solidarity with our brothers and sisters in law enforcement and ask that all americans do the same and remember that as we go away and do our business. madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. i rise today in strong support of the keystone pipeline and on behalf of the people of minnesota's sixth congressional district i'm honored and would like to thank my constituents for the opportunity to serve as
their representative. i'm a proud supporter of the keystone x.l. pipeline which will be an efficient and safe means of transporting up 830,000 barrels of crude oil from canada to the united states daily. mr. emmer: the construction of this pipeline will support thousands of jobs and increase our g.d.p. by nearly $3. billion. keystone will continue to reduce our dependence on middle east oil in the fastest growing region of minnesota this pipeline will alleviate rail and road congestion currently plaguing cities. this pipe lin will also bring stability to our energy system and help stimulate brothe growth in our economy. with that, madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair lays before the house a communication. clipe the honorable the speaker house of representatives. sir pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk
received the following message from the secretary of the senate on january 8 2015, at :24 a.m. that the senate adopted senate resolution 19 relative to the death of edward w. brooke the third. with best wishes i am, signed sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> madam speaker, by direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 19 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 1, house resolution 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 x.l. 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 there
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one, 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 two, one motion to recommit. section 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 where the purposes of the employer mandate and 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 one, one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the committee on ways and means and two, one motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one hour. mr. burgess: thank you, 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. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. burgess: during consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purposes of debate only. madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. burgess: 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 same american workers
act, is designed to address 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, cool their homes during the summer. h.r. 30 fix this is law 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 x.l. pipeline act. and that would put an end to what has been a six-year process for approving a pipeline that should have simply been common sense for america's economy a long time ago. the rule before us today
provides for one 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 the 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. . 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 -- hours increases money that people have to spend. the affordable care act fundamental comply changed labor law in there -- fundamentally changed labor law in this country. this is a dangerous, slippery slope. what other labor laws will be reinterpreted now to define full time employment to 30 hours per week? do people intend to impose overtime rules on employers who
employee people for -- employ people for over 30 hours a week? yet another regulation which would only result in businesses cutting more hours. what will the national labor relations board reinterpret knowing that the very fabric of labor law is 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's 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% 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 two
million in 2017, rising to 2 1/2 million in 2024 as a result of the affordable care act. the latest congressional budget office faces -- figures show that the affordable care act will increase spending by almost $2 trillion double the estimate from five 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 x.l. 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 six 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's a way to transport oil that -- 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's be clear about what's 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's a fix to a fatal flaw in the legislation. a fix similar to the seven other fixes that have passed the house of congress -- both houses of congress and in fact been signed by the president. it's 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's 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 will reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman from texas for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: 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. so i ask my colleague from texas, did either of these bills go through committee here in this 114th congress this
new congress? happy to yield to the gentleman. so -- and let's talk 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 know far more than i might know or mr. burgess might nor or you might know madam speaker, on a particular topic. we 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's the rule that's before us. the rules committee simply said, these bills, which nobody who has any expertise actually got to vote on in committee, just appeared and 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're 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, 30 hours, 40 hours, let's have an idea, let's talk about whether this pipeline should be built or where it should be built. ok. that goes to kea which has democrats and republicans -- to a committee which has democrats and republicans on it. they have a chance to amend that bill, to change that bill. they report out that bill. then it's supposed to go to rules committee. and rules committee hopefully will say, we have 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 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. doesn't mean it'll pass but it means members will have the opportunity to offer new ideas, to improve legislation. 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, national resources transportation, all bypassed for this bill that then went directly to rules committee and rules committee said by the way, nobody can change these bills and no committee has even looked at it. so that's how we got to where we are today. that's 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's why it's so important to defeat this very first rule here today. because if this passes, it's 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. this is i don't know how many times the keystone x.l. pipeline has been passed. it seems innocuous. i'm not about the policies.
some people are. this is nothing new here. but they haven't passed through committee. but the procedure here is saying that, guess what, no committee of jurisdiction can look at these bills, rules committee's not going to allow any amendments from democrats or republicans and 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 it defines full time workers and full time work, and that's simply not what it does. it simply addresses the
benefits and who 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./miss full time worker who wornings 40 hours a week, you now get off friday at 4:00 you're now 39 hours a week, you don't get health care. that's why some companies want this to pass. most companies provide benefits to all their employees and it's not an issue. but the folks that might be lobbying members of congress about this -- of course that's their intention. they want to cut people from 40 hours a week to 39 hours a week and not give them health care benefits. ask them questions democrats or republicans. if you're thinking of voting for this, ask why they want this bill, that's of course why they want this bill. right now they'd have to cut them down to 30 hours, which is a much more complicated endeavor because they'd probably have to add new employees, they'd have to manage that from an h.r. perspective. it's 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. look, if there's a real discussion about how to improve health care in this country, democrats and republicans are happy to be a 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's a disincentive for companies to even provide health care to their employees. not only that, it's a deficit buster. it increases the deficit by $53 billion. the first bill that we're looking to pass, a bill that didn't even come through committee, that no member of congress can offer a pay-for,
if we offer an open rule here i'd love to offer a pay-for that. if you want to do this bad policy that's one thing. i don't think we should do it. about if -- but if you want to do this and risk employees cutting their employees from 40 hours to 39 hours if it's going to cost $53 billion, i want to know how we're going to pay for. it i don't think 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? we'll just have something else pay for it. our kids will pay for. it our grandkids will pay for it. that's exactly what's 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's 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. so endanger the benefits of
more employees. that's exactly what this bill does. this bill is no way to create jobs. it's way to prevent many americans from having the health care through their employer that they already enjoy and forcing them to get taxpayer subsidized health care through the exchange instead. that's why it costs money. that's what the $53 billion is. it's the 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 try to force you and me to pay for your health care rather than getting your own heament care, paying your employees' share. that's 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 x.l. pipeline. this is really a phantom pipeline because yesterday in committee i asked, does anybody want to finance or build this pipeline? i haven't seen any evidence that there is, at current rate
of oil. mr. burgess, you have heard yesterday, i asked in committee if anybody had any evidence they could provide on the floor that anybody wanted to pay to build this pipeline, have you had an opportunity to hear if anybody wants to build the pipeline? mr. burgess: the pipeline in fact exists between pushing oklahoma and houston, texas, this very day. mr. polis: ok, if it exists already then i don't know why you're passing this bill. it does not exist to move the oil from the tar sands of canada to our ports for export. that's what we're talking about here. . as far as i can tell there is nobody who wants to pay the bill because it doesn't make economic sense with the price of oil. it might be in the discussion when the oil was $90 a barrel. we have statistics about 90% of the tar sands production requires oil, and about 100% requires oil at $65 a oil. oil about $52 a barrel. nobody's going to pay for this pipeline. it's a pan thom -- phantom
pipeline. before we waste the deliberative efforts of this body on a topic like this, we'd like to see some evidence somebody wants to build a pipeline there in the first place. not to mention the fact, another reason it's a phantom pipeline, nobody knows what the routing will be. it's still in flux. where's the lawsuit? not only are there serious doubts about the financing of the pipeline, we don't even know where it's going to be. the costs have conups, it will cost $8 billion up from estimates of $5. billion a couple years ago. not to mention that we are being asked to approve a pipelines that we don't even know the final routing of. so again as one of the very first bills that bypass this committee, 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. and we are being asked to approve a phantom pipeline that nobody wants to pay for and nobody knows where it's 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. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: thank you madam speaker. at this time i yield two minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you very much. madam speaker, this rule should pass. the underlying bill should pass and if the underlying bill doesn't pass or it gets vetoed the canadians will sell their product someplace else. mr. sensenbrenner: that's 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 to 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 can if a da on the pacific ocean. -- canada on the pacific ocean. where will that oil go? that oil will go straight to china so they can use that oil to compete against us, to undersell us, and to take american jobs away. the x.l. 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. i urge the passage of the bill. and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: thank you madam speaker. i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, my distinguished colleague on the rules committee, mr. mcgovern. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for three minutes. 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 tsh-a fair process
would be the prackis tiss of this body. but actions speak louder than words, madam speaker. if the american people judge us by our actions as they should, the house is off to a very bad start. 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 that every single member of this house, take it or leave it. do you believe the keystone pipeline won't actually do much to move the united states toward energy independence or might harm our environment? too bad. your amendment won't be made in order. to you believe that the 5 th vote to undermine the affordable care act is -- 5 th 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. and it's 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's where we are in the house of representatives. what about the senate? according to jennifer ruben of the "washington post," a republican spokesman for majority leader mitch mcconnell said, and i quote, 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, end quote. frankly, madam speaker, given mitch mcconnell's past record i'll believe it when i see it, but at least he's saying something constructive. unfortunately here if 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 got an idea, this is a radical idea. let's restore the house of representatives to a place where substabive -- substantive issues are debated and considered and voted on. my friends on the other side of the aisle like to talk about democratcy. let's restore a little bit of democracy in the house of representatives. mr. 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. and before i yield back the balance of my time, madam speaker, let me just say to my republican colleagues, this is a lousy way to start the new congress. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: i reserve at this time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from connecticut, who by the way had had an adeand tried to improve
the bill, and it's not even allowed to be discussed or debated. for two minutes. the gentleman from connecticut, mr. courtney. mr. courtney: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker i rise in opposition to the rule and both underlying bills, particularly the misnamed save american jobs act. i would like to cite very quickly from the congressional research service, one of the gems of quality, neutral nonpartisan analysis for this body, which took a look at this bill and said clearly changing the cutoff from 30 hours per week to 40 hours per week would not eliminate the incentive for employers who shift workers to part-time status and could 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 worker hours. additionally, more employers would be inclined to shift more workers to part-time status under a 40-hour definition because the disruption to their work force is smaller from 40 to 39 hours per week rather than 40
to 29 hours per week. i would ask to admit this record -- this record for the record madam speaker. madam speaker, i had an amendment which is being shut off today which i think actually really addresses the problem, which is that under the structure of the employer mandate that came out of the senate, when an employer goes from 49 to 50 employers, the employer's taxed for 20 employees. again that is a cliff. there's 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. 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 additional employee was hired above the 50 threshold, there would be a tax there still would be a incentive but not 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 in the c.r.s. has verified that. but in fact the small business majority which represents a large concontinue again of small employers across the country endorsed by amendment. so 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. for the record i would like to ask the madam speaker to admit a copy of the amendment which is not going to be allowed -- the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. courtney: and statement of support from small business majority. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas continues to reserve. and the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: thank you, madam speaker. i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for two minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman from colorado and gentleman from texas. i wonder does anyone know who lisa gray is?
or the many, many lisa grays across america. she's a woman who admitted as a small business owner if it had not been for the affordable care act she would not have about able to get the chemo treatment for her leukemia. just think of the workers who now are getting affordable care access and now with this legislation they'll be cut to 39 or 38 or 32 hours in order not to have the employee mandated and responsible way of treating their health insurance. so this bill that is on the floor coming today will give us a $53 billion deficit. it will result in one million people losing their employee-sponsored coverage like lisa gray or families that i saw coming to enrollment in texas. it will increase the number of people obtaining coverage through medicaid, chip, and the health insurance marketplace and increase the number of uninsured by upwards of 500000. do we realize what we have gained through the affordable
care act? according to the keyser family foundation, the average annual premium for employer-sponsored family health insurance rose just 3%. that is far different from 7.9% 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 their employers have cut their hours and it will result in $19. billion in additional cost to the federal health care program. are we talking about deficits? i'm talking about lives, madam speaker. and i am he' talking about the ability to -- and i'm 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 into the extended medicaid. 23 states. what will that to to individuals who are below the 100% of the federal poverty line of any ability to access the marketplace? they won't have the ability to access the marketplace because they may be those who are cut down.
let me just say they have the ability to realize and to better. and let me stop people from saying, there is no federal law that requires employers madam speaker, to cover employees. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. jackson lee: you can do better. i believe this bill does not answer our concerns. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. jackson lee: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from texas continues to reserve. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: thank you, madam speaker. i yield one minute to the gentlelady from california ms. lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. ms. lee: thank you very much. let me thank the gentleman for yielding and leadership on the rules committee and so many issues. i rise today, madam speaker, in strong opposition to this rule and h.r. 3 the keystone x.l. pipeline act, and h.r. 30, so-called save american work 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 x.l. 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 x.l. pipeline would be equal to the tailpipe emissions of 5.7 million cars. that is not the air 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 impact of climate change through severe weather, coastal storms, and crippling drought. let me turn quickly to h.r. 30, the so-called save health care for working families act. sadly, this bill is nothing more than the latest republican attack -- 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for 15 additional seconds. ms. lee: thank you very much. this bill as i said earlier, it's just the latest republican attack on the affordable care act and would result in an
estimated one million people, one million people losing access to their health care coverage. this is unacceptable. we should really be in the business of providing hardworking americans access to affordable health care, not taking it away. strongly urge a no vote on this rule and no vote on the -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the -- the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from michigan, the chairwoman of the house administration committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from michigan is recognized for two minutes. . mrs. miller: madam speaker i rise in support of the combined rule but specifically i want to talk in favor of the keystone x.l. pipeline act which will finally approve this very, very long overdue project. and the act that we're going to be passing will show this house's intent to pass it and i do believe that now the senate will pass the keystone x.l. pipeline project as well. and 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 turbo charge 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 fuels 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. and 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. time to act is now. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from texas reserves. and the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: madam speaker, i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from illinois, ms. schakowsky.
