Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3) to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline, and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 30) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the 30-hour threshold for classification as a full-time employee for purposes of the employer mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and replace it with 40 hours.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to elaborate on the chairman's retort to what we just heard about criticisms pertaining to this law.

Number one, this law is 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 loss in hours and wages, and I will walk the gentleman through that momentarily. It will also cause fewer workers to be directly impacted by this employer mandate.

Very briefly, let us 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 are in the minority. An employer is incentivized to offer these typically higher-wage, higher- skilled workers employer-sponsored health insurance, and that is why so many do. It is part of our normal functioning labor market.

So if one were to be moved hypothetically from 40 hours down 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 40- to 45-hour workweek individuals would no longer be at risk of such a massive cut in their wages or their hours.

Let's take someone working 30 to 35 hours, just above that new full- time employment threshold in ObamaCare. They tend to be lower-wage hourly workers, according to the Hoover Institution, and let's assume they had no employer-sponsored health insurance. There are 9.8 million Americans who fall into this category. They are vulnerable to a cut in their hours and wages.

Were one to move from 35 hours a week down to 29, they would 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 have witnessed a strange phenomenon in our country. In Indiana, we have seen local school corporations announce they will limit the hours of substitute teachers, classroom assistants, cafeteria workers, custodians. We have seen retailers limit the hours of their cashiers. The list goes on and on, from hotels to manufacturers to colleges and universities.

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 is 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 has ignored decades of practice in the labor market reality of our 40-hour workweek. It has distorted that market.

As a result, the Hoover Institution estimates that as many as 2.6 million American workers are at risk for lost hours.

Now, it is not just the lost hours that should concern us. Again, it is 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 percent pay cut, courtesy of ObamaCare.

The people most affected by this provision are the people who can least afford it--89 percent of them do not have college degrees, 63 percent of them are women. Perhaps, ironically, it sounds a lot like the people ObamaCare was supposed to help.

CBO analysis indicates that it comes at the expense of up to $105 billion in cash wages. Now, I defy anyone to say that it is fair to expand coverage to a half-million people--that number from the CBO--on the backs of 2.5 million people who 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, the 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 is littered with serious unintended consequences that need to be addressed.

In the Senate, we have seen a similar version of this bill introduced in a bipartisan manner.

Now, this isn't a Republican or a 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.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you so much for this opportunity to try to advance legislation 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 who need it most--our cafeteria workers, our substitute teachers, our people at retail centers all across the country--they are the ones during this still-recovering, seemingly dormant recovery for so many of my constituents, they are the ones who are demanding these sorts of changes.

Much has been made of the evidence here. There is 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 had 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 that they are going to 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 ask that we pass it. Among those groups is the More Time for Full Time coalition, which includes such groups as the Indiana Chamber of Commerce, Indiana Grocery and Convenience Store Association, Indiana Restaurant & Lodging Association, the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the Michigan Grocers Association, the Michigan Lodging and Tourism Association, the Michigan Restaurant Association.

For more examples, I will enter this document into the Record.

More Time for Full Time,

January 6, 2015.

Hon. Mitch McConnell,

Senate Majority Leader,

Washington, DC.

Dear Leader McConnell: The More Time for Full-Time

Coalition (www.moretimefor

fulltime.org ) greatly appreciates your steadfast support for

restoring the traditional definition of full-time employee to

40 hours per week and urges you to move Senate consideration

of legislation to do so as early as possible in the 114th

Congress.

Many employees are being hurt by lost wages and hours

because the 30-hour-per-week definition in the Affordable

Care Act is forcing employers to restructure their workforce

by reducing their employees' hours to alleviate the burden of

compliance. Harmonizing the definition of full-time employee

in the ACA with the traditional 40-hour definition would

benefit both employees through more hours and income, and

employers now able to focus on growing their business and

creating jobs rather than restructuring their workforce.

In this is not addressed soon, our country will experience

significant workforce disruptions and individuals as well as

companies will lose valued workforce flexibility. We urge you

to work in a bipartisan way to restore the traditional

definition of full-time employment by changing the Affordable

Care Act's 30-hour-per-week definition.

Many Americans are drawn to part-time jobs with flexible

hours to suit their personal needs. Further, employers with

variable-hour workforces and flexible scheduling have been

appealing and critical for students, single parents, and

other individuals struggling to balance various obligations

and commitments. This critical flexibility will be lost if

employers are forced to abandon current practices in order to

avoid significant financial penalties.

Aligning the law's definition of full-time employee status

with current levels would help avoid any unnecessary

disruptions to employees' wages and hours, and would provide

significant relief.

Thank you for considering our concerns and for your

leadership in addressing a fundamental challenge employees

and businesses face in implementing this law.

Sincerely,

National Associations: American Hotel & Lodging

Association, American Rental Association, Asian American

Hotel Owners Association, Associated Builders and

Contractors, College & University Professional Association

for Human Resources, International Franchise Association,

National Association of Convenience Stores, National

Association of Manufacturers, National Association of Theatre

Owners, National Association of Truck Stop Operators,

National Club Association, National Council of Chain

Restaurants, National Grocers Association, National

Restaurant Association, National Retail Federation, Society

for Human Resource Management, U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

State and Local Associations: Adirondack Regional Chamber

Commerce (NY), Alabama Grocers Association, Alabama

Restaurant & Hospitality Alliance, Alaska Chamber (AK),

Alaska Hotel & Lodging Association, Alaska Restaurant &

Hospitality Alliance, Albany-Colonie Regional Chamber (NY),

Alexander City Chamber of Commerce (AL), Ames Chamber of

Commerce (IA), Angel Fire Chamber of Commerce (NM), ARA of

Alabama, ARA of Arizona, ARA of Arkansas, ARA of California,

ARA of Colorado, ARA of Connecticut, ARA of Florida, ARA of

Georgia, ARA of Idaho, ARA of Illinois, ARA of Indiana, ARA

of Iowa, ARA of Kentucky, ARA of Louisiana, ARA of Maine, ARA

of Maryland, ARA of Massachusetts, ARA of Michigan, ARA of

Montana, ARA of Nebraska, ARA of New Jersey, ARA of New

York, ARA of North Carolina, ARA of Ohio, ARA of Oklahoma,

ARA of Oregon, ARA of Pennsylvania, ARA of Tennessee, ARA

of Vermont, ARA of Virginia;

ARA of Washington, ARA of Wisconsin, Arizona Food Marketing

Alliance, Arizona Lodging & Tourism Association, Arkansas

Grocers and Retail Merchants Association, Arkansas

Hospitality Association, Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce

(AK), Ashland Area Chamber of Commerce (OH), Associated

Industries of Massachusetts, Inc. (MA), Baltimore Washington

Corridor Chamber of Commerce (MD), Bangor Region Chamber of

Commerce (ME), Barrow County Chamber of Commerce (GA), Beaver

Dam Chamber of Commerce (WI), Boca Raton Chamber of Commerce

(FL), Brownsville Chamber of Commerce (TX), California

Grocers Association, California Hotel & Lodging Association,

California Restaurant Association, Campbell County Chamber of

Commerce (WY), Cape May County Chamber of Commerce (NJ);