the speaker pro tempore: if the gentlelady would hold one second. the gentlelady from illinois is recognized for two minutes. ms. schakowsky: thank you. 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 a.c.a.'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 g.o.p. claims that the 30-hour threshold is a destructive barrier to more hours for workers. however, in reality the g.o.p. 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 nonpart of san joaquin congressional budget office and -- partisan 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 employers' work schedules by even just an hour. and even conservative analysts agree, it was recently written that changing the definition of 40 hours, quote, would likely put far more people at risk of having their hours cut and, quote, 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. and according to the c.b.o. 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. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from colorado reserves. and the gentleman from texas
reserves as well. so the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: thank you, madam speaker. i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from texas, mr. green. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. green: thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. green: i rise today to express my opposition both to the rule, but also to the underlying legislation the save mesh work -- 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 it significantly makes the problems 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, in the joint committee on taxation, the act
will cause one million people to lose their employer-based health insurance coverage. increase the number of uninsured americans by $500,000 -- 500,000 and add $74 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years. it will make shifts toward -- mr. polis: additional 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. green: it makes shift 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. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield one 911 the gentleman from texas, mr. castro. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. castro: thank you, congressman polis, and thank you, mr. speaker. you know, democrats have said all along that we understand that when you have a bill that is this wide in scope whether
it's hundreds of pages or thousands of pages, regardless of the subject matter whether it's health care or education or banking or anything else, that it's 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. and we demonstrated that a few days ago when congressman davis received an overwhelming support of both republicans and democrats to make sure that employers don't have to count folks who are receiving coverage through the v.a. or through some other v.a.-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 a.c.a. has been so successful, that nine 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 -- can i have perhaps one more minute? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 15 seconds. mr. castro: those predictions have turned out to be completely misguided and false. this country is going through an incredible economic expansion. almost 5%. the unemployment rate is below 6%. as we go through this debate. i hope that we will continue -- keep those considerations in mind. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois, a fellow member of the energy and commerce committee, mr. shimkus. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank my friend. this is a debate that we shouldn't even have to have since this should have been approved six years ago. if you understand how keystone was supposed to happen, all -- the head -- the president and really his cabinet, secretary of state needs to approve the
cross-border passage. six years ago. but because of politics and the president making a decision, we thought this was going to be done six years ago. hence the legislative body getting involved. and what's happened over the past six years? 15 hearings, four markups 10th vote. and it's time to move on. moving liquid crude by pipeline is the safest way to move product. the safest. and the committee and the energy and commerce committee, people have no understanding of 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 fuels. that's the debate. and 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's because there's a glut of crude oil on the entire world market. moving keystone x.l. allows even more bulk crude oil to get on the world market. most of that will be refined in our country. major refineries 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 and i appreciate the rule and i look forward to debating the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: thank you mr. speaker. i'd like to yield two minutes and 15 seconds to the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes and
15 seconds. mr. connolly: thank you, mr. speaker. i say to my friend from illinois, that, yeah, this is politicized all right. and now we've got congress in the business of permitting. if we're going to go down that route i have a seven-11 in my home county that can't get a permit, maybe i'll 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're at it once again, offering the so-called orwellian-named save american workers act. i'm still trying to figure out what they're trying to save the american workers from. good health care? doctors? nurses? free preventive checkups? the denial of insurance based on a pre-existing 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 1/2 million people have registered for or renewed their health insurance coverage through the marketplace exchange. an open enrollment will continue through february 15 of this year. just this week new data shows the uninsured rate has sunk to 12.9%. a four-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're realizing the benefits of a patient-centered insurance model. in which their coverage cannot be rescinded or denied. because of a pre-existing 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 deal to repeal the act at
any cost. 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. but rather than save workers, as this title would suggest, i'd ask 15 more seconds. this bill will actually sabotage them. again, c.b.o. says one 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 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. i thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, i'll reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, mr. spe. it's myrile to yield one minute to the very first speech
here on the floor of the house of representatives by the gentleman from virginia mr. beyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia voiced for one minute. mr. beyer: thank you, mr. speaker. today i rise in opposition to the rule. with my brother i've owned and managed a small business for 40 years. i know well the most important asset of any business are its workers. h.r. 30 creates perverse incentives to cut employee hours, 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. 44% 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. according to the c.b.o. we hear that it would increase the budget deficit by $53.2 billion
over the next 10 years. you don't have to have a background business to know that doesn't make good business sense. this is not a job-creating bill, it's a job-destroying bill and that's not why we are here. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: thank you. i yield myself such time as i may consume. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: so here we are mr. speaker. we have two bills that didn't go through any committee, that no member of this body, democrat or republican, had a chance to amend went to the rules committee no members are allowed to amend it. one of them is a span of pipeline which we don't know if anybody wants to build or where it's going to go. we don't even if this right of eminent domain might be given to a private company over this so a company can take it away. that's some of the things that
are being fought out in court and law in state like nebraska. so without even knowing where it's going to go or if anybody wants to pay for it or build it somehow we're engaged with a permitting process, well, let's go ahead and approve a 7-eleven in gerry connolly's district. i'd like to have a hotel on 29th and arap poe in my district. what are we doing, seizing all control here in washington, to get it away from states and local governments and individual landowners who normally has a say in these matters? of course the other bill that's here, didn't come to committee, nobody could amend it. a bill that increases the deficit by $52 billion by forcing americans to take taxpayer subsidies for their health care rather than buying it for themselves with their employer's share or their share. a bill that cuts hours from 40 hours a week to 39 hours a week. a bill that will lead to hundreds of thousands or millions of americans to lose their health care and have to
take taxpayer subsidies to the exchange to be able to even have any kind of health care. i stead of rehashing proposals that we have voted on i don't know how many times. in fact, we voted on this phantom pipeline when it was a little less phantom. i think they wanted to build it when oil was br $110 a barrel. the cost of the pipeline has gone up 10%. and there is nothing presented either in rules committee or here that anybody wants to hear it. that's what congressional hearings are about in regular order. there would be somebody that could talk about it, we can build it at $70 a barrel. we've seen an independent report that says the tar sands are not profitable. anything less than $65 a barrel we're at $52 a barrel now. i'd like to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from texas is recogze bu mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. weber. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas, mr. weber, is recognized for two minutes.
mr. weber: i rise in support of the rule and two underlying bills, h.r. 3 the keystone x.l. pipeline act. i thank congressman crammer and for the leadership for 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 x.l. now, folks, that is before the apple ipad was released. six years ago. the state department's exhaustive study of this project has led many to conclude that the keystone x.l. is the most studied pipeline in history. looks the only job it's produced has been for those studying it. the department has concluded that this pipeline will be safe and environmentally sound, period. 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, the canadian oil, this pipeline will also transmit 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% of the american people, and there's no further reason for any kind of delay for this project. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 3 and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from colorado is recognized with 3 3/4 minute -- 3/4 minute remaining. mr. polis: thank you. i'd like to yield 30 seconds to the gentlelady from connecticut, ms. delauro. ms. delauro: i want to rise in
opposition to this bill. this bill would put millions of workers at risk of losing both rages and hark. it's wrong for our country, wrong for public health and it's wrong for the middle class. it leaves the american people worse off smaller paychecks and bigger insurance bills. i urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: we're prepared to close if the gentleman 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: thank you. i'll yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote no on the rule and the underlying bills. no committee hearings, no committee markup, no amendments on the floor of the house, phantom pipeline, deficit busting. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is
recognized. 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: i'll yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, it's been an interesting afternoon, and we've heard -- we've heard a lot of discussion. in the first week of a new congress is a little bit different from other times. none of our committees have been constituted. and 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 democrats showed up passed bills. sent them over to the senate and there they language wished. so well over 300 bills are stacked up on the former majority leader's desk, and i stress the word former in that statement, and i believe that is why he's the former majority leader. well, now it's a new day and a new congress. no, the committees have not yet been constituted but there is an enormous amount of work an
enormous body of work that's already been accomplished by the house of representatives but now needs to move forward on behalf of our american people, on behalf of the economy on behalf of the jobs, on behalf of heating our homes. look i'm 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'd been in the majority previously. 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 democrats passed, the 110th congress, their first year in the majority, the rules package provided for the consideration of five measures. i never quite understood that because the democrats ran on six for 2006 but nevertheless five measures were included in their rules package. they went directly to the floor with these bills, directly to the floor with no committee consideration, not even consideration in the hearing in the house rules committee which they controlled at the time. so it's a little disingenuous
to say, oh we're rushing things. oh we haven't had adequate consideration. you heard the gentleman from illinois. you heard mr. shimkus describe the number of hearings and markups that have been done on just the keystone pipeline. now, look, in the time i've been sitting here i heard discussion that there is nothing in the affordable care act that actually cuts a worker's hours. but a plain reading of the legislation, section 1513 page 158, for those who are keeping score at home, paragraph 4 full-time employee paragraph -- 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. and so what has happened as a result of that in very plain language, even before the department of labor issued its rules which were even more restrictive, employers made the decision that, you know what, we're not going to employ
anyone over 29 hours because we don't want to run the risk of invoking this mandate, this employer mandate. now, true enough, the administration did delay the mandate. yeah we're criticized for passing things that are restrictive in 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 that effective date of the employer mandate, the amendments made by this section shall apply to months beginning after december 31 2013. that's in the past. well, it's important to bring this up, not part of our discussion today on the rules, but for employers small businesses in this country to recognize that with the delay of the employer mandate actually it started last week january 1 of 2015. now, no taxes for calendar year
2015 will be paid until next year. so the fines under the affordable care act will not start until next year, but the reporting requirements started seven days ago, and it is so important that big companies understand this. big companies get this. big companies got lots of lawyers on retainer working on this every day, but it is the small employer back home in our district with 50 employees who needs 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 bill next year. mr. shimkus said it very well. on the keystone pipeline there have been 15 hearings, house and senate, four markups, 10 votes. 10 votes on the keystone pipeline. tell me we haven't studied this situation. now, we heard discussion from the other side that this was a phantom pipeline. no one's even interesting building more. the price of gas is so low that -- no one would be interested
in building the keystone pipeline. but in fact, the president and c.e.o. of transcanada in a statement yesterday said keystone x.l. is a project that was needed when oil prices were less than $40 a barrel. that was in 2008. less than $40 a barrel. the 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's certainly needed when prices are $50 barrel, as it is today. he went on to say the review process for the keystone x.l. has been anything but a well-established process. for years the process to review and make a decision on the infrastructure project like keystone would take two years. he went on to say, we are well over the six-year mark reviewing the final -- we're in 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 complying with every twist and turn in this unpair lelled process. we have -- unparalleled process. we've done this to make sure that keystone is built and operated safely and that the state department has concluded this to be the case time and time again and it can be done. mr. speaker i'd just submit that does not sound like a c.e.o. who is not willing to invest his money -- we are not even talking about government money here. we're talking about private money. this private investment indeed is going forward and, again, i would just submit from cushing, oklahoma, to port arthur texas, the pipeline is in the ground and existed today, far from a phantom pipeline. mr. speaker, today's rules provides for 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 with them 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 last time it was -- last time it came to the nor. i urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying bills. for that reason i'll yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: all time having yielded back, all time has expired, the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. polis: mr. chair, on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of adoption of the resolution. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states hou repseates any use ofhesed-caiod coverage of the house proceedis for political or commer purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida rise? ms. wasserman schultz: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute. the speaker: without objection, so ordered. ms. wasserman schultz: thank you mr. speaker. i rise to lead my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to honor the members of the tucson, arizona mass shooting that took place four 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 the congress on your corner event. among the injured were our dear colleague and friend, congresswoman gabby gifford and
our aide and future colleague ron barber. in spite of her near fatal wounds and with memories of her constituents and staff who lost that day guiding her, gabby has moved this congress, this nation and arguably the world with her remarkable recovery and her poignant and her passion. but she's also channeled her poise and her strength and her determination and effort with her husband, mark, by her side to ensure that similar episodes of violence do not befall mothers and fathers husbands, sisters, daughters and sons, friends and neighbors. how very extraordinary, how very bold and how very gabby. and it's not easy work and we all have our differences. mr. speaker i know i am joined by so many of you in asking and 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 the commitment this congress to find common ground finally. so in doing so, we would 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 lived were lost and altered that saturday in tucson. so in that spirit, in the spirit of working together, and 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 dorwin, phyllis judge rolle, scott morris and christina taylor green.