Carolinas Food Industry Council, Catawba County Chamber of

Commerce (NC), Central Chamber of Commerce (LA), Central

Delaware Chamber of Commerce (DE), Chester County Chamber of

Business and Industry (PA), Clearwater Regional Chamber of

Commerce (FL), Cobb Chamber of Commerce (GA), Colorado Hotel

& Lodging Association, Colorado Restaurant Association,

Committee of 100 Louisiana (LA), Connecticut Food

Association, Connecticut Lodging Association, Corning Area

Chamber of Commerce (NY), Council Bluffs Area Chamber of

Commerce (IA), Dakota County Regional Chamber of Commerce

(MN), Delaware Restaurant Association, Delaware State Chamber

of Commerce (DE), Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce (CO), Des

Plaines Chamber of Commerce & Industry (IL), Dublin-Laurens

County Chamber of Commerce (GA);

Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce (VA), Florida Chamber of

Commerce (FL), Florida Restaurant & Lodging Association, Fox

Cities Chamber of Commerce (WI), Fresno Chamber of Commerce

(CA), Fullerton Chamber of Commerce (CA), Galesburg Area

Chamber of Commerce (IL), Garrett County Chamber of Commerce

(MD), Georgia Food Industry Association, Georgia Hotel &

Lodging Association, Georgia Restaurant Association, Glendale

Chamber of Commerce (AZ), Goshen Chamber of Commerce (IN),

Grand Junction Area Chamber of Commerce (CO), Grand Rapids

Area Chamber of Commerce (MI), Grapevine Chamber of Commerce

(TX), Greater Burlington Partnership (IA), Greater Durham

Chamber of Commerce (NC), Greater Flagstaff Chamber of

Commerce (AZ), Greater Green Bay Chamber (WI);

Greater Louisville, Inc. (KY), Greater North Dakota Chamber

of Commerce (ND), Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce (AZ),

Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce (RI), Greater

Shreveport Chamber of Commerce (LA), Greater Springfield

Chamber of Commerce (VA), Greater Topeka Chamber of Commerce

(KS), Greece Chamber of Commerce (NY), Hardy County Chamber

of Commerce (WV), Harford County Chamber (MD), Harlan County

Chamber of Commerce (KY), Harrisburg Regional Chamber & CREDC

(PA), Hawaii Lodging & Tourism Association, Hotel Association

of New York City, Inc., Hotel Association of Washington DC,

Hueneme Chamber of Commerce (CA), Idaho Lodging & Restaurant

Association, Idaho Retailers Association, Illinois Chamber of

Commerce (IL), Illinois Food Retailers Association;

Illinois Hotel & Lodging Association, Illinois Restaurant

Association, Indiana Chamber of Commerce (IN), Indiana

Grocery and Convenience Store Association, Indiana Restaurant

& Lodging Association, Iowa Chamber Alliance (IA), Iowa

Chamber Alliance

(IA), Iowa Grocery Industry Association, Iowa Restaurant

Association, Irving Hispanic Chamber of Commerce (TX),

Jacksonville-Onslow Chamber of Commerce (NC), Jefferson

Chamber of Commerce (LA), Kansas Food Dealers Association,

Kansas Restaurant & Hospitality Association, Kentucky

Association of Convenience Stores, Kentucky Chamber of

Commerce (KY), Kentucky Grocers Association, Kentucky

Restaurant Association, Lemoore Chamber of Commerce (CA),

Licking County Chamber of Commerce (OH);

Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce (CA), Loudoun County

Chamber of Commerce (VA), Louisiana Association of Business

and Industry (LA), Louisiana Hotel & Lodging Association,

Louisiana Restaurant Association, Louisiana Retailers

Association, Lubbock Chamber of Commerce (TX), Maine

Innkeepers Association, Maine Restaurant Association, Maine

State Chamber of Commerce (ME), Marshall Area Chamber of

Commerce (MN), Maryland Chamber of Commerce (MD), Maryland

Hotel & Lodging Association, Maryland Retailers Association,

Massachusetts Food Association, Massachusetts Lodging

Association, Michigan Chamber of Commerce (MI), Michigan

Grocers Association, Michigan Lodging and Tourism

Association, Michigan Restaurant Association;

Mid-America Grocers Association, Mid-Atlantic Hispanic

Chamber of Commerce (MD), Minnesota Grocers Association,

Minnesota Lodging Association, Minnesota Rental Association,

Minnesota Restaurant Association, Miramar Pembroke Pines

Regional Chamber of Commerce (FL), Mississippi Hospitality

and Restaurant Association, Missouri Grocers Association,

Missouri Restaurant Association, Mobile (AL) Area Chamber

of Commerce, Monroe Chamber of Commerce (LA), Montana

Chamber of Commerce (MT), Montana Lodging & Hospitality

Association, Montana Manufacturing Council (MT),

Murphysboro Chamber of Commerce (IL), Myrtle Beach Area

Chamber of Commerce (SC), Nebraska Chamber of Commerce &

Industry (NE), Nebraska Grocery Industry Association,

Nebraska Hotel & Motel Association;

Nebraska Restaurant Association, Nevada Hotel & Lodging

Association, New Hampshire Equipment Rental Association, New

Hampshire Lodging & Restaurant Association, New Hampshire

Restaurant & Lodging Association, New Jersey Food Council,

New Jersey State Chamber of Commerce (NJ), New Mexico

Restaurant Association, New York Hospitality & Tourism

Association, New York State Food Merchants Association, New

York State Restaurant Association, Newberry County Chamber of

Commerce (SC), Nome Chamber of Commerce (AK), North Carolina

Chamber (NC), North Carolina Restaurant & Lodging

Association, North Carolina Retail Merchants Association,

North Country Chamber of Commerce (NY), North Dakota Grocers

Association, North Myrtle Beach Chamber of Commerce (SC),

North Shore Chamber of Commerce (MA);

Northern Kentucky Chamber of Commerce (KY), Ohio Chamber of

Commerce (OH), Ohio Grocers Association, Ohio Hotel & Lodging

Association, Ohio Restaurant Association, Oklahoma Grocers

Association, Oklahoma Hotel & Lodging Association, Oklahoma

Restaurant Association, Orange County Business Council (CA),

Oregon Restaurant & Lodging Association, Oshkosh Chamber of

Commerce (WI), Overland Park Chamber of Commerce (KS), Oxnard

Chamber of Commerce (CA), Ozark Empire Grocers Association,

Palm Desert Area Chamber of Commerce (CA), PennSuburban

Chamber of Greater Montgomery County (PA), Pennsylvania

Chamber of Business and Industry (PA), Pennsylvania Food

Merchants Association, Pennsylvania Restaurant & Lodging

Association, Portland Chamber of Commerce (TX);

Rathdrum Chamber of Commerce (ID), Rensselaer County

Regional Chamber of Commerce (NY), Retail Grocers of Greater

Kansas City, Rhode Island Hospitality Association, Rochester

Business Alliance (NY), Rocky Mountain Food Industry

Association (CO/WY), Rome Area Chamber of Commerce (NY),

Roseburg Area Chamber of Commerce (OR), Rowan County

Chamber of Commerce (NC), Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce

(UT), Santa Clara Chamber of Commerce & Convention--

Visitor's Bureau (CA), Santa Clarita Valley Chamber of

Commerce (CA), Schuylkill Chamber of Commerce (PA), Simi

Valley Chamber of Commerce (CA), South Baldwin Chamber of

Commerce (AL), South Carolina Restaurant & Lodging

Association, South Carolina Retail Association, South

Dakota Retailers Association Restaurant Division, South

Padre Island Chamber of Commerce (TX), Springfield Area

Chamber of Commerce (MO);

State Chamber of Oklahoma (OK), Tempe Chamber of Commerce

(AZ), Tennessee Grocers & Convenience Store Association,

Tennessee Hospitality Association, Texas Association of

Business (TX), Texas Food & Fuel Association, Texas Hotel &

Lodging Association, Texas Rental Association, Texas

Restaurant Association, Texas Retailers Association, The

Business Council of New York State, Inc. (NY), The Chamber of

Reno, Sparks, and Northern Nevada (NV), The Greater Cedar

Valley Alliance & Chamber (IA), The Greater Hartsville

Chamber of Commerce (SC), Thibodaux Chamber of Commerce (LA),

Tucson Metro Chamber (AZ), Upper Tampa Bay Chamber of

Commerce (FL), Utah Food Industry Association, Utah Hotel &

Lodging Association, Utah Retail Merchants Association;

Valley Industry & Commerce Association (CA), Vermont

Chamber of Commerce, Vermont Retail and Grocers Association,

Virginia Chamber of Commerce (VA), Virginia Hospitality &

Travel Association, Virginia Hospitality & Travel

Association, Virginia Retail Merchants Association,

Washington Food Industry Association, Washington Lodging

Association, West Chambers County Chamber of Commerce (TX),

West Virginia Chamber of Commerce (WV), West Virginia

Hospitality & Travel Association, West Virginia Oil Marketers

and Grocers Association, Western DuPage Chamber of Commerce

(IL), Wichita Metro Chamber of Commerce (KS), Wilsonville

Area Chamber of Commerce (OR), Wisconsin Grocers Association,

Wisconsin Hotel & Lodging Association, Wisconsin

Manufacturers and Commerce (WI), Wisconsin Restaurant

Association, Wyoming Lodging & Restaurant Association,

Wyoming Restaurant & Lodging Association, Yuba-Sutter Chamber

of Commerce (CA).

Why wait? We know we are headed off a cliff here. This is a fiscally irresponsible provision within the Affordable Care Act. Who would imagine that we would try to insure 500,000 additional new workers at the expense of up to $105 billion in cash wages? It is unfair. We ought not try to finance health insurance for some Americans at the cost of hours and wages for other Americans.

And finally, the Save American Workers Act will remedy these defects in the current law, resulting in zero workers who work 40 or more hours being put 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 to have an open mind here and work with us for the good of the country to improve our Nation's health care laws.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and both of the underlying bills. Let's talk a little bit about how these bills got before us, what the process of this body is, as well as the content of these two bills.

I ask my colleague from Texas: Did either of these bills go through committee here in this 114th Congress, this new Congress?

I am happy to yield to the gentleman.

Let's talk a little bit about what that means. The Rules Committee is not the committee of jurisdiction for these bills. Now, that sounds complicated, but what does that mean? We have specialists here in Congress, specialized staff, Members who really roll up their sleeves and get to know about natural resources: what is this pipeline, what does it do about health care. They know far more than I might know or Mr. Burgess might know or you might know, Madam Speaker, on a particular topic. We all try to learn about those in our committees.

The Rules Committee simply packages these bills for the floor. All the Rules Committee did yesterday was say no one can amend these bills. That is this rule that is before us. The Rules Committee simply said: These bills--which nobody who has any expertise actually got to vote on in committee, they just appeared--the Rules Committee said--and, by the way, no Republican or Democrat can even try to improve these bills, even Republicans and Democrats who serve on the committees of jurisdiction.

Now, we are supposed to have something called regular order around here. What does that mean? It means a bill, somebody has an idea. Let's have an idea: 40 hours, 30 hours--let's have an idea. Let's talk about whether this pipeline should be built or where it should be built. Okay. Well, that goes to a committee, which has Democrats and Republicans on it. They have the chance to amend that bill, to change that bill. They report out that bill.

Then it is supposed to go to the Rules Committee, and the Rules Committee hopefully will say: By the way, we want other good ideas from other Members of Congress that aren't on that committee. Let's allow a discussion on this amendment and that amendment. Mr. Courtney had a great amendment that he offered yesterday. Rules Committee said: No, we can't even vote on it here on the floor of the House. It doesn't mean it will pass, but it means that Members have the opportunity to offer new ideas to improve legislation.

Well, guess what? Guess what, Madam Speaker? This bill didn't have any hearing or markup in any of the committees of jurisdiction--neither of them: Energy and Commerce, Natural Resources, Transportation--all bypassed for this bill that then went directly to Rules Committee. And the Rules Committee said: By the way, nobody can change these bills that no committee has even looked at.

So that is how we got to where we are today. That is the wrong process. A vote against this rule today is a vote for regular order, a vote for making sure that Members of this body--Democrats and Republicans--both on the committees of jurisdiction and in the general body can have their say on bills. That is why it is so important to defeat this very first rule here today.

Because if this passes, it is very dangerous. It can become the precedent for all the bills this Congress. This starts with an innocuous bill. This is the 50th-something repeal of ObamaCare. I don't know how many times the Keystone pipeline has been passed. So it seems innocuous. I am not for the policies. We will talk about them in a minute. Some people are. There is nothing new under the Earth here. We have seen these are in different forms, different versions, but they haven't passed through committee.

But the procedure here is saying: Guess what? No committee of jurisdiction can look at these bills. Rules Committee is not going to allow any amendments from Democrats or Republicans. If this rule passes, that has the danger of becoming the precedent for this entire Congress. The committees of jurisdiction will be avoided and overruled and gone around, and Members will have no opportunity to even offer their ideas here on the floor of the House to improve bills.

Now, let's talk a little bit about the content of these two bills before us today.

First, the so-called Save American Workers Act. Mr. Burgess says that it changes labor law in this country, somehow defines full-time workers and full-time work, and that is simply not what it does. It simply addresses the benefits and whom companies will need to provide benefits to.

And, frankly, if this bill were to be the law, a company could very easily say: By the way, Mr. or Ms. full-time worker who works 40 hours a week, you now get off Friday at 4 o'clock. Sorry, you are 39 hours a week, you don't get any health care. And they are going to do it. That is why some companies want this to pass. Most companies provide benefits to all their employees, and it is not an issue.

But the folks that might be lobbying Members of Congress about it, of course that is their intention. They want to cut people from 40 hours a

week to 39 hours a week and not give them health care benefits. Ask them questions, Democrats or Republicans. If you are thinking of voting for this, ask them why they want it. That is why, of course, they want this bill. Right now, they would have to cut them all the way down to 30 hours, which is a much more complicated endeavor, because they probably would have to add new employees and have to manage that from an HR perspective. It is probably just worth it to let people continue working 40 hours and give them their benefits.

But if this very dangerous provision were to become law, many, many Americans would find themselves cut from 40 to 39 hours, 39\1/2\ hours, go home at 4:30 on Friday. Sorry, no health care. Sorry, no health care.

Now, look, if there is a real discussion about how to improve health care in this country, Democrats and Republicans, we are happy to be part of that. Let's talk about what health care should look like. When we have an idea to change something, to remove part of the Affordable Care Act, let's talk about what replaces it. This is simply a bad idea. It is a disincentive for companies to even provide health care to their employees.

Not only that, it is a deficit buster. It increases the deficit by $53 billion. Is the first bill that we are looking to pass under a rule a bill that didn't even come through a committee, that no Member of Congress can even offer a pay-for on? If we allowed an open rule here, I would love to offer a pay-for for that. How are we going to pay for this $53 billion that this costs?