ms. wasserman schultz: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker: without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the question is on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: on that i request a recorded vote. a the speaker: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states hoe reestave any use oe osecaiod coverage of the house proceedis for political or commer purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
table. the house will come to order. the house will come to order. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? >> mr. speaker pursuant to house resolution 19, i call up the bill h.r. 30 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 30, a bill 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 protect and affordable care act and replace it with 40 hours. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 19 the gentleman from wisconsin prosecutors ryan, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, each will control 30 minutes. the house will come to order. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on h.r. 30, the save american workers act of 2014. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, the first firm step on the ladder of opportunity is a full-time job. and for too many americans this first step is moving out of reach thanks to obamacare.
right now the law says that every large employers must give health insurance to its full-time employees. here's the catch. it defines full-time as 30 hours or more. so guess what's happening? businesses are cutting workers' hours. they are keeping them below 30 hours to avoid the penalty. it's commonly known as the obamacare 29ers. what's more, community colleges are laying off their professors cutting their hours so that they have to cut their class official as well. the law is making it much harder to learn a new skill and find a better paying job. i can't think of a more worse way to support working families. taking opportunities away from them. cutting paychecks cutting hours. who are the people who are most at-risk with this 30-hour rule? well, by and large it's young people in low-paying jobs, probably their first jobs. over half of them have at most a
high school degree. these are the people who are just getting started in life, who need those extra hours, who want to move up the ladder of economic opportunity. obamacare is holding these people down. that's why here we are today. this bill changes the law's definition of full-time to 40 hours a week, that's the way most people define full-time, that's the way it's been done for decades if other parts of law. that way businesses will no longer fear letting their employees work a full workweek. that way people can get the experience they need. . that way we can build a healthy economy. mr. speaker, it's really clear. there are so many parts of this law that are holding back the country, that are raising health care costs, that are putting us further behind and deeper in the hole on fiscal responsibility, but this rule, this rule is costing people jobs. this rule is knocking people out of full-time work.
it's no wonder the c.b.o. is telling us the equivalent of over two million people will not work because of this law. i urge adoption of this bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: republicans say that with this bill they're trying to help, or as they put it, save workers. but their legislation will lead to many time workers becoming part time, losing millions of hours of work. the republicans constantly talk about the threat of increased budget deficits, but their bill
would increase the deficit by over $50 billion. the republicans like to say they care about the taxes people pay but this bill would substantially shift responsibility for paying for health insurance from employers to taxpayers. these are indisputable facts based on yesterday's analysis of -- by c.b.o. this chart tells us what it's about. close to half work 40 hours as you can see, the number of working 40 hours overshadows dramatically those who are working less. this is the key point. so if you shift the basis of
employer responsibility for health care to begin at 40 hours instead of 30 hours the result will be a dramatic increase in the number of workers whose of employment will be reduced to less than 40 hours per week. you will be creating hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of 39ers. c.b.o. and joint task conclude, therefore that one million workers will lose their employer-based health insurance. with half of them shifting to insurance to the health exchanges or through medicaid -- by the way, with some taxpayer support -- and the other half -- listen to this -- losing health insurance coverage completely. completely. so when you take off the label of this republican bill and look at the contents, the
contents in the package, this is a bad deal. highlighting the need for a truth in labeling requirement for this congress. and you go beyond the benign republican rhetoric, this is a bad deal for american workers and the middle class and taxpayers. that has led a conservative like one saying that today's bill i quote, is worse than doing nothing, end of quote. this bill is brought up today without any committee consideration or discussion with democrats. the minority leader's here, the minority whip. not a single minute of discussion. unfortunately, contrary to the rhetoric we heard yesterday again from the majority about the need to look for common ground, on this issue, the
republican approach is scorched earth. i urge a strong negative vote, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: i yield myself 15 seconds saying the gentleman's criticism basically makes our point. the average workweek is 34.6 hours. so if you go to 30 hours, you're cutting people's hours. if you go to 39 you're not. we don't want to cut people's hours. we don't want people to work less, we want people to work more. with that, mr. speaker, i'd like to yield five minutes to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the author of this legislation, mr. young of indiana. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: thank you mr. speaker. i'd like to elaborate on the chairman's retort to what we just heard about criticisms pertaining to this law. number one, this law's inherently unfair. trying to finance health insurance for some americans by cutting hours and wages for other americans is just frankly
not what we should be doing as a country. the save american workers act would actually save most workers from a potentially massive cut in loss of hours and wages. i'll work the gentleman through that momentarily. and will cause most workers to be directly impacted by this employer mandate. very briefly, let's start with saving most workers from a potentially massive cut in hours. under current law if you work between 40 to, say, 45 hours and your employer happens to not offer you employer-sponsored health insurance you're in the minority. employers are incentive to offer these higher wage higher skilled workers, employer-sponsored health insurance and that's what we do. it's part of our normal functioning labor market. one word to be moved high theycally from 40 hours to 29 hours, they would lose roughly $270 a week or $14,000 a year,
according to the american action forum. under the save american workers act, these 0 to 45-hour workweek individuals would no longer would be at risk for such massive cuts in their hours. let's talk about 30 to 35 hours. they tend to be lower age, hourly workers. lower wage, hourly workers, according to the hoover institution. and let's assume they had no employer-sponsored health insurance. 9.8 million americans fall into this category. they're vulnerable to a cut in their hours and wages. we're wanting to move from 30 to 29 they'd lose on average $148 per week or $7,694 a year again, according to the american action forum. under the save american workers act, these individuals, 30 to 35 hours a week, would no longer lose any hours or wages. just reinforcing the point that
the good chairman made. well, this is why i introduced the save american workers act. let's restore the 40-hour workweek that so many people worked so hard to put in place, that has long been understood to be the gold standard of the workweek in this country. over the past few years, i've witnessed a strange phenomenon in our country. in indiana we've seen local score corporations announce they'll limit the hours of substitute teachers, classroom assistance, cafeteria workers custodians. we've seen retailers limit the hours of their cashiers. the list goes on and on. from hotels to manufacturers to college and universities. and i guarantee that every member of this body, back in their district, has heard similar stories. this is happening because of the new 30-hour definition of full-time employment. now, there's no good reason to do this. other than perhaps to arbitrarily set this new
definition of full-time employment to fund the massive cost of this national health care bill. it's ignored decades of practice and the labor market reality of our 40-hour reality, it's distorted that market. as a result, the hoover institute estimates as much as 2.6 million american workers are at risk for lost hours. now, it's not just the lost hours that should concern us. again, it's the lost wages. an employee losing 10 hours a week is also losing an entire week's paycheck each month. an employee going from 35 to 29 hours is seeing a 17% pay cut courtesy of obamacare. and the people most affected by this provision are the people who can least afford it. 89% of them do not have college degrees. 63% of them are women. perhaps ironically it sounds a lot like the people obamacare was supposed to help. c.b.o. analysis indicates it
comes at the expense of up to $105 billion in cash wages. now i defy anyone to say that it's fair to expand coverage to a half million people -- that number from the c.b.o. -- on the backs of 2 1/2 million people that can't afford it. how fundamentally inefficient is the health care system that potentially requires the loss of over $200,000 in cash wages for each person it insures? i authored h.r. 30 save american workers act to help these hardworking americans, and i introduced this bill jointly with the gentleman from illinois mr. lipinski, who happens to be a democrat. he, too realizes that obamacare's littered with serious unintended consequences that need to be addressed. in the senate we've seen a similar version of this bill introduced in a bipartisan manner. now, this isn't a republican or democrat issue. this is a serious solution to a
very real problem facing american workers. i urge all my colleagues to support the save american workers act. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana yields back. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i yield myself 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: to say this restores the 40-hour week is purely wrong. what it does is undermines it for hundreds of thousands of workers in this country. that's the basis of the joint tax committee report. i now yield 2 1/2 minutes to our distinguished whip, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. save american workers, make sure they don't lose purchasing power. let's make sure that those at the bottom end of the employment spectrum are saved. that's the message. i presume the minimum wage bill will be on the floor next week.
perhaps you're going to want to extend unemployment insurance next week. perhaps you're going to really want to do something that will save the workers and give them the purchasing power they had in 1968. the chairman said it well. we go from creating 29ers to 39ers. this bill will allow you to work 10 more hours without health care. isn't that wonderful? i'm sure every american worker is saying, thank god the republicans are going to have me work 10 more hours before i can get health insurance. aren't you generous? the american worker needs help. not to be misled by a rhetoric which pretends to do something
for them but leaves them stuck not just for five years, but for 10, 15, 20 years. as those at the top of the ring get better and better off and we're among most of those 10%. mr. speaker, we're now in the first days of the new congress with an opportunity to turn the page and write a new chapter of bipartisanship and cooperation. we're not doing it today. it's unfortunate that republican majority has instead chosen to replay the highlight reel from the last congress by bringing back to the floor a piece of partisan legislation that would undermine the affordable care act and cause approximately one million americans to lose their employer-sponsored insurance coverage. not something that mr. young
says may happen or is extrapolated to happen but there's no doubt that this would happen. one million people. well, so what. this bill is a solution without a problem. since the affordable care act became law, 10 -- can i have two additional minutes? mr. levin: how about one minute. mr. hoyer: i'm going to ask you for another. mr. levin: ok. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. hoyer: as an aside, i really missed my magic minute, i want to tell you that mr. speaker. since the affordable care act became law, 10.8 million new jobs have been created. in the private sector, has not led to part-time work. that's what the statistics tell us. you want to save the worker but under your economic policies in
the last decade, we had the worst loss of jobs in this country, in my lifetime. in fact, part-time workers, as a share of all workers in our economy, has fallen -- has fallen, has decreased, is less since the enactment of the health care reform bill. unfortunately, this bill's sponsors have chose to ignore these facts because they don't support their argument. their legislation would allow employers to deny health coverage to those working even as many, as i have said, 39 hours. . that means the slightest reduction in hours could be used to tea nigh employees the coverage they ought to be earning through their work so the rest of us do not have to pay their bill. mr. levin: additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: there's so many people who want to speak. mr. hoyer: as a result, up to
half a million americans would become uninsured and this bill will increase the deficit by $53 billion. there's not enough time to really explain all the nuances of the adverse consequences of this bill. i ask my colleagues let's have a decent and honest debate. and the gentleman from ohio -- excuse me, illinois wisconsin's district, mr. ryan, i know where you come from let's have an honest debate, an honest discussion so that, yes, mr. young, we can protect those workers that we all should be able to protect. then i'll expect that to be accompanied with a minimum wage bill and the unemployment insurance extension. i yield back the balance of my time. that was not given to me. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. ryan: let me inquire about the distribution of time. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentleman from wisconsin. the gentleman from wisconsin -- the gentleman from michigan has 22 1/. mr. ryan: at this time i yield a minute and a half to the distinguished member of the ways and means committee, ms. jenkins from kansas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from kansas is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. jenkins: i wish the chair happy birthday. i would like to honor the congressman from indiana, congressman young, for his leadership on this important issue. this effort to change the employer mandate definition of a full-time employee as one who only works 30 hours a week to 40 hours a week is a priority to folks across the country and is appropriate the house is taking action on h.r. 30, on this the third day of the 114th congress. i heard from employers and employees alike of the negative consequences of the employer meant. the most complicating factor i hear about is the definition of a full-time employee is someone who works 30 hours or fewer per week. this rule which is not based in
reality and goes against every traditional measure of a full-time workweek results in fewer jobs, reduced hours, and less opportunity for millions of working class americans. effectively as a regressive tax on the folks who least can afford to have their hours cut. le it forces employees and health care plans are hurting employees and employers and unfortunately the result is reduced hours and opportunity for hardworking americans trying to support their families. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from kansas yields back. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: if you would, say again how much time there is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan has 22 1/4 minutes remaining. wisconsin has 21 minutes. mr. levin: 24? the speaker pro tempore: 2214r1/4 for the gentleman from michigan. 21 for the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. levin: i now yield 2 1/2 minutes at the most to the
gentleman from washington, mr. mcdermott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. mcdermott: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, the minority leader of the whip on the minority side i associate myself with all those remarks. he gave you-all the facts and figures. let me tell you what this is about. this is the 5 th time that the republican -- 54th time the republicans have come out here to end the affordable care act. this one is an assault on the employer mandate. you cannot have a bill without an employer mandate. we had to pick a time. lots of employers in this country right now without any federal law are giving insurance to their people down to 30 hours. so we said, all right, let's make that full-time. what the business community said they were supporting, they
really weren't supporting and they are in here to get rid of it. this bill says, this is the blueprint for business to shift all their employees on to the government. very simply. close the building at 4:00. now, everybody's only worked 39 hours, right? go home. so now the office doesn't have to offer them any health insurance. under the law. they have to go over to the exchange, get involved in medicaid, get involved in the exchanges and getting subsidies and all of that, which you are going to pay for. you are going to pay for that by letting the employers get out from under paying it and shifting it on to the federal government. that is what this is all about. now frankly, i really want to thank you mr. ryan, mr. speaker, i want to thank mr.
ryan for his generous step toward a single payer system. when the american people find out that their business can now take their insurance away if they don't work 40 hours, they are going to say to themselves, then i'm in this federal government thing. why isn't everybody in that? and you're heading down the road of a single payer system because if you don't have a mandate for employers to cover their workers you are simply saying well, the employers don't have to care anymore. who's going to care? well, the republicans certainly aren't going to care. you-all know that without being told. but ultimately, politically this is going to come to you -- come to bite you because what you'ring to is excluding and telling big business you don't have to follow an employer mandate. it's a bad bill.
vote no. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: i'd like to yield two minutes to a member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from louisiana, dr. boustany. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for two minutes. mr. boustany: it's been demonstrated many times over that obamacare is broken law. for example, under the law full-time employment is classified at 30 hours a week i. requiring these businesses to provide insurance to these employees. what's the consequence? this creates a incentive to limit hours. this will disproportionately affect 2.3 million low-income workers. it puts our economy in danger of creating a class of part-time employees where having two or three jobs is the norm. that's just unacceptable. that is not the answer for america. even major unions like the teamsters say, this law will destroy the very health and well-being of working families. that's not the promise of
america. that's not the america we all aspire to. we should be encouraging businesses to hire more, to offer more pay, not to limit growth and employment. that's not the answer. so today the house is taking action to save the american worker by lifting this threshold to a more realistic 40 hours a week. i could tell you real life experience having talked to companies they are going to be pushing more and more of these workers into part-time employment. i urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to talk to businesses in their districts and understand what's really happening as a consequence. that's why we should pass this legislation. i encourage all members to please support this bill. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: thank you. i yield two minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, mr. lewis, from georgia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. lewis: thank you, mr. speaker.
i want to thank my friend for many years for yielding. thank you. mr. speaker here we go again. down the same unnecessary road. this bill is a deliberate and systematic attempt to undermine the affordable care act. we are supposed to be here to help people. and not to hurt people. this bill, call it what you may, the rollback protection for americans o work a near 40 tsh-mere 40 hours a week. before the affordable care act it was easy to discriminate against the six, elderly, and those who lost their -- sick, elderly, and those who lost their jobs through no fault of their own. but those days are over. we have come too far.
we made too much progress to go back, and we will not go back. i urge all of my colleagues to vote no so we can go forward and continue to provide comprehensive health care for all of our citizens. this is the right thing to do, it is the responsible thing to do it is the fair thing to do. just vote no. just say no. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: i'd like to yield one minute to a member of the ways and means committee, mr. paulsen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for one minute. mr. paulsen: i thank the gentleman for yielding. 1938 was franklin roosevelt who signed a fair labor standards act establishing full-time work as 40 hours. for more than 70 years that has been the accepted definition for government, for corporations, for small business. but in 2010, the president's health care law through 70 years of precedent completely out the
window. this new 30-hour rule is forcing companies to scaleback hours with more part-time jobs and less full-time jobs. now many employees that were working full-time, good good full-time jobs have seen their paychecks cut up to 25%. one study recently found that regulations in the president's new health care law like the 30-hour rule are reduce small business wages to workers every year by $22 billion. and that employment in small businesses has been reduced by 350,000 jobs. mr. speaker americans want more full-time opportunities and they should get to choose to pursue those opportunities not have their employers forced to reduce them to part nim -- part-time work. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to put in the record a letter from the association of general contractors of america supporting this legislation by mr. young. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. paulsen: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i now yield two minutes to another active member of our committee, mr. blumenauer
from oregon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for two minutes. mr. blumenauer: mr. speaker, america's middle class is facing a crisis. despite the fact that productivity has soared and profits have increased, these gains are not flowing to the vast majority of americans. in 81% of america's counties median income today is lower than it was 15 years ago. after adjuster for inflation today's average hourly wage has the same purchasing power as it did in 1979. this despite the fact that american workers are producing far more productivity has increased 74% since 1973. there is a reason why the wealth is concentrated at the top. there are a myriad of tiny little changes that have a cumulative effect of the vast majority on american workers. refusing to raise the minimum wage. attacking the right to unionize. special tax benefits for a few. and today's legislation is another example.
no doubt changing the definition of 40 hours for purposes of the affordable care act will benefit a few businessings. but there are far more employees who work 40 hours a week or more than who work 30 to 40. and has been pointed out by the conservatives at the national review and "weekly standard," it's easier to drop employees to 39 hours a week than to 29 hours a week, meaning this proposal is going to reduce far more hours of work and wages for whom it matters the most. and wages aren't the only benefit at stake. as has been pointed out according to the c.b.o. a million workers will lose health insurance through their employer. half of whom will lose it all together. the other half will be shifted to the government through medicaid increasing spending by over $50 million over the next decade. this would be one of the myriad of policies that further disadvantages america's middle
class. this is another step by my republican friends to deny more people the benefits of that work. widen the divide. and disadvantage not only families today but far into the future. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield two minutes to the distinguished chairman of the education and work force committee mr. klein from minnesota. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. kline: mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of h.r. 30. it was noted to the long ago that the president's health care law will quote, destroy the foundation of the 40-hour workweek that is the backbone of the american middle class, close quote. those aren't my words of course, mr. speaker. those are the words expressed by leaders from some of the nation's largest labor unions including the president of the international brotherhood of teamsters. ecoing these concerns members of the afl-cio had a resolution that warned obamacare will have
a new class of less than 30-hour workers. we have seen headlines in recent years, how employers are left with no choice but to cut workers' hours to avoid the health care law's punitive employers mandate. put simply, the law punishes employers who provide workers with full-time jobs. a small business owner and constituent of mine from savage, minnesota, wrote earlier this week that the president's health care law is quote wreaking havoc on the american workplace. no doubt many americans agree. . according to a recent report, louisiana school administrators are forced to cut staff hours and hire more part-time teachers to avoid federal penalties. schools in new jersey and elsewhere are facing similar tough choices. one superintendent described the cost associated with the health care law's mandate as, quote, an unbelievable drain on school systems. don't america's teachers and students deserve better?
mr. speaker, let's tell our nation's school leaders we won't sit idly by while obamacare makes it more difficult to provide students the quality education they deserve. let's tell our small business owners that we want to help make it easier, not harder, to create full-time jobs. let's tell the country's union leaders that we share your concerns and are prepared to do something about it. and finally, let's tell workers that we won't let a flawed law deny them the wages that they need to provide for their families. i urge my colleagues to stand with the american people by supporting this commonsense bipartisan legislation, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman fm chan mrvi i now yield two minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, mr. kind from wisconsin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for two minutes. mr. kind: i thank my friend for yielding. mr. speaker, let me make sure i got this straight. we got a bill before us today according to the nonpartisan congressional budget office, that will increase our budget deficit by $53 billion because
there are no offsets or pay-fors in this legislation, it will reduce the number of people receiving employment-based health care coverage for about one million workers, it will increase the number of people in medicaid, the children's health insurance program, the health insurance exchanges by more than 500,000 people and it will increase the number of uninsured in our country by another 500,000 people. all at the same time when again, the nonpartisan congressional budget office found in a recent analysis that, and i quote there was no compelling evidence that part-time employment has increased as a result of the affordable care act. what's not to like? happy new year, american workers. my good friend from wisconsin recently said during the debate that he can't find a worse way to hurt working families. well, you did with this legislation, and i encourage my colleagues to vote no on it.
i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan, is recognized. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, this time i'd like to yield one minute to the distinguished house majority leader mr. mccarthy from california. the speaker pro tempore: the majority leader from california, mr. mccarthy, is recognized for one minute. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker we all know that the employer mandate has resulted in lost wages and jobs in america. that point is just not debatable anymore. numerous studies have said so. the congressional budget office . businesses are now reacting to obamacare's perverse incentive in scaling down. but the impact of this mandate isn't on paper. it's in the people across this country in each and every district who feel the pain of obamacare. in my district kern county, firefighters, department of mental health probation facilities have been forced to reduce hours of extra health
employees, and that's just in county government. but you know who the employer mandate hurts most of all? women, small business owners, low-income and unskilled workers. but we have an opportunity today to do something about it, passing representative todd young's save the american workers act. this bill is common sense, it's bipartisan but the president has already threatened to veto it. the american people don't want that. they want to see solutions, not obstruction. so mr. president, you say you care about those who have fallen on hard times. show it. sign this bill. you say you care about the youth of this country struggling with the debt and unable to find jobs. show it. sign this bill. you care about the low-income workers, about working women and small businesses, show it
and sign this bill. actions speak louder than words. the employer mandate in obamacare -- and obamacare as a whole is hurting the job market and it's hurting america. only a full repeal of this law will solve the problem. but this bill helps and this president should sign it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i now yield two minutes to another active member of our committee, mr. pascrell from new jersey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. pascrell: thank you, mr. speaker. today i rise in opposition to the save american workers act. look we will not recognize -- we will not recognize the fact that in 1960 to 2013 this is the lowest increase in health care costs in the last 50, 60 years. they don't want to admit it. you can't admit one positive
thing about the a.c.a. but i want you to tell the people who you throw off health insurance, i want them through the speaker to tell them that no longer are you going to be covered if you have preconditions. you do it. mr. speaker this bill is nothing more than a tool for large employers to avoid providing their employees with health insurance. despite the fact they can afford to do so. now, look, this is not a perfect piece of legislation. we have never passed a perfect piece of legislation. only god is perfect. the bill will reduce the number of people receiving insurance through their employers simple fact. been codified. increase the number of people getting insurance with the affordable care act. put more burden on the treasury. increase the number of people who will end up with no insurance. studies have shown that raising the threshold to 40 hours will
nearly triple the number of workers at risk of having their hours just slightly reduced by firms looking to avoid requirements by providing their employees with health insurance. mr. speaker, my republican colleagues love to extol the virtues of fiscal responsibility. so it's good to know that those concerns could be so easily cast aside for bills like this that not only add to the deficit but also achieve their noble goal of resulting in more americans going without health insurance, and through the speaker, i'd like to give the manager 30 days to change his thoughts that were expended this week in the newspaper when he said that this bill would give more people more full-time work. show us -- show us, please. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: at this time, mr. speaker, i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from michigan mr. walberg. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for one minute. mr. walberg: mr. speaker, it's a privilege to stand here in
support of save american workers act, legislation that helps my constituents in michigan who are struggling under the president's health care law regardless of the solvestry from the other side. while michigan has been hard hit over the past few years, the negative effects of the president's health care law has eroded full-time work opportunities for hourly workers. as chairman of the subcommittee on work force protections, i'm deeply committed to safeguarding workers and businesses from obamacare's damaging consequences. restoring the traditional 40-hour workweek is an important reform that will protect employees and provide certainty for employers. we need effective solutions that focus on getting people back to work rather than forcing people from their jobs, like janet from jackson, michigan, who called my office in tears last september. this 56-year-old single mother of three had just been told that morning by her employer that her home health care job
was being moved from 36 hours to 28 hours because of the new requirements under obamacare. she asked how am i going to pay my mortgage and insurance with only 28 hours? mr. ryan: 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. walberg: lets give janet the opportunity to save her 36 hours by passing the save american workers act. like janet, everyone should have a chance to work, to succeed and prosper and be in control of their own health care issues. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i now yield two minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, mr. davis from illinois. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mr. davis: thank you mr. speaker. i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 30, the labeled save american workers act, which i call the sabotage the affordable care act. that's because the bill before us would help us do just that.
sabotage affordable health care for millions of americans. it would make it easier for employers to not participate in providing health care assistance to their employees. it would drive low and moderate-income workers back to the emergency rooms of public hospitals and clinics. the c.b.o. said that passage of this measure would raise the deficit by $53 billion over a 10-year period and put a million people in government-sponsored health insurance medicaid, chip and the exchanges. it would promote ep sodic care and -- episodic care and take us back to yesteryear care in health care delivery. the affordable care act is already working and working well. on a daily basis it has taken people off the uninsured rolls.