If you want to do this bad policy, that is one thing. I don't think we should do it. But if you want to do this policy and risk having companies cut their employees from 40 hours to 39 hours, if it is going to cost $53 billion, I want to know how we are going to pay for it. I don't think that we should go to our Federal deficit and debt and leave that to the next generation to pay for. How many times does Congress do that? Oh, we will just have somebody else pay for it. Our kids will pay for it, our grandkids will pay for it. That is exactly what is going to happen with this bill, like so many others.

Several third-party economic analyses have found that five times as many employees would be at risk of having their hours reduced to part- time status under this bill than under current law. That is right. Five times as many are at risk of being cut from 40 to 39 hours than are currently at risk of being cut from 40 to 30 hours. Oh, so endanger the benefits of more employees--that is exactly what this bill does.

This bill is no way to create jobs. It is a way to prevent many Americans from having the health care through their employer that they already enjoy, forcing them to get taxpayer subsidized health care through the exchange instead.

That is why it costs money. That is what the $53 billion is. It is a fact that what Republicans are saying is: Sorry, I don't think you should pay for your own health care. I think taxpayers should pay for it. They are trying to force you and me to pay for your health care, rather than getting your own health care, paying your employees' share.

It is simply bad for the country, bad for the deficit, bad for the next generation, and as I said, just as importantly, a bad precedent for the way that this Congress works.

Let's talk about the Keystone pipeline. This is really a phantom pipeline because yesterday in committee I asked, ``Does anybody actually want to finance or build this pipeline?'' I haven't seen any evidence that there is, at the current rate of oil.

Mr. Burgess, have you heard? Yesterday, I asked in committee if anybody had any evidence that could go out on the floor that anybody wanted to pay for or build this pipeline. Have you had the opportunity to hear if anybody wants to build a pipeline?

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, if it exists already, I don't know why you are passing this bill. The truth is it does not exist to move the oil from the tar sands of Canada to our ports for export. That is what we are talking about here.

As far as I can tell, there is nobody who wants to pay to build it because it doesn't make economic sense with oil at $52 a barrel. It might be a different discussion when oil is $110, $100, or even $90 a barrel.

We had statistics that about 90 percent of the tar sands production requires oil at $75 a barrel and about 100 percent of it requires oil at $65 a barrel. When oil is about $52 a barrel, nobody is going to pay for this pipeline.

It is a phantom pipeline. We are talking about issues that might have made sense to talk about if somebody actually wanted to do this pipeline, but before we waste the deliberative efforts of this body on a topic like this, we would like to see some evidence that somebody actually wants to build a pipeline there in the first place, not to mention that the other reason it is a phantom is nobody knows what the routing is going to be.

It is still in flux. There is a lawsuit. Where is the final routing going to be? Not only are there serious doubts about who will finance the pipeline, but in addition, we don't even know where it is going to be.

By the way, the costs of the pipeline have gone up. Transcorp says the pipeline will cost $8 billion--up from their estimates of $5.4 billion just a couple of years ago--not to mention that we are being asked to approve a pipeline that we don't even know the final routing of.

Again, as one of the very first bills that bypasses committee, that nobody can amend here on the floor, we are asked to encourage employers to cut their employees from 40 hours to 39 hours, so they can eliminate their benefits and force taxpayers to pay for it to the tune of $53 billion over 10 years.

We are being asked to approve a phantom pipeline that nobody wants to pay for and nobody knows where it is going to go. What a way to start a Congress. Let's do better. Let's defeat this rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my distinguished colleague on the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney) who, by the way, had an idea to try to improve one of these bills, and his idea is not even allowed to be discussed or debated or voted on here on the floor of the House.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 15 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer) for his very first speech here on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

So here we are, Mr. Speaker. We have two bills that didn't go through any committee and that no Member of this body, Democrat or Republican, had a chance to amend. They went to the Rules Committee. No Members are allowed to amend them on the floor of the House, and they have to vote for them.

One of those bills is for a phantom pipeline. We don't even know if anybody wants to build it, and we don't know where it is going to go. We don't even know whether this right of eminent domain might be given to a private company over this so that a company can condemn private property of a private landowner's and take it away. Those are some of the things that are being fought out in court and in law in States like Nebraska. Without even knowing where it is going to go or if anybody wants to pay for it or build it, somehow we are engaged with a permitting process. Let's go ahead and approve a 7-Eleven in Gerry Connolly's district. I would like a hotel at the corner of 29th and Arapahoe in my district, if we can do that, too.

What are we doing--seizing all control here in Washington and taking it away from States and local governments and individual landowners, who normally have a say in these matters?

Of course, there is the other bill that we have here. Again, it didn't go through committee. Nobody could amend it. It is a bill that increases the deficit by $52 billion by forcing Americans to take taxpayer subsidies for their health care rather than buying it themselves with their employee's share and their employer's share. It is a bill that encourages companies to cut their employees from 40 hours a week to 39 hours a week. It is a bill that will lead hundreds of thousands or millions of Americans to lose their health care and have to take taxpayer subsidies through the exchange to be able to even have any kind of health care.

Look, instead of rehashing proposals that we voted on I don't even know how many times--in fact, we voted on

this phantom pipeline when it was a little less phantom. I think there were actually people who wanted to build it when oil was $110 a barrel. Guess what? The costs of the pipeline have gone up by about 30 percent, and as far as we can tell, there has been no evidence presented, either in the Rules Committee or here on the floor, that anybody wants to build it. By the way, that is what congressional hearings are about in normal regular order, where there would be somebody to testify: ``Well, yes, we can build it at $70 a barrel. No, we can't build it at $70 a barrel.'' We don't even have that information. I have seen an independent report that said that the tar sands are not profitable at anything less than $65 a barrel. We are at $52 a barrel now.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 35 seconds to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

We are prepared to close if the gentleman from Texas is prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and on the underlying bills--no committee hearings, no committee markup, no amendments on the floor of the House, a phantom pipeline, job-destroying, deficit- busting.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 19 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 19 provides for the consideration of two important pieces of legislation to help the American economy, both of which passed in the 113th Congress with bipartisan support. H.R. 30, the Save American Workers Act, is designed to address a critical flaw in the Affordable Care Act which is causing workers to lose hours at their jobs and, thus, lose wages--those wages that help put food on their tables, those wages that help feed their families, pay their utility bills, heat their homes during the winter, and cool their homes during the summer. H.R. 30 fixes this flaw by changing the newly created labor rule in the Affordable Care Act which defines full-time work at 30 hours a week and places that definition back where the American public has believed it to be for the last 100 years, that is, at 40 hours.

The second bill contained in today's rule is H.R. 3, the Keystone XL Pipeline Act, and that would put an end to what has been a 6-year process for approving a pipeline that should have simply been common sense for America's economy a long time ago.

The rule before us today provides for 1 hour of debate for each of the bills. This allows the House to fully debate these crucial issues. These bills are targeted pieces of legislation dealing with one single provision in the Affordable Care Act and one single pipeline, respectively. No one is trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act today. For that, stay tuned. But I have no doubt that Members of the minority will claim that this bill is an attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act. But, in fact, it simply makes changes to a definition and interpretation by the Department of Labor in the bill. As always, the minority is also afforded the customary motion to recommit on each of the bills.