h.r. 30 is a step backwards. it is not good for workers, it is not good for health care delivery, and it is not good for america. i would urge a no vote to h.r. 30, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from alabama, mr. byrne. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama is recognized for one minute. mr. byrne: thank you, mr. speaker. and thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate your leadership on this very important issue. i support this bill. in fact, just this morning i was reading your op-ed from "usa today" which you make a great point. this bill cannot be fixed. it's beyond repair. no quick fix law can make this work and make it count for countless american families who have been impacted, including people in my district. last november the american people spoke loud and clear. they want to see bold legislative action that pushes
back the failed policies of this president. i support this bill but i want to do more and we must do more. i look forward to working with the chairman and leadership of this house to move forward with a full repeal of this law. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to add to the record the position statement favoring this bill from the national federation of independent business, the voice of small business america. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: could i ask you for the available time now on both sides? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan has 11 3/4 minutes remaining. the gentleman from wisconsin has 13 1/4 minutes remaining. mr. levin: shall we proceed or would you like to? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: at this time, mr. speaker, i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from michigan mr. car bello. -- florida, mr. curbelo.
mr. curbelo: i'd like to thank the gentleman from indiana for reintroducing this important legislation. i've only been a member of congress for two days now, but passing bills to help american workers and those who employ them, especially so early in the year, is exactly what our constituents sent us to washington to accomplish. the purpose of this legislation is simple. to increase the threshold to classifying a full-time worker under the affordable care act from 30 hours to 40 hours a week. back in my south florida district, i constantly hear from families who are frustrated by the burdens of the affordable care act. the 30-hour workweek provision has limited the incomes of many americans and their potential to grow in their jobs. defining 40 hours as a full workweek will provide relief to many families who are unfairly getting caught in these growth-crushing regulations. working americans want to get ahead and work as many hours as possible to provide for their
families. the 30-hour workweek is limiting their ability to do so so again i want to reiterate my support for this bill and i look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to find common ground where we can make changes in the affordable care act that will benefit our neighbors back home. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: thank you. it's a real pleasure to yield 2 1/2 minutes to the ranking member of the energy and commerce committee mr. pallone from new jersey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. pallone: thank you mr. speaker. i thank my colleague from michigan. you know, i was happy to see that previous -- not the last speaker but the previous republican speaker, i think it was the gentleman from alabama mr. byrne, actually said that he wanted to repeal the affordable care act. because you know, that's what this is all about. you know, i guess i could take some happiness in the fact that we're not having an outright repeal of the affordable care
act on the floor today. but i know that this effort is really about repealing the bill. it's a piece-by-piece approach where the republicans want to basically tear down. in my opinion, when i go home, my constituents say is an excellent program. more and more people are signing up for the affordable care act. more and more people are getting insurance at an affordable price with subsidies or expansion of medicaid. so the republicans know that they can't repeal it outright so now they're trying to do it piece by piece. you know there's no kidding ourselves as to what this bill will do. it's going to increase the deficit, adding $53 billion to our debt it's going to increase the number of uninsured. it would shift more people onto public programs and would cause workers who are currently receiving employer sponsored health coverage to lose that coverage. you know, my republican colleagues claim this bill is necessary to protect jobs, but the fact of the matter is that the affordable care act has strengthened the job market. our economy and work force is
stronger now than before the law was passed. so basically what's happening here is the fact of the matter is that if you are a large employer with more than 50 full-time workers -- in other words 90% -- 96% of workers are unaffected by the law, but the larger employers that have the means, the law says they must do right by their full-time workers and offer them health insurance, but republicans think that bigger businesses should have the right to deny their workers health insurance and even though the a.c.a. says that's what they should do, give them health insurance, they say no, they shouldn't have to do that. the bill the republicans have presented today would say that big businesses could deny health coverage to someone working 39 hours a week 52 weeks a year. that's not a part-time worker. their employers should provide them with health coverage. that's all that we're asking. . giving the green light to drop
coverage for workers is not the way to move the country forward. workers have the right to deept health care and businesses should help them get it. that's the fair thing. that's the right thing. this bill simply takes us in the wrong direction. and i keep hearing from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle how terrible the affordable care act is. the fact of the matter is it's working. and it's working for the american people. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: i'd like to yield one minute to a member of the ways and means committee, mr. kelly from pennsylvania. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized -- mr. kelly from pennsylvania. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kelly: thank you. i rise in support of h.r. 30. i come to the floor oftentimes and i'm amazed how many times we let politics interfere with policy. i want to tell you who you're really hurting. you're not hurting the republican party by your remarks. what you're doing is hurting the american people by your remarks. this is america's congress. it's not a republican congress. it's not a democrat congress. it's america's congress. who have you hurt the most with this policy? women. lower income people and lower middle income people have suffered greatly.
how do i know that? because i'm actually in the job market. i've actually hired people. i know the dignity of labor and know the harm that's being done by this care act that is totally unaffordable and uncaring. it is unbelievable that we've come to the floor of this house and somehow make the other political party look bad and turn our backs on the people who sent us. it is not working, gentlemen. we don't have to dismantle it, it's falling apart on its own and the fact that it's so bad, the president won't even enforce the full law until after an election. please tell me politics didn't have anything to do with that. let's do what's right for the american people for a change and quit trying to posture. i thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i now yield three minutes to the gentleman from virginia who is now the ranking member on education and labor, mr. scott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: thank you mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, the gentleman from
the other side of the aisle has voted over 50 times to roll back the affordable care act. this is one more attempt. more than 150 million americans get their health coverage through their jobs or a family member's job. and the american -- the affordable care act, when we passed it, at that time 96% of all businesses with over 50 employees provided health insurance for their full time employees. now so that we wouldn't dismantle the present system, that we would build on it, we established a mandate for those employers, those businesses with over 50 employees would be mandated to provide insurance for their full time employees. 96% were already doing it without a mandate. those under 50 employees weren't subject to the mandate. this bill would change the
definition for full time employee for someone who works 30 hours a week to 40 hours a week. that puts a lot of americans at risk of having their hours cut to just under the 40-hour threshold, so that a few employers, just a few, 96% were already doing it, can escape their responsibility of providing the insurance. now they're less likely to suffer a job loss today because most people work a 40-hour week cutting below 30 is very unlikely because people would start quitting. 96% were already being provided their insurance. but now if you are working from 9:00 to 5:00 with an hour off for lunch, suddenly you're no longer a full time employee. that's only 35 hours. if the employer sends everybody home at 4:00 on fridays, that's 39 hours. you're no longer a full time employee. as a result many people, those currently working between 30 and 40 and those who have their hours cut, would suddenly be
part time employees, not entitled to employer-provided health insurance. now according to the congressional budget office, that's about a million people who would lose their employer-based health coverage. so mr. speaker this is just another attack on the health security of american families. it's an attack that families do not want. but it will help. it will help that handful of businesses that just want to deny hardworking employees their health insurance. and we've heard all these job -killing -- i want to put one thing on the record. we've had more consecutive months of 200,000-plus job growth than any time in recent history. so the job-killing aspect of it can't be doing too bad. a lot more than there were under the previous administration. mr. speaker, we ought to be building on the a.c.,ot dini. we oughtoe rki to strengen it, including fully expaing medicaid to all 50 stes. we can do better. this hurts families, might help
a few businesses that want to deny hardworking americans their health coverage that's been mandated, although 96% of businesses already were doing it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: let me inquire as to the time distributions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin has 11 1/4 minutes. the gentleman from michigan has 6 1/4 minutes. mr. ryan: at this time i yield one minute to the gentleman from tennessee, dr. roe. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. roe: i thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of the save americans work act. i'm pleased that the first vote we're going to do is a bipartisan bill of the 114th congress. everywhere i go i hear concerns about the lack of jobs and need for job creation. tennessee's unemployment rate is far too high at 6.%. we've got to do everything we -- 6.8%. week of got to do everything we can to encourage employers not only to create jobs but to maintain the jobs they currently offer. employers are already struggling to make their budgets work in an uncertain economy and we know that these employers will have to either
respond one of two ways. that's either cutting hours or hiring fewer workers. it's already happening. public school systems in my state, community colleges across the country are cutting hours or reducing class sizes taught. i've spent my entire adult life as a physician taking care of people from all walks of life. i want every american, including those with pre-existing conditions to have access to affordable medical care. that's why i've worked in congress to develop patient-centered solutions that help people afford health care, like the american health care reform act. so in the meantime, we must do what we can to protect the american people from the unintended consequences of the affordable care act. that's why i encourage my colleagues to support this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i'll reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized.
mr. ryan: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. ryan: i'm 13 and he's 11, is that where we're at right now? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin has 10 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from -- excuse me, 10 1/4 minutes. the gentleman from michigan has 6 1/4 minutes. mr. ryan: we'll catch up. i'd like to yield 1 1/2 minutes to a member of the ways and means committee mr. holding from north carolina. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. holding: thank you, mr. speaker. we've already seen the disastrous effects of the president's health care law from the increased premiums and deductibles to workers' hours being reduced. while the president refuses to make commonsense changes to his health care law that is destroying opportunities for work in this country my colleagues and i in congress have been committed to taking action. i'm happy to be a co-sponsor of the bill before us and i look forward to restoring the ability for working students, single parents, single mothers, women other americans desiring to log more hours to do just that. to work more hours.
mr. speaker, hard work is a cherished value in north carolina. let's pass the save american workers act today, protect workers' hours and their wages. thank you mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i'll reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: at this time, mr. speak i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. costello. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. costello: i thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. restoring the 40-hour workweek is an important reform that are are will provide relief and certainty for employers in my district and protect their hardworking employees. c.'snpcent modifatn om 40o hours s forced many job creatorso scale back business grth, force them to cut employee hours and/or redules the ta-home wages of harorking americans. mr. speaker, let's focus on what this legislation is designed to do and who it is designed to help. those making under $30,000 a year disproportionately women
and younger americans, who need the hours and jobs the most, they are the ones most at risk of having their hours and wages cut under existing law. small businesses and restaurants in my district such as victory brewing company have suffered. for example, victory has faced difficult decisions about employee hours and has been plagued with chronic underemployment just to make ends meet. i'm proud to co-sponsor the save american workers act. this will help so many businesses, not just in southeastern pennsylvania, but across the nation. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: i'd like yld two minutes to a senior member of the ways and means committee, mr. roskam of illinois. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized. scomscom thank you mr. speaker. i thank -- mr. roskam: thank you mr. speaker. i thank the chairman. there's an opportunity for us to do a good thing and that's to take a law that was well intentioned but poorly executed and fix it and make some improvements. there's been all kinds of discussion over the past couple of months, highly charged political discussions really
on both sides that make false claims about difficult people's motives. but i'll tell -- different people's motives. but i'll tell you the sponsor of this bill is to do this, it's to lift the burden, mr. speaker, off of people who find themselves not served by a law that they were told was going to serve them. they were told, oh, this is going to be great. there's going to be no adverse effect on your job opportunities. in fact, it's all going to be terrific. just sign up for it. well, as it turns out, mr. young recognized that that wasn't working out for people who were at the lower end of the economic spectrum mr. speaker. so he decided to do something about it. and he decided to introduce this bill. and what it does is it simply lifts the burden. and it says, we're not going to create downward pressure on jobs. instead we're going to create an environment where jobs are more buoyant and more abundant and there is more of them. so enough with the false claims and the strawman argument that
this is somehow insidious in taking something away. no no, no, this isn't taking away. this is adding. and this is empowering. and this is life giving. and we ought to support it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: it's now my pleasure to yield three minutes to a distinguished member of the energy and commerce, the gentlelady from colorado ms. degette. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from colorado is recognized. ms. degette: mr. speaker, this bill purports to solve a problem that does not exist. the republicans keep claiming that this provision of the affordable care act is affecting workers' hours. but despite these claims, and despite a lot of anecdotal evidence that i've heard from the business community, the labor and employment experts have detected no such impact. in fact, our economy has created 10.8 million new jobs since the passage of the affordable care act. almost 10 million of those jobs are are full time jobs.
but what this proposal would actually do is put more workers into the kind of jeopardy that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say they're trying to prevent. only 7% of americans work in jobs that place them close to the current 30-hour a week threshold. but far more americans about 44% of them, actually work 40 hours a week. so even slight changes to their work schedules are going to deny them access to health insurance that they so desperately need. i've been sitting here, i'm really touched by the concern that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have for women and for young people. people who really are at the lower end of the employment spectrum and who the republicans say are going to be harmed by this. but let me tell you for the 4% of the large corporations who are subject to these provisions of the affordable care act, people who have 50 employees or
more, here's the way it's going to work. for the young people and for the women. these people are going to be people working for large corporations making just barely above minimum wage. if they work 40 hours a week, they get insurance. under this proposal all their employer has to do is cut one hour a week out of that, 39 hours a week, suddenly they lose their health insurance. . and that's what's going to put those people at risk, those women and clerical jobs women with little kids those young people in their 20's coming into the job market trying to do the right thing and have health insurance, now they're going to have to pay for that insurance out of their own pockets and for no reason. the consequences for this misguided proposal don't stop there. the congressional budget office estimates that h.r. 30 would raise the deficit by $53 billion in the next decade while also keeping a million
workers from getting health insurance through their jobs. i actually agree with my friend, mr. roskam. i think the intentions behind this bill are good intentions, but i think the effect of this bill is going to be to deny insurance for a whole lot of americans who are at risk -- women, young people -- exactly the people we should be giving insurance to. vote no, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: mr. speaker i'm going to yield myself a minute and a half. just a couple points i want to make. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ryan: i've been listening to this debate. this is the fantasy land of obamacare. the proponents of the obamacare law on the other side of the aisle, speak after speaker are coming to the well has a fantasy of what obamacare ought to be, what they think it is. it's this mythical idea in their minds which was used in
the first place, all the good things it's going to do. the problem is reality. look what's actually happening in the real world. this is the problem with obamacare. when the myth of obamacare clashes with the reality what's going on in america, people are losing their hours. people are getting jobs cut back. it's not big corporations. it's small businesses. look, i talked to a retailer in the first congressional district of wisconsin who was telling me, tears coming down her face, how she had to cut back hours. how she had to take all her full-time employees in her retail business and knock them down to part time. why? because her competitors were doing the same thing. this is happening throughout america. the last speaker basically proved the point by saying if you go to 40, they'll go down to 39. well 39 is a lot better than 29, and guess what, the majority -- i will not yield.