Madam Speaker, as a result of the Affordable Care Act's requirement that businesses with 50 or more employees provide health insurance coverage to those employees working 30 hours per week, employers across the Nation--from schools to universities to municipalities to restaurants--are being forced to cut workers' hours or face unsustainable employment costs to their businesses and to their organizations. As a result, we are seeing--and this is what Republicans predicted prior to the controversial and contentious passage of the Affordable Care Act--but what we are seeing is the bill has fundamentally changed labor law in this country, creating a new, standard 30-hour workweek. As a result, workers' hours are being cut, and productivity in this country--a country that has always prided itself on the work ethic of its citizens--will decrease over time. This is what onerous government regulations do--suppress innovation and hamper businesses.

Many Members of the Democratic Party have been outspoken in clamoring for an extension to long-term unemployment benefits, which would extend government assistance to all unemployed Americans well beyond a year's worth of benefits. Yet there is something that can be done now, there is something that can be done today, which will have an actual, practical effect of putting more money in more people's pockets.

We have heard story after story from every State in the Union that employers are dropping workers' hours from less than 39 hours a week to perhaps less than 29 hours or fewer--potentially 10 work hours a week that workers won't see in their paychecks, which could mean hundreds of dollars that men and women won't have to feed their families and pay their bills. Increasing workers' hours increases money that people have to spend.

The Affordable Care Act fundamentally changed labor law in this country, and the repercussions of this may not be felt for years to come. This is a dangerous, slippery slope. What other labor laws will be reinterpreted now to define ``full-time employment'' as 30 hours per week? Do people intend to impose overtime rules on employers who employ people for over 30 hours per week? This is yet another regulation which would only result in businesses cutting more hours. What will the National Labor Relations Board reinterpret, knowing that the very fabric

of labor law is now based on a 30-hour workweek instead of the 100-year standard of the 40-hour workweek?

Prior to the Affordable Care Act, employers were already overwhelmingly providing health insurance to their employees working 40 hours per week. Making the change contained in Mr. Young's legislation will cause the least amount of disruption to the labor market, and that is an important thing.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Affordable Care Act will reduce the total number of hours worked, on net, by about 1.5 percent during the period from 2017 to 2024, almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor. Because of this, the Congressional Budget Office projects a decline in the number of workers of about 2 million in 2017, rising to 2.5 million in 2024, as a result of the Affordable Care Act. The latest Congressional Budget Office figures show that the Affordable Care Act will increase spending by almost $2 trillion, double the estimate from 5 years ago. And the Joint Committee on Taxation says that taxpayers will be on the hook for over another $1 trillion over the next decade. Americans earning as little as $25,000 annually will pay more because of the law, even after accounting for the $1 trillion in premium cost-sharing subsidies.

H.R. 3, the Keystone XL Pipeline Act, is an issue that Congress and the American people have been supportive of for the past several years. It has now been over 6 years since TransCanada first submitted its application for a Presidential permit to cross the United States- Canadian border with a pipeline bringing oil to refineries in Houston, Texas. The President's own State Department, in a several thousand-page document, stated that the pipeline would be cleaner and more environmentally friendly. It is a way to transport oil than other means, namely, with trucks, trains, and ships. This is common sense. The issue has been debated here in the House I don't know how many times over the past several years. Enough is enough. It is time to approve this application and put men and women to work who will be building this pipeline.

Madam Speaker, let us be clear about what is happening today. We are not repealing the Affordable Care Act. We are not undermining the Affordable Care Act. The bill does not take health insurance from a single person in this country. It is a fix to a fatal flaw in the legislation, a fix similar to the seven other fixes that have passed both Houses of Congress and, in fact, been signed by the President. It is similar to the 37 unilateral fixes that the President and his Secretary of Health and Human Services have made on their own. This is a fix to stop this legislation from resulting in people losing work. If Democrats can't agree to fix a provision in the Affordable Care Act that is preventing people from working, then it is simply empty rhetoric to claim that they are interested in any fixes at all.

I will encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Both bills were before the Committee on Rules yesterday, and you were present.

The pipeline, in fact, exists between Cushing, Oklahoma, and Houston, Texas, this very day.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller), the chairwoman of the House Administration Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois

(Mr. Shimkus), a fellow member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber).

I have no additional speakers.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

It has been an interesting afternoon, and we have heard a lot of discussion. The first week of a new Congress is a little bit different from other times. None of our committees have been constituted. Yet, in this Congress--in this historic Congress--we have been left an enormous amount of work by the previous Congress, not because the House wouldn't do its work. Republicans and Democrats showed up and passed bills and sent them over to the Senate, and there they languished. Well over 300 bills are stacked up on the former majority leader's desk. I stress the word ``former'' in that statement, and I believe that is why he is the former majority leader.

Now it is a new day and a new Congress. No, the committees have not yet been constituted, but there is an enormous amount of work--there is an enormous body of work--that has already been accomplished by the House of Representatives that now needs to move forward on behalf of the American people, on behalf of our economy, on behalf of our jobs, on behalf of heating our homes. Look, I am old enough to remember when the Democrats assumed power in 2007, in the 110th Congress. It was kind of an unusual time for me because I had been in the majority previously, and I didn't know what it was like to be in the minority, but let me just take everyone back for a moment.

The rules package that the Democrats passed in the 110th Congress-- their first year of the majority--provided for the consideration of five measures. I never quite understood that because the Democrats ran on ``six for '06.'' Nevertheless, five measures were included in their rules package. They went directly to the floor with these bills, with no committee consideration, not even the consideration of a hearing in the House Rules Committee, which they controlled at the time. So it is a little disingenuous to say, ``Oh, we are rushing things. Oh, we have not had adequate consideration.'' You heard the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) describe the number of hearings and markups that have been done on just the Keystone pipeline.

In the time I have been sitting here I have heard discussions that there is nothing in the Affordable Care Act that actually cuts a worker's hours, but a plain reading of the legislation--of section 1513, page 158, paragraph four, for those who are keeping score at home--reads:

A full-time employee, section A, in general: The term

``full-time employee'' means, with respect to any month, an

employee who is employed at least 30 hours of service per

week.

That seems pretty straightforward.

What has happened as a result of that very plain language even before the Department of Labor issued its rules, which were even more restrictive, is employers made the decision of: Do you know what? We are not going to employ anyone over 29 hours because we don't want to run the risk of invoking this employer mandate.

Now, it is true enough that the administration did delay the mandate. Yes, we are criticized for passing things that are restrictive on the Affordable Care Act. The administration has done so so many times--30, 35--I don't even remember how many. One of the things they delayed was the employer mandate. In fact, later on, in this very section, section 1513, it states:

On the effective date of the employer mandate, the

amendments made by this section shall apply to months

beginning after December 31, 2013.

That is in the past.

It is important to bring this up. It is not part of our discussion today on the rules, but it is for employers--for small businesses--in this country to recognize, with the delay of the employer mandate-- actually, it started last week, January 1 of 2015--no taxes for calendar year 2015 will be paid until next year. So the fines under the Affordable Care Act will, in fact, not start until next year, but the reporting requirements started 7 days ago. Big companies understand this. Big companies get this. Big companies have got lots of lawyers on retainer who are working on this every day. It is the small employers with 50 employees back home in our districts who need to understand that they have to be keeping these records today so that they will be able to go back and verify the statements on their tax bills next year.

Mr. Shimkus said it very well. On the Keystone pipeline, there have been 15 hearings in the House and Senate, four markups, 10 votes--10 votes on the Keystone pipeline. Tell me we haven't studied this situation.

We heard discussion from the other side that this was a phantom pipeline, that no one is even interested in building it anymore, and that the price of gas is so low that no one would be interested in building the Keystone pipeline. In fact, the president and CEO of TransCanada, in a statement yesterday, said that Keystone XL is a project that was needed when oil prices were less than $40 a barrel.

That was in 2008 that it was less than $40 a barrel. It is a project that was needed when oil prices were less than $40 a barrel. It was needed when prices were over $100 a barrel, and it is certainly needed when prices are $50 a barrel, as they are today.

He went on to say that the review process for the Keystone XL has been anything but a well-established process. For decades, the normal process to review and make a decision on an infrastructure project like Keystone would take 2 years. He went on to say that we are well over the 6-year mark in reviewing the final phase of Keystone with, seemingly, no end in sight. The bar continues to move again and again.

What business can function like that, Mr. Speaker?

TransCanada has patiently and diligently worked since 2008 to comply with every twist and turn in this unparalleled process. We have done this to ensure that the Keystone XL is built and operated safely. The State Department has concluded this to be the case time and time again, and it can be done.

Mr. Speaker, I would just submit that that does not sound like a CEO who is not willing to invest his money. We are not even talking about government money here. We are talking about private money. This private investment, indeed, is going forward. I would just submit again, from Cushing, Oklahoma, to Port Arthur, Texas, the pipeline is actually in the ground and exists today--far from a phantom pipeline.

Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of important bills pertaining to health care and energy--the two very centers of excellence within the Energy and Commerce Committee.

I applaud Mr. Young and Mr. Cramer for their thoughtful pieces of legislation. I applaud them for working across the aisle to offer bills that both Republicans and Democrats have publicly supported. Over two- dozen Democrats voted for the 40-hour workweek the last time it came to the floor. I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying bills.

For that reason, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

I thank the gentleman from California and the gentleman from Texas.

Madam Speaker, I wonder: Does anyone know who Lisa Gray is? Or the many Lisa Grays across America? Lisa Gray is a woman who, as a small business owner, admitted that if it had not been for the Affordable Care Act, she would not have been able to get the chemo treatment for her leukemia.

Just think of the workers who are now getting affordable care access. Now, with this legislation, they will be cut to 39 or 38 or 32 hours, so as not to have the employee-mandated and responsible way of treating their health insurance.

This bill that is on the floor today will give us a $53 billion deficit. It will result in 1 million people losing their employee- sponsored coverage like Lisa Gray or families that I saw coming for enrollment in Texas.

It will increase the number of people obtaining coverage through Medicaid, CHIP, and the health insurance marketplace between 500,000 and 1 million and increase the number of uninsured by upwards of 500,000.

Do we realize what we have gained through the Affordable Care Act? According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the average annual premium for employer-sponsored family health insurance rose just 3 percent. That is far different from 7.9 percent before the Affordable Care Act. Where is all this noise that our insurance premiums are going up?

I will tell you what will be going up: it will cause an additional 6.5 million workers to find that their employers have cut their hours, and it will result in $19.6 billion in additional costs to the Federal health care program.

Are we talking about deficit? I am talking about lives, Madam Speaker, and I am talking about the ability to save lives. This legislation is not interested in doing so.

What about my State of Texas? We have not opted in to the expanded Medicaid. Twenty-three States--what will that do to individuals below 100 percent of the Federal poverty line if they had any ability to access the marketplace? They won't have the ability to access the marketplace because they will be in those who are cut down.

Let me just say that we have the ability to realize and do better. Let me stop people from saying there is no Federal law that requires employers, Madam Speaker, to cover employees. You won't face penalties.

You can do better. I believe this bill does not answer our concerns. I don't want Lisa Gray to lose her insurance.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 30, the so-called ``Save American Workers Act of 2014,'' which is the latest attempt by the House Republican majority to impede the implementation of the Affordable Care Act and deny Americans the security that comes from having access to affordable, high-quality health care.

At the start of the new Congress the American people expect the ``People's House'' to take up matters of central concern to their lives: jobs, affordable education; and initiatives to close the income gap.

I oppose this bill because its effect would be to deny employer provided health insurance to hard working employees who work more than 30 hours but less than 40 hours per week.

The majority is bringing before the House of Representatives a bill that was brought before the last Congress, and the Obama Administration said that it would be vetoed.

The majority has attempted over 50 times to end the Affordable Care Act with no hope of accomplishing their goal. Today's vote is no different from past attempts to take away Americans' right to affordable health care insurance.

Further, should the Republican majority in the Senate decide to take up this bill--they do not have the 60 votes to bring H.R. 30 before the Senate for a final vote.

If they could get H.R. 30 out of the Senate the President would veto the bill and neither the House nor the Senate has the two-thirds majority necessary to overcome a veto.

This is a waste of limited legislative days for 2015, and a poor start to the 114th Congress.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that H.R. 30, the Save American Workers Act would: Increase the federal deficit by $53 billion over the next decade; Result in one million people losing sponsoring coverage; Increase the number of people obtaining coverage through Medicaid, CHIP, and the Health Insurance Marketplaces by between 500,000 and one million people; and Increase the number of uninsured by up to 500,000.

Since 2013, over 10 million Americans now have health insurance because they took advantage of the Affordable Care Act.

An independent analysis conducted by the University of California Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education found that increasing the threshold from 30 to 40 hours would result in nearly three times as many workers, about 6.5 million in total, being vulnerable to hour reductions than under current law.

Premiums for employer-sponsored insurance grew in 2014 at the lowest rate on record back to 1999, tied with 2010. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation data, the average annual premium for employer- sponsored family health insurance coverage rose just 3.0 percent (1.2 percent adjusted for inflation) to $16,834 in 2out, far below the 7.9 percent (5.6 percent adjusted for inflation) rate seen from 2000-2010.

Our nation has taken a momentous step in creating a mindset that health insurance is a personal responsibility with the enactment of the Affordable Care Act. The law did not automatically enroll all citizens into the program because it was specifically designed to be an opt-in process.

This nation because of the Affordable Care Act has 7.3 million people signed up for Marketplace plans, paid their premiums, and accessed quality, affordable coverage.

An additionally, 8 million individuals enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP since the beginning

2015 Open Enrollment--that's an increase of nearly 14 percent compared to average monthly signups before this year's enrollment period began.

Millions of young adults have gotten covered on their parent's plan, because the law says they can now do so until they turn 26.

An article in the New England Journal of Medicine found that 10.3 million uninsured Americans have gotten since the start of Open Enrollment.

In just one year (since the start of Open Enrollment), we've reduced the number of uninsured adults by 26 percent.

Americans have more choices. During Open Enrollment 21314, consumers could choose from an average of 47 plans. Contrast that to before the Affordable Care Act when many consumers had few, if any, real choices.

Today, we're able to announce that in 2015 there is a 25 percent increase in the total number of insurers selling health insurance plans in the Marketplace in 44 states.

Seventy-six million Americans with private health insurance can finally get preventive services such as vaccines, cancer screenings, and yearly wellness visits without cost sharing, because the law says your insurance company must provide you with these services with no copay or other out-of-pocket expense.

This includes nearly 30 million women and over 18 million children. Millions of families have real financial security because insurance companies can no longer deny them coverage because of a pre-existing condition or because they reach an annual or lifetime limit in coverage. Insurance companies must include things like prescription drugs and hospital stays in their coverage. And being a woman is no longer a pre-existing condition.

H.R. 30 proposes to amend the Internal Revenue Code by redefining a full time employee for purposes of providing health insurance to only those workers who work a 40-hour workweek.