and the majority of americans are at 34 hours. going to 40 puts them above that. going to 30 puts them below that. puts them out of work. the fantasy of obamacare, in reality it just doesn't work. let's give people relief. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: do you have additional speakers? mr. ryan: yeah, i do. i got caught up. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from michigan reserve? mr. ryan: at this time i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from indiana, mrs. walorski. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. mrs. walorski: i stand in support of the save american workers act. i thank my fellow hoosier, representative todd young, for sponsoring this bill. this would restore the traditional 40-hour workweek
and help employers and employees. right now the affordable care act defines full-time employees as those who work 30 hours or more a week, not the standard, 40 hours. my district is the r.v. capital of the world. businesses are ripe for growth. expansion is on the horizon. they're afraid to hire and be forced to lay off if this 40-hour definition is not changed. our businesses, like the school city of mishwaka, that educates kids, needs relief from the requirements of obamacare. the save american workers act will create jobs in my state and in my district for hoosiers. mr. speaker, i'd like to ask unanimous consent to introduce the letter of support from the precision machine products association, which employs many machinists in my district, real jobs, real people. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i now yield one minute to the gentleman from illinois, mr. lipinski. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. lipinski: i thank the
gentleman for yielding and mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from the illinois restaurant association in support of the save american workers act. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. lipinski: mr. speaker, i rise in support of the save american workers act which i joined mr. young in introducing again this year. i have not and i do not support the repeal of the a.c.a. but some commonsense changes need to be made. the administration has already acknowledged difficulties in implementing the employer mandate by instituting delays in substantial administrative changes. one problem is the a.c.a. defining full-time work as 30 hours a week, causing businesses, local governments to cut the hours of works and limit worker scheduling flexibility. the c.b.o. has confirmed that
shifting to a 40-hour full-time definition americans common understanding of full-time work would lead to some workers seeing an increase in their take-home pay. even the president's former senior advisor suggested that the president consider this change. so let's do right by america's part-time workers, family businesses, local governments and schools. let's pass this bill and fix this broken part of the a.c.a. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: mr. speaker at this time i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. perry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. mr. perry: thank you, mr. chairman. i also am proud to sponsor -- co-sponsor this bill and thank the gentleman, mr. young, for his hard work on it. i think it's fascinating that we hear from my colleagues from the other side that they're so interested in how much money the federal government would lose. the federal government. i wonder who they came here to
work for. are they interested in how many dollars their hardworking taxpayers are losing by the implementation of this ill-found law? i just got off the phone with one of my employers in the district, has about 500 employees, good hardworking family-run business and heme the number one issue he's dealing with is pouring over spreadsheets day in and day out trying to figure out how he could put one employee in the place where that employee wants to work in his business because that employee might want more hours because he wants to make his own or her own choice about health care or how much money he or she has. maybe that employee retired. their husband or wife is retired and they just need the extra hours, want the extra hours but he can't provide them. mr. speaker it's interesting to me that some folks on the other side say, just help us fix it. yet when we try and fix it they say, no it's fine. it's perfect the way it is. mr. speaker, central planning did not work in the ussr.
it doesn't work in cuba and i wish you'd quit trying to place it in the united states. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: let me ask the chairman, do you have further speakers? mr. ryan: we reserve the right to close and we'll have one more closing speaker. we're ready to close. mr. levin: how much time do i have? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan has 2 1/4 minutes. mr. levin: i yield myself the balance of our time. you know there's been some discussion here. the gentleman from illinois said there isn't anything being taken away. that's simply not true. the basis for the joint tax and c.b.o. estimate is that there will be the loss of hours for
hundreds of thousands of people , and as a result, people will no longer be enrolled in employment-based coverage a million and of those, half a million will have no insurance. so that statement is not correct. and if i might say so, when the chairman said the house will take up a bill to define full time as 40 hours per week so more people can work full time the basis of the c.b.o. estimate is that fewer people will be working 40 hours or more. that's the basis for their conclusions. so let me just, if i might emphasize what has been said by a conservative, mr. levin, not related.
putting the cutoff for the employer mandate at 40 hours would likely put far, far more people at risk of having their hours cut than leaving it at 30 hours. that would make for worse effect on workers and the economy. that's just a fact. a.c.a. has eliminated discrimination in terms of pre-existing conditions. it's dramatically reduced the uninsured rate, now 12.9%, the lowest since that began to be tracked. it has increased medicare benefits, and it has held health care cost growth to record lows. if you don't like a.c.a. despite all of these achievements, continue to try to repeal it but don't punish people who are working 40 hours or more by this bill. that's what this does. it leaves a half a million with
no insurance whatsoever. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. levin: it's worse than a terrible bill. i yield back the balance of my time and i ask, if i might, that the -- be entered into the record letters of opposition from the consumers union, the afl-cio, fciu, the teamsters, the national education association and the communication workers of america. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, may i ask how much time we have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: 3 1/4 minutes. mr. ryan: i'll yield the baffle our time -- the balance of our time to mr. young. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. young: mr. speaker, thank you for trying to improve the nation's health care law in a bipartisan fashion. you know, i don't understand the visceral resistance to trying to lighten the load on our nation's hourly workers. the wage earners, the people that need it most -- our
cafeteria workers our substitute teachers, our people at retail centers across the country, they are the ones during this still recovering, seemingly dormant recovery for so many of my constituents they're the ones demanding for these sorts of changes. there's plenty of evidence -- there's much to be said about the evidence -- there's plenty of evidence in every congressional district across the country that people are hurting on account of this 30 hours is full-time provision in the affordable care act. and this all comes before the employer mandate was kicked in and it has followed in the recent days since it officially kicked in on january 1. this was just implemented. it will be amazing to see the evidence come in should we not change the definition of full-time employment up to 40 hours once people figure out they will be paying a big old tax for not buying every single
employee above that 30-hour threshold government-sanctioned health insurance. more evidence. there are over 300 groups that have associated themselves with this legislation and asked that we pass it. among those groups is the more time for full time coalition which includes the indiana chamber of commerce, indiana grocery and convenient store association, indiana restaurant and lodging association, the michigan chamber of commerce, the michigan grossers association, the michigan lodging and tourism association, the michigan restaurant association, for example. i ask unanimous consent to enter this document into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. young: why wait? we know we're headed off a cliff here. this is a fiscally irresponsible provision within the affordable care act. who would imagine that we would try insure 500,000 additional new workers at the expense of up to $100 billion in cash
wages. it's not fair. we ought not to try to find health insurance of some workers to the expense of cost and wages to other workers. the save american workers act will remedy these defects in the current law. by resulting in zero hours who worked -- zero workers who work 40 or more hours, being at risk of a possible massive cut in their hours and wages down to 29 hours and it will enable those who work 30 to 35 hours to no longer be at risk of cuts in their much-needed hours and wages. for those reasons and so many others, i just encourage my colleagues, have an open mind here. work with us for the good of the country, to improve our nation's health care laws, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 19, the previous question is ordered on the bill. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye.
those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill dd to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to repeal the 30-hour threshold for classifications fti eloe r purposesf e ployer mandate in the patient protecti a affordable care act anreplace it with 40 hours. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? is the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> i am opposed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. becerra of california moves to recommit the bill. >> mr. speaker, i reserve a point of order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's point of order is reserved. the clerk will continue reading. the clerk: mr. becerra of california moves to recommit the bill to the committee on ways and means with instructions to the report the same back to the house with the following amendment. at the end of the bill, added following. section 4 additional conditions, a, in general, the amendments made by section 2 shall not take effect if they can be expected to result in
any of the following, one, prohibition on loss of work hours or wages, a reduction in hours worked and subsequent loss of wages in order to skirt requirements to help pay for employee health care costs two, ensuring fiscal responsibility to lower the deficit. any increase in the federal deficit. b, protecting health insurance for veterans and wounded warriors. the amendments made by section 2 shall not be apply to veterans or their families. c, being a woman must not be a pre-existing condition. nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize an employer to, one, eliminate weekend or reduce health coverage benefits for current employees two, increase premiums or out of pocket doss, -- cost, three, deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions or, four, discriminate against women in health insurance coverage, including by, a, charging women more for their health care than men, b, limiting coverage for pregnancy and postnatal care or c, restricting coverage for
of preventive health services such as mammograms and contraceptions. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, is recognized for five minutes in support of his motion. mr. becerra: thank you, mr. speaker. this is the final amendment to the bill h.r. 30. this amendment will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended. mr. speaker my colleagues, h.r. 30 is nothing more than a sucker punch to the middle class. people who live off of their inheritance aren't hurt by h.r. 30. people who live off of their investments aren't hurt by h.r. 30. even people who are destitute and need our help to make it through the day aren't hurt by h.r. 30. the only people who are hurt
are workers who earn a paycheck , they're the losers under h.r. 30. now, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if you've been watching or listening to this debate to say to yourself, i don't understand a thing that went on. one said orange, one said apple. one said toe mateow, one said -- toe mateow one said -- tomatoe. one said it helps, one said it hurts. that's what debates are all about. and americans get to make decisions. and we start this new congress having made decisions as american voters. and you think that we would then come together as a congress, as the representatives of the people, to now try to move forward together. if we can't agree it's an orange or an apple let's figure out what we can agree with. who do we typically turn to tell us what we can -- we should at least agree with if we still think it's an apple or an orange? we typically turn to the nonpartisan, neutral body that
guides this congress that's named the congressional budget office. the congressional budget office doesn't represent democrats, it doesn't represent republicans, it represents the american people and it's here to guide congress this house, to make sure that we're making decisions based on the facts. what are the facts? according to the congressional budget office, not republicans not democrats according to the congressional budget office this bill would increase the taxpayers' burden by $53 billion over the next decade, because this bill is unpaid for. this bill would result in one million americans losing their employer-sponsored coverage. that's not democrats saying that or republicans. that's the congressional budget office. this bill would increase the number of people who obtained their coverage by government-sponsored health care, because they would have lost their employer-sponsored health care and that's why the american taxpayer would have to foot the bill of close to $53
billion. this bill would also, according to the congressional budget office, increase the number of americans who would end up with no health insurance, up to 500,000. that's not my number, that's c.b.o. i think that's higher. but c.b.o. says 500,000. i'll be guided by c.b.o. and c.b.o. tells us as well that there's some five to six times as many american workers who are at the 40-hour-a-week threshold than there are americans who work at about 30 hours so when this bill says now the threshold will be 40 hours, any employer who decides to cut one hour from the paycheck of an american worker has escaped responsibility to provide health insurance for all those workers under their employ. one hour. six times more american workers are working 40 hours a week than 30 hours a week. that's why h.r. 30 costs the
american taxpayer money. that's why it's bad for americans. and their paychecks. now, americans really don't care much about these debates. at the end of the day they want to know we're doing something. getting something done. they want us to work together to solve some problems. they want us to boost job growth. they want us to build an economy that works for all americans and not just the privileged few. and we have some pretty good news for them over the last few years. nearly 11 million new jobs. 57 consecutive months of job growth. the longest streak in our country's history. thanks to the affordable care act which is being debated today, 10 million more americans today have health insurance and that means health security that they didn't have before. the deficit, it has been cut by 2/3. gas prices cut by half. good news. so you're probably not surprised to learn a couple of other things. during that same time, the economy's grown 12%. corporate profits have grown
46%. the stock market 92%. what's the missing element in all of that growth? paychecks. the paychecks of the average american worker have stagnated over that time. everybody else is doing well at the top. but guys at the middle they're hurting. what does h.r. 30 do? it sucker punches that same american worker who has to earn a paycheck. not the guy who has an inheritance or who has investments to live off of. the guy who lives off of a paycheck. my motion to recommit says stop that, we have a chance, our final chance, to do that. vote for the motion to recommit. vote against h.r. 30. and let's work on behalf of americans and their paychecks. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? mr. ryan: i withdraw the point of order. the speaker pro tempore: the reservation is withdrawn. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i'll yield myself such time as i may consume. in opposition. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman claims time in opposition? mr. ryan: yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ryan: mr. speaker i don't
know what to say. paychecks. guess what? it's happening across america today. even before the employer mandate kicked in businesses across america are cutting workers' hours down to 29. that doesn't help a paycheck. so think about what's going on in america today. and look whereas already been happening. and this is before this costly employer mandate even took place. it's happening in every congressional district. we heard about cafeteria workers firefighters, teachers , community colleges, retailers restaurant tours -- restauranteurs, all of them being forced to cut the hours of their employees down to part time work. if you want to help a person's paycheck, give them the opportunity to have a full time job. that's what this does. it's really kind of amazing.
i hear a lot of talk about the c.b.o. and the joint taxation and the cost of this bill. here's the bulk of the cost. what we're saying is, don't impose these costly punitive mandate taxes on hardworking taxpayers. so by removing these mandate taxes, yeah, i suppose it costs the government some money it puts that money back into the paychecks, back into the pockets of the hardworking taxpayers who give us the money in the first place. it says, businesses go ahead and hire and add hours and increase wages. that's the so-called cost of this legislation. we want more people working. we want the people who are in 30 to 40-hour jobs, hourly wages, high school educations, just getting started in life, we want them to keep climbing that ladder of life. this law puts a huge road block in front of people working. what this bill does, and this
recommit it's just designed to kill the bill. and with respect to the veterans issue, we solved that yesterday with our hire more heroes act, which we passed on a big bipartisan vote. so make no mistake this recommit is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to simply kill this bill. look, if you want to impose this mandate if you want to knock people into part time work, if you love obamacare, then vote against the bill. but if you want more jobs, if you want more hours, if you want more people working, if you want more people having better opportunities, if you want to give some relief on these mandate taxes, then vote for this bill. this bill's the right way to go. and i've just got to tell you at the end of the day, we haven't even seen the full force of this punitive move because the employer mandate is just beginning to kick in. all these things have happened in anticipation of this new mandate. we haven't even seen the worst of it yet. that's why we should pass this now and prevent this from happening and getting worse
before this mandate kicks in. with, that mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the motion is not agreed to. mr. becerra: on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20 the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states h o repseates. any use t ccane coverage of the house proceedings for political or coer purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 179 and the nays are 244. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the bill is passed. mr. ryan: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. scott: mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen a rerd te is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house repste any use of ostd coverage of the house proceedings for political or coer purposes is expressly prohibited by the
for what purpose does the gentlewoman from arizona seek recognition? >> mr. speaker i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. without objection the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, four years ago, our community was shaken to its core by an act of senseless violence that took the lives of six of our own and wounded 13 others. they were our friends neighbors, and loved ones.
ms. mcsally: our community still carries the enduring pain of their loss but also the bright recollection of their lives and memories. we remember the victims and what they came to do that day, speak with their elected representatives. we remember the selfless acts of bravery and love by those who put themselves in harm's way, even giving their own lives to save others. we remember how the city of tucson came together in grief and consolation to move forward with a spirit of compassion and strength that was felt across the nation. our thoughts and prayers continue to be with the families and loved ones of those who lost -- of those lost or wounded who carry the pain of what happened on that quiet saturday, each and every day. we are inspired by their courage, we're made stronger by their strength. today as the bells rang out from the university of arizona, and
during the moment of silence that followed, our community vinetted and strong, proclaimed that with one voice we will never forget those we lost. christina taylor-green. dorothy morris. judge john rolle. phyllis schneck. dorwin stoddard. and gabriel "gabe" zimmerman. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair will entertain further requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? the gentlewoman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to applaud the house of representatives on unanimously
passing its first piece of legislation yesterday to prioritize employment opportunities for veterans and reservists. mrs. ellmers: this is particularly important to me as i proudly represent fort bragg and over 100,000 veterans, service member, and their spouses. recently, i held a military round table in fayetteville north carolina. as you can imagine, the number one concern for military spouses and veterans was unemployment. unfortunately, obamacare's employer mandate made employment opportunities for veterans scarcer than before. however the hire more heroes sacramento a step in the right direction in improving veterans' transition into civilian work force. this commonsense legislation is to be held up and alaud la -- applauded. i am proud to have been an original co-sponsor and look forward to doing more for our veterans every day. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the house will come to order.
for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: due to president obama's latest actions designed to seek closer ties with terrorist groups and rogue regimes across the world, these groups have the blueprint for how to get concessions from the united states. one, hold innocent americans hostage, two, demand the release of spies in return. the castro regime has always and will continue to perpetrate the most heinous of human rights violations in order to remain in control over the millions of cubans yearning for free tom. what does that say about us as a nation when we're willing to cave to the nands of these thugs and terrorists and abandon our ideals and policies.
we must uphold the american values of freedom, of democracy of respect for human rights and the rule of law and stand in solidarity with all people who crave these fundamental rights. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. pelosi: i know that at some point the house will take more official and formal notice of what happened in paris early yesterday morning we awakened to it early yesterday morning. it was such a tragic terrorist act. not only upon freedom of the press, but really upon freedom of expression and the life in a civil society. in this chamber, there are two paintings, as you know, mr.
speaker, one of the -- one of our patriarch, george washington and the other they have marquis de lafayette. after 9/11, the french newspaper "le monde" said, we are all americans. all last night we saw je suis charlie. all over the world. people say, i am charlie. referencing "charlie hebdo" the magazine, the publication that was assaulted. i know, i'm certain the speaker is putting together a formal moment of silence, i won't go to that place but i didn't want the day to go by without acknowledging the tragedy that befell our friends in france, that they were with us to help the founding of our country, hence the marqui s's painting in this chamber along with our
patriarch george washington, and just to say that the thoughts and prayers of all our members are with the families of those who lost their lives in that terrible terrorist act and with all the people of france as they mourn their loss. with that, mr. speaker i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? without objection the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to call for increased accountability in congress. the american public has signaled time and time again that it is frustrated with the dysfunction in washington. for far too long, congress has failed to fund the government on schedule and has fall intoon a cycle of crisis management with short silingted, temporary budget measures. to fix this i have introduced a bill and resolution that can
help prove to the american people that congress is here to do its duty. mr. wittman: first the no budget, no pay act would prohibit members of the house or senate from receiving a paycheck if their respective chambers fail to pass a budget by april 15. house resolution 17, the stay on schedule resolution, prohibits the house from adjourning for an august recess unless we have passed all of our appropriations bills by july 31. these are commonsense initiatives that will restore regular budget order and provide certainty to our communities. i ask my colleagues to join me in fixing the dysfunction in congress by co-sponsoring the no budget, no pay act and the stay on schedule resolution. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my
remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of the 99th annual pennsylvania farm show in harrisburg, pennsylvania. pennsylvania hosts the largest indoor agricultural exposition in the nation with nearly 6,000 animal, 10,000 competitive exhibits and 300 commercial exhibit. the farm show showcases pennsylvania's agriculture, an industry exceeding $7.5 billion in annual cash receipts. pennsylvania has 62,000 farm families stewards of more than seven million acres of land. the farm show shows the full spectrum of farm products. it is only possible through the work of the department of agriculture and hundreds of volunteers. i encourage all pennsylvanians
to attend the 99th pennsylvania farm show and celebrate pennsylvania's affordable, high quality, safe foods. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. scalise: i rise today to celebrate the victory. there's been such a grateful collaboration on the part of the british, to commemorate this occasion and to to remember those who died on both sides, the american and british side and are working together again to forge that great relationship
we have always had. this was the last time that the united states and great britain were on the opposite sides of a war. so while we appreciate that great relationship we have with great britain, we are also celebrating an important moment in united states history this 200th anniversary of the wattle of new orleans. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. are there further requests for one-minute speeches? for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise to honor the dedication and commitment of the men and women who protect and serve us all as members of the law enforcement community. every day, police officers throughout the country where the -- wear the uniform with pride and understand the tremendous responsibility that comes with it. mr. paulsen: putting the safety of others before the safety of themselves. unfortunately over the last few month, we have been reminded of
the danger police officers face every day in keeping our neighborhoods say recent tragic murder of two police officers in new york serve as a stark reminder that officers put their lives on the line to protect our communities. in the coming weeks, i'll be reintroducing legislation to make sure the families of those officers who gave the ultimate sacrifice receive the benefits they are promised without being subject to the burdens of federal taxes. mr. speaker, all of us should be honoring the work that all our police officers and law enforcement, that they make sacrifices that they do every kay to keep us safe. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. . the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. o'rourke of texas for today and the balance of the week. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. the chair announces the speaker's appointment, pursuant to clause 11 of rule 10 clause
11 of rule 1, and the order of the house of january 6 2015, of the following member to the permanent select committee on intelligence. the clerk: mr. schiff of california. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. pocan, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. pocan: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i am here on behalf of the congressional progressive caucus. and our special order hour we want to share with the american public our concerns about a trade deal that we think will be coming through congress in the first few months or first half of this session. the transpacific partnership is the biggest and the baddest of the trade deals that we have
seen come before this country. it represents a does countries from chile to -- dozen countries from chile to japan, almost 800 million people are represented by countries included in the transpacific partnership, and it represents 40% of the world's economy. and yet the trade agreement has been drafted largely in secret. no one from the public has seen it. quite honestly members of congress haven't seen it. but about 600 people in this country are involved with the drafting of this trade deal. and it has great ramifications that go beyond trade in the 29 chapters that make up the transpacific partnership. we anticipate there also could be a move from leadership to introduce legislation to fast track the trade deal. what that means, to fast track it is to really take away the public's ability through their elected members of congress to have a say, to be able to debate and to amend the trade deal. and we anticipate that could be one of the first votes that
would come to us in this congress about trade. and we at the progressive caucus want to share with the public the various concerns that we may have about this very, very large, all encompassing trade deal, that could affect american jobs could affect food safety, could affect environmental concerns could affect things like buy american laws, currency policy and many, many more issues. i'm joined by a number of members of congress today who would like to take part in this. i would like to at this time yield some time to my colleague from the great state of new york who has put a number of efforts towards this and working very strong to make sure the public knows what's in the transpacific partnership. i want to yield time to mr. paul tonko from new york. mr. tonko: thank you, representative pocan. it's great to join you in this hour of discussion about the fast track method that's been
associated with trade negotiations. and with fair trade, free trade concepts alike. i represent a district in upstate new york the 20th congressional district, which is primarily the confluence of the hudson and mohawk river valleys. and it was there that we became the donor area to the erie canal, that gave birth to the westward movement for this nation and sparked an industrial revolution. and it was there that we saw the development of a nexus of communities dubbed milltowns that then rose as the epicenters of invention and innovation, that saw manufacturing booming as we went forward as a nation. and many an immigrant called that their new home, that region their new home. and they tethered their american dream to the prosperity that was continuing to grow in the region. and i think back on the manufacturinging sector and all that it -- manufacturing
sector and all that it meant to my ancestors, all that it meant to me and the opportunities that came into my life. it was that empowerment that came through the availability of work, the dignity of work the opportunity to earn a paycheck that really made a difference. and i think of those same towns today having really lost millions of jobs across america . we're reflective of all of those towns that became those manufacturing centers that enabled people again to engage in meaningful employment and to be able to have those dreams those american dreams fully, fully strengthened by the opportunity for work. when i see the reduction of environmental standards, where we're willing to have our children exploited by the ugly sins of the past, with concerns for child labor laws that might erode, when we think about some of the inequities that are brought to bear with the denial of collective bargaining, all
of these items have snuck in to trade negotiations. and the importance here for congress to be able to provide the oversight and the assessment of these various negotiations where we can look at these trade deals and suggest amendments or have sound debate. we not only have a right as members of congress i think the public that we represent has a need for congress to review these documents. and to suggest improvements. so i look forward to this hour of discussion where you and i and our several colleagues will join together in speaking to the wisdom or lack thereof of some of the processes that have followed this entire trade discussion. and we're talking about a trade deficit now that has ballooned beyond belief into record proportions and where we're putting our economy and that american dream at risk and where we're denying meaningful
employment to those whom we represent here in washington. so i thank you for leading us in this hour of discussion and i know that the information that we will exchange will be very critical and important to people who will be coming into this discussion and allowing them to trade those, exchange those ideas with their given elected representatives. so with that i yield back and thank you for leading us in this important discussion. mr. pocan: thank you representative tonko. as you mentioned, you know, one of the concerns that we have not only in your region but in my district are the loss of jobs that we've had because of these past trade deals that haven't quite gone as promised. it's been estimated we've lost four million u.s. jobs due to just three trade deals. and three quarters of those jobs lost were in the manufacturing sector. i have mentioned earlier today at a press conference in rock county wisconsin, a county that i share with representative paul ryan, we used to have parking pen, made
good american-made quality pens. a thousand jobs at one time were in that community working at parker pen. and early 2010 the final jobs had moved to mexico. and that's just one example of the number of jobs that we lost just in south-central wisconsin, much less flint, michigan, and los angeles, california, and other parts of the country. so we appreciate your efforts and your comments. i'd like to also yield some time to another colleague of mine from the great state of california someone who has been a strong member of our progressive caucus, and i'd like to yield some time to representative hahn of the great state of california. ms. hahn: thank you very much. i'm rising in solidarity today with millions of american working families who are deeply concerned about the impact that harmful trade deals have on our nation. i'm proud to join with my colleagues in the progressive caucus in explaining why we
oppose this so-called fast track authority for international trade deals. but let me be clear. i'm very much pro-trade. trade is essential to the economy of my district and i'm proud to represent the port of los angeles, the largest container port in the country. so trade is essential to our economy and my district, but it's essential to the economy of the whole state of california and of course dare i say the whole nation. and the many wonderful and diverse exports we do promote in our state, films, creative context made in hollywood, the fruits and vegetables grown in central valley, the wines from napa, the innovative products developed in our silicon valley or the goods that are
manufactured in california factories. and trade is essential to our entire u.s. economy. trades create and sustain american jobs, not only at our ports in this country, but throughout the entire supply chain. trade helps american businesses reach new markets, grow, prosper trade helps american consumers gain access to many products that we value. and trade is not an exclusive democrat issue or republican issue. everyone who wants our nation to prosper understands the importance and value of engaging in trade and being globally competitive and connected. and that's why i'm proud that as a progressive democrat i was able to join with a conservative republican, ted poe, and we've worked together to co-chair our congressional port caucus. we now have about 90 members of congress, republicans and
democrats, coming together over the issue of investing in and sustaining and making competitive our nation's seaports. we might disagree on other policy issues, but we have a common understanding of the economic benefits of trade. especially trade passing through our ports. so i want to say it again, and i hope it's clear, that i strongly support trade. however i'm opposed to trade deals with other countries that have harmful consequences on our american workers, and deals that give unfair advantages to those who exploit workers and destroy the environment. that's why i oppose fast track. i believe with all my heart that congress has a constitutional duty to oversee trade agreements. but fast track takes away our authority to regulate trade and
to be involved in these negotiations. under fast track we would only be able to vote for or against a deal that's been negotiated without us. and we would not even have the opportunity to amend it. that sounds like a recipe for a raw deal, not a good deal. i'm honored to hold public office and to have earned the support and the trust of those who depend on me to stand up for them and what's best for them. i take my responsibility very seriously to represent them and act in their interests. as i think every member of congress does. and i think our constituents are counting on us to make trade deals that are fair and beneficial. i think fast track undercuts our authority and our ability to provide this oversight. i hope that we can support trade and have good trade agreements, but i hope we can all oppose the idea of fast tracking these trade deals.