The bill would redefine ``full-time employee,'' for purposes of determining which employees an employer must provide health insurance coverage to only those hourly wageworkers who work 40 hours a week. The Affordable Care Act for the purpose of employers providing health care to workers defined a full time employee as any worker who works 30 hours a week or more.

Few hourly workers in low-wage jobs work a 40-hour work week. These employees often rely on government assistance, which amounts to a hidden tax break to employers. Low wageworkers often rely upon public housing assistance, SNAP, WIC or Medicaid to make ends meet.

In the 115th Congress wants to help Americans with access to affordable health care insurance they would address the issue of states that are not participating in the Medicaid expansion in states like the state of Texas where millions of uninsured low wage workers do not have access to health care insurance.

Health insurance should not be used as a status symbol, but a basic right for people who live in the world's most prosperous nation. I know that many predicted that the Affordable Care Act would cause havoc on the nation's health care system, but it is not the ACA that is causing havoc--it is a small vocal minority within the majority party that is causing headaches and heartaches to doctors and their patients.

I ask that my Colleagues vote against the rule for H.R. 30.

[From The Ledger.com, Jan. 8, 2015]

Stories Behind the Legislation: Woman--Obama's Health Coverage Saved Me

(By Noam N. Levey)

Alexandria, VA.--Like many working Americans, Lisa Gray

thought she had good health insurance.

That was until she was diagnosed with leukemia in mid-2013,

and the self-employed businesswoman made a startling

discovery: Her health plan didn't cover the chemotherapy she

needed. ``I thought I was going to die,'' Gray, 62, said

recently, recalling her desperate scramble to get lifesaving

drugs.

Through a mix of temporary measures, doctors and patient

advocates managed to keep Gray stable for a few months.

But it was a new health plan through the Affordable Care

Act that Gray credits with saving her life. The plan, which

started Jan. 1, 2014, gave her access to the recommended

chemotherapy. Her cancer went into remission in the fall.

It's been one year since the federal law began guaranteeing

coverage to most Americans for the first time, even if they

are sick.

Some consumers pay more for insurance. Some pay less.

Doctors, hospitals and businesses are laboring to keep up

with new requirements. And across the country, ``Obamacare''

remains a polarizing political issue.

For many Americans like Gray--who were stuck in plans that

didn't cover vital services or who couldn't get insurance

because of a pre-existing medical condition--the law has had

a personal, even life-changing impact.

``A couple years earlier, I think I would have been done,''

Gray said.

Even the law's supporters concede more must be done to

control health care costs and ensure access to care.

But the insurance guarantee--which includes billions of

dollars in aid to low- and middle-income Americans--has

extended coverage to about 10 million people who previously

had no insurance, surveys indicate.

That cut the nation's uninsured rate more than 20 percent

last year, the largest drop in half a century.

The law also changed coverage for millions more people who

were in plans like Gray's that capped or excluded benefits.

Gray thought little of these potential changes when

President Barack Obama signed the health law in the spring of

2010. She'd had health insurance for decades.

With a monthly $1,095 premium, the Kaiser Permanente plan

that she had gotten through her husband's employer wasn't

cheap.

But it was her only option. As a breast cancer survivor,

Gray probably wouldn't have been able to find a new plan.

On the morning of May 20, 2013, Gray skidded off the road

driving to her vacation condominium on Maryland's Eastern

Shore. Aside from a few bruises, she was unhurt.

But she had a bigger surprise at the emergency room. A

routine blood test showed an unusually high white blood cell

count.

Gray had chronic myeloid leukemia, a relatively uncommon

form of cancer that starts in the bone marrow and leads to

the production of abnormal blood cells.

The disease is now considered highly treatable. Gray's

oncologist at Kaiser prescribed the standard oral

chemotherapy, a medication known as Gleevec.

Gray called her pharmacy to pick up the prescription.

There was a pause on the line. The pharmacist asked Gray

whether she knew the drug would cost $6,809 per month.

``I freaked out,'' she recalled. ``Why would they even make

this drug if people can't afford it?''

Neither Gray nor her doctor realized her Kaiser plan

covered only $1,500 worth of prescription drugs a year, a

provision spelled out in small type in Appendix B of her 80-

page plan brochure.

Gray's family explored going to Canada, where

pharmaceuticals are often less expensive. They finally found

a clinical trial closer to home at the University of

Maryland, Baltimore, where researchers were testing an

alternative to Gleevec called ponatinib.

Gray's cancer quickly responded. The relief was only

temporary, however. The next month, Gray had to stop the

ponatinib. Without access to either drug, she was again

scrambling.

Bristol-Myers Squibb, which provides cancer patients with a

temporary insurance card for a 30-day supply of yet another

cancer drug, seemed to offer hope. But the card wasn't

accepted at the Kaiser pharmacy where Gray had to get her

prescriptions.

American Cancer Society advocate Brandon Costantino

persuaded a company sales representative to give Gray a

month's supply anyway.

Even the promise of a new insurance plan under the

Affordable Care Act seemed elusive at first. Gray, like

others, battled through the problems that hobbled

HealthCare.gov after it opened.

Finally, on Dec. 2, 2013, she selected a new Kaiser

Permanente health plan for $780 per month. That was $315 less

than her current plan. Most important, the plan covered

Gleevec for a $30-a-month co-pay.

Gray broke down in the pharmacy when she picked up her

first prescription.

She admits she's ``kind of a crier.''

Nine months later, a bone marrow biopsy showed no further

sign of leukemia.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Well, it is Groundhog Day come early to the floor of the House. It is cold enough I guess for Groundhog Day, but this will be the 10th time in the last 4 years that the House of Representatives has moved this bill with the assertion that somehow it leads us to energy independence, energy security, lower prices at the pump.

Well, the reality is a Canadian corporation is going to build a pipeline from Canada to Texas. They are going to be exempt from paying into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, unlike most other projects in this country, because of a stupid ruling by the IRS--but that is nothing new--regarding tar sands. So they will be exempt from paying into that. So if this thing bursts, there is an accident, the taxpayers of the United States get the bill, not the taxpayers of Canada. They don't get the bill. The taxpayers of the United States get the bill. Now, that is one of a number of problems regarding this project.

It is somewhat unprecedented, I believe. This may have happened at some other time in American history, but I do find it particularly ironic today, when we had the reading of the Constitution, that the effect of passing this bill, if it were to become law--and the President has already said he will veto it. But if this were to become law, the effect would be to give a foreign corporation the right to take private property from American citizens.

I am not aware of any other time in the history of the Union where we have given a foreign corporation the right to take Americans' private property. And, yes, some people were happy to sell the rights, but many others weren't, including some in Nebraska and some in Texas. It has been quite contentious among landowners who are just having this corporation come.

I would like to put in the Record a letter from TransCanada. We have blacked out the name of the recipient of the letter, but it is a true copy of a letter to a person who will have their private property taken by eminent domain by a foreign corporation, and the foreign corporation informs them that they will begin proceedings this month, I guess because of the anticipated Republican action, to take their private property away.

TransCanada,

Omaha, NE, December 8, 2014

Re Keystone XL Project Update.

Dear Landowner: While we continue to wait for decisions

from the Nebraska Supreme Court and from the U.S. Department

of State regarding our proposed Keystone XL Pipeline, I would

like to provide you with an update on our project.