i yield my time. mr. pocan: thank you representative hahn. i think you said it very eloquently. we are all for trade. i don't think there's a member in this body who doesn't want to see trade happen. but we want fair trade. we don't want this so-called free trade that makes it harder for american workers, that depresses our wages and ultimately includes a whole lot of other things that affect everything from food safety to environmental concerns to our ability to have something as basic as buy american laws and buy local laws. so thank you for your comments. i'd also like to yield some time to a gentleman and a colleague and a friend from the state of michigan, someone who represents the flint and sag in a area i'd like to -- saganay -- saginaw area. mr. kildee: thank you to my colleague for his leadership on this. and for yielding. this is a really important subject for the american people. it's a really important subject for the people that i represent in flint, michigan, and
saginaw, michigan, bay city. you mentioned flint. it's my hometown. i was born and raised there. september 16 of 1908, general motors was incorporated in flint, michigan. and it was a company that brought together carriage makers and wheel makers and they put the world on wheels. about 30 years later, the workers in that city at general motors organized and got the first u.a.w. contract and between the auto industry itself and the organized workers who were able to then claim their fair share of the productive -- the tremendous wealth generated by their productive capacity we built the american middle class. we built an amazing society that gives opportunities -- gave opportunity, i think, to just about anybody who felt they could work hard and would put in the time and get a fair wage and get decent benefits
and be able to go to work with some dignity. we built something that was truly amazing. it wasn't that long ago, because of globalization and because of trade deals like the one that's being considered right now that the federal government rightfully, and this president rightfully stood up for the american auto industry and put it back on its feet, gave the american auto worker, the american worker a chance to reclaim that dignity that so many people fought for even decades ago. . what i worry about is everything those people worked for and fought for could go away and even the great work this president did to rescue the auto industry could be all for naught if we continue on this path of pursuing trade policy that puts corporate and stockholder and offshore interests, really, in front of the interests of the
american people and the american worker. my hometown has seen this play itself out. i remember, i was in local government when the north american free trade agreement was adopted. and we keep hearing that the agreement that's being contemplated right now is a vastly different sort of agreement but we don't see that. but what we do hear and see is that the very same language, the very same rhetoric, the same explanations or excuses about the need to grant fast track authority, to negotiate this agreement and bring it back to congress for a yes or no vote, the same arguments being made now were being made then. and the people that i represent truly believed that they were sold -- truly believe they were sold a bill of goods. at one point in time in my hometown of flint michigan, we
had 79,000 auto workers. this is a city that was never more than 200,000 in population. so this is a city that really grew up around american manufacturing. it was direct g.m. employees, it was suppliers, it was a whole community built around this incredible productive capacity that started over a century ago. but in just a few short years, we've gone from that 79,000 number to about 10,000 auto workers in my hometown system of when i think about trade and these trade deals, it's not a question of the big geopolitical tensions that we're trying to address, it's not even a matter of sort of this esoteric argument about the philosophy and trade policy. it is about flint and saginaw and bay city michigan families who have worked hard their whole lives and stand to lose everything because we are
continuing to pursue trade policy that thinks about the short term profits of multinational corporations and not about strengthening the long-term integrity of the american middle class. this is a dangerous path that we're on. what's particularly concerning to me is that when i go home, as i to, as you all doe -- as i do, as
by dumping goods, by manipulating currency in a fashion that will make us impossible to compete. this is the wrong track for this country. it's something that congress needs to step up and assert its constitutional role in defending and i stand with my colleagues and i know many, many others who simply are not going to sit idly by and no matter who the president is, democrat, republican or otherwise, and allow the prerogatives of congress, which means the prerogatives of the people who sent us here to be overlooked. it would be a dangerous path for us to take and i'm very grateful to my friend, mr. pocan, for his leadership, leadership of many others here on this issue and i'm glad to
stand with you in fighting this battle. with that i yield back. mr. pocan: and, again, thank you so much, representative kildee. when you mention the auto industry, i have to say that i grew up in kenosha, wisconsin. american motors was the company that ran the town. almost had a family member, neighbor, that worked at american motors. there were mistakes along the way but american motors eventually went away to chrysler. went away to nothing. and the people who had the strong family supporting wages that auto industry, that companies replaced the auto industry are jellybean manufacturers and companies like that, doesn't pay the same wage, doesn't support the family the same way and just as we were promised with the korean free frayed agreement that 70,000 jobs would be created. instead, 60,000 jobs were lost and that's exactly why we have to be involved now while it matters, not after it's been negotiated.
we don't have a debate. we don't have a chance to amend it. so thank you for all your work on this and on behalf of the people of michigan. . i want to recognize another colleague of mine, someone who's been a stalwart in the congress i'd like to yield time to my great colleague, representative barbara lee from the great state of california. ms. lee: let me thank you congressman pocan for yielding but also for your tireless leadership on behalf of the american people and for leading not only this progressive caucus special hour, but for leading so many of them. you have been our voice, the american people are hearing from us through you. i want to thank you again for beating the drum across america allowing the american people to know what the real deal is here in washington, d.c. so let me also thank all my colleagues in the congressional progressive caucus in rising tonight to talk about why we are
strongly opposed to fast track for the transpacific partnership. when it comes to trade deals and american jobs, congress should never be a rubber stamp. as the representative from california's 13th congressional district i have the honor and privilege of representing the port of oakland, one of our nation's busiest sea ports and also the airport. i support trade because it is critical to the economy of my district and our nation. trade is good when it is fair, when it is open, when it is transparent, and when it creates good-paying jobs here in america. trade is bad, however, when it ships american jobs overseas and so -- so that the one percent can reap even greater profits. for this reason, i join the vast majority of americans, americans from both party, in opposing
fast track for the t.p.p. bad trade hurts all american workers, american families, american businesses and also especially, those individuals and businesses in communities of color. of the 2.7 million jobs lost because of the u.s.-china trade deal a disproportionately high percentage 35% mind you, came from communities of color. that is outrageous. now after these individuals lost their jobs, their situation got even worse. when they found a new job, it was, on average, for a 30% lower wage. the loss of these jobs and wages totaled more than $10 billion in lost economic growth for these communities, not one time, but each and every year. enacting another bad trade deal will continue to prevent communities of color from building wealth and moving into the middle class.
in addition to the negative impact on communities of color fast track for t.p.p. will not provide an opportunity to add critical labor and environmental protections that are critical to respecting human rights and preserving our planet. that's why my colleagues and i are here saying no to fasttrack for the transpacific partnership. trade negotiations should not be conducted in back rooms. the american people, members of congress, we deserve to know what's in these deals. that's why, again, congress is so important. otherwise, people have no say, they have no voice on trade policies that really affect their economic livelihood, their ability to put food on the table, and their ability to aspire into the middle class. fast track for the transpacific partnership does not help the american people. it only allows special interests and corporations to craft trade
deals that are bad for the american people. so, mr. speaker, it is time to turn the lights on, the -- the lights on the t.p.p. if the united states is going to pursue a trade deal in the pacific, congress needs to fully debate it so we are certain that it creates jobs and all the protections that we all are standing for and know about and want right here in america. over the last 20 year the u.s. has lost nearly 3.5 million jobs due to nafta and the united states-china trade deal. many of these jobs were lost in california and in communities of color. let's not make the same mistake again. let's stand together in opposing fast track because it will sacrifice american jobs and environmental protections in the name of international corporate profits. let's take fast track off the table and let's start talking about creating good-paying american jobs for american families. thank you, i yield back and thank you once again for your
tremendous leadership. mr. pocan: thank you, representative lee and i look forward to working with you on the progressive budget to showcase the initiatives we would much rather see the country do to create good-paying jobs and get more people back to work. i thank you for your efforts. at this time i would like to yield time to a colleague of mine from the great state of ohio who has seen much of this firsthand and today eloquently explained her experience of being around when nafta passed and some of those experiences. let me yield some time to representative marcy kaptur from the state of ohio. ms. kaptur: i thank the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. pocan, for organizing us this evening and for your efforts to tell the truth about what is happening to the workers of our country and those around the world. i rise with you tonight because america, our wonderful country, has a huge, good jobs deficit
because we have a gigantic free trade deficit. our trade policy -- policies export more u.s. jobs than u.s. products. more and more foreign imports come across our shores than we send goods out. and the gap grows wider. every decade, at extraordinary proportions, never before, never before in american history have so many good jobs been outsourced off our shores. america's workers have had income shortages every family knows it. because america has had this jobs hemorrhage due to the flawed fast tracked free trade agreements that have been ramrodded through this congress. since 1975, when wall street's free trade regimen began to lock
down, america has amazz -- has amassed $9.5 trillion trade deficit with the world if you count up every year, numbers don't lie, and this has translated into a gigantic, unprecedented job loss of over $47,500,000 lost american jobs. good jobs. coast to coast. living wage jobs. jobs that have evaporated from our communities. jobs that have been shipped out. we know the places. look at the tags on any product. mexico, china vietnam, korea, bangladesh, honduras turkey, el salvador, to dozens of third world nations frankly most very undemocratic. where workers are treated like a bonded class. workers everywhere, here too, are being treated like expendable parts. yes, american jobs are being shipped out to penny-wage sweat
shops behind the iron curtain of anonymous towns in distant countries most americans will never visit. anonymity worker exploitation and hidden squalor are fundamental to free trade. and so are the stories of americans who struggle to earn a live, who lose their jobs and are forgotten. are forgotten in their plight. in our country, the impact on the average american family has been a los of real income of $7,000 a year. imagine that. the public knows it. the people who elected me to congress, and i thank them have allowed me to be a voice, to put the ugly puzzle of outsourcing together, and i have made it my mission to travel the world, to find the companies that fled our shores, and i travel to find them and i have lots of photos and i have lots of interviews and i've had time to talk to unemployed americans too. .