To date, Nebraska landowners have voluntarily granted us

easements representing 84 percent of the required right-of-

way for the Keystone XL Pipeline Project. We continue to work

to acquire the remaining land rights. In Montana and South

Dakota, we have acquired easements for 100 percent of the

privately owned right-of-way.

Between September 2008 and earlier this year, five

successive sets of extensive public comments were taken and

five successive independent environmental assessments were

published by the State Department. Each review confirmed the

safety and environmental soundness of the project. The State

Department is continuing its review of our Presidential

Permit application and will ultimately make a determination

whether the project is in the national interest. The State

Department has not announced a definitive timeline for

reaching that decision.

In addition, reviews have been completed separately by the

States of Montana, Nebraska and South Dakota. As with the

federal reviews, these state reviews included extensive

public input. Each resulted in state approval of the project.

In South Dakota, the South Dakota Public Utilities

Commission approved the project in 2010. Because construction

did not begin within four years, we must certify that the

pipeline continues to meet the conditions upon which the

permit was issued. We have initiated the certification

process and we expect a decision in 2015.

The State of Nebraska enacted legislation in 2011 and in

2012 requiring state review of the proposed Keystone XL

Pipeline route. The Governor approved the route in January

2013, after a year-long public review process overseen by the

Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality. Following a

legal challenge of the new law, a lower court determined that

the law was not valid and that the review should have been

overseen by the Nebraska Public Service Commission. The

Nebraska Attorney General appealed the lower court ruling to

the Nebraska Supreme Court and the Court is expected to make

a ruling later this year or early next year.

Pending a decision on the appeal, the law remains in effect

as does the resulting Keystone XL route. In the event that

the Nebraska Supreme Court affirms the lower court ruling

invalidating the new law, we would expect a second Nebraska

review to be required, this time by the Nebraska Public

Service Commission.

If instead, the Nebraska Supreme Court reverses the lower

court ruling, affirming the validity of the existing state

review, we expect that other aspects of that law would remain

in effect as well. One of those aspects affects the timing

available to complete negotiations to acquire remaining

property rights in Nebraska. If parties ultimately are not

able to reach voluntary agreement on acquisition of necessary

land rights for the project, we are required to commence the

legal process of eminent domain to obtain those rights within

two years of the January 2013 Nebraska approval.

We recognize that the Supreme Court ruling may not be

issued before we are required to take action in preparation

for the existing January 2015 deadline. While we would prefer

not to initiate the process to acquire outstanding land

rights while there is uncertainty, we are bound by that

deadline in order to meet our responsibility to continue to

prepare to build the pipeline necessary to safely transport

North American energy.

Regardless of your perspective on the project, we would

welcome the opportunity to address your questions and

concerns and discuss property-specific details for pipeline

construction. When we are able to work with landowners to

achieve mutual agreement where possible, we are better able

to minimize potential effects of construction on land and

operations.

A member of my land team will follow-up with you or your

legal counsel. If you have not heard from us or if you have

questions, you are welcome to contact me. If you would like

to see an operating pipeline, please let us know and we'd be

happy to arrange for a

tour of a pump station on the operating Keystone line in

Nebraska.

Sincerely,

Andrew Craig,

Manager--Land, Keystone Projects,

TransCanada Pipelines, USA.

Now, that is a bit ironic, again, on the day we read the Constitution and also of the party of individual rights for property owners. So that is also of concern.

Yes, there will be construction jobs, and I am the first to admit we need more jobs in America. In fact, I voted against the President's so- called stimulus bill because it didn't invest enough in building infrastructure in this country. Instead, it did a whole bunch of stupid tax cuts because of Larry Summers, a highly acclaimed hack economist, and we didn't put a lot of people back to work. Seven percent went to infrastructure, that created jobs; 42 percent went to tax cuts, didn't create jobs. But that is another agenda the Republicans are pursuing is tax cuts to create jobs, but we won't get into that here today.

So, yes, that will happen, but there are a lot of other investments we should, could, and I believe the chairman supports making that will create significant construction and infrastructure jobs.

Now, were this just in isolation and it didn't involve the total destruction of the boreal forests of Canada, if I were Canadian I would be pretty upset about that; and perhaps the dirtiest, most environmentally problematic way of extracting fossil fuels from the ground to get these oil sands, the construction jobs might carry the day, but sometimes you have to draw a line.

In this case, we also hear it is going to lead somehow to energy security. Well, that is interesting because the crude, tar sand oil, or whatever you want to call it, is going to come down to Texas without paying into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund--creating a potential problem for the future taxpayers of the United States--go to a refinery in an export zone in Texas, and, yes, it will be refined and then it will be exported.

We are exporting millions of gallons of fuel every day, so to somehow say this is going to lead to lower prices at the pump in America--maybe it is lower prices at the pump in China or I don't know where else, Japan or someplace, but it isn't going to be here because the product is ultimately going to be exported. So it is also not going to do anything for our energy security, and at the moment we have kind of a surfeit because of fracking and other things of fuels, and prices are down considerably.

So those are just a few of the problems.

And by passing this bill, the House of Representatives will attempt to preempt the executive authority of the President in this matter because this pipeline crosses an international border. The President has authority, and the State Department has been considering it.

And even with the Supreme Court of Nebraska refusing to make a judgment, they didn't uphold the law of the Nebraska legislature. In fact, four out of seven judges--normally a majority in most places-- said it was unconstitutional, but Nebraska has a peculiarity that if the other three judges take a walk--which they did--then even though a majority found it unconstitutional, it is not found unconstitutional, and that is the end of the proceeding.

So that is the big news out of Nebraska. They need a little work on their constitution, I think. So it hasn't received a stamp of approval there. There are still aggrieved landowners in Nebraska who object to the route and who are going to have their private property taken by a foreign corporation. So other than that, it is a great idea.

And with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, could you tell me how much time remains of the 15 minutes that I had?

With that, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), the ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The gentleman just referenced safely transport. Of course that is a hypothetical. And let me give a real example:

In 2010, a Canadian company, Enbridge, had a pipeline burst in Marshall, Michigan, spilling 1 million gallons of tar sands oil.

Now, here is the thing. All oil has viscosity and other characteristics. The thing about tar sands oil is, it doesn't float. It goes right to the bottom. They are still dredging Canadian tar sands oil out of the bottom of the Kalamazoo River 4 years later. And so far, claims of $53 million have been made, which will have to be paid by American taxpayers against the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and not by Enbridge, the Canadian corporation.

Which is what we are setting up here: an even greater transshipment by a foreign corporation, exempt from paying into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, creating even bigger potential for spills with this oil, which has unique characteristics which are much more difficult to clean up if it comes in contact with water and, God forbid, it gets into the aquifer in one of the States that are being transected.

The chairman did reference the 15 hearings. We have a difference in counting. But let's say 15 hearings. Three were in the Rules Committee. Those aren't hearings. That is sort of a little star chamber where you take things before you bring them to the floor of the House. You don't discuss substance there. One was in the Senate. There were 10 in the House, but not a single one of those hearings was in the principal committee of jurisdiction, which would be the Transportation Committee. And of course the bill that was marked up by the Transportation Committee in the first session of the last Congress was very different than the bill that is being advocated for today, which has not been marked up.

And we heard a lot about regular order, read the bill, and all that stuff. It is fine to say, gee, we have voted on this a lot of times before. With 61 new Members of the House, gas prices are down by almost 50 percent, a lot of things have changed. I would even wonder about the viability of this project.

I did just recently learn that the Koch brothers, though, have a significant investment in tar sands in Canada. But that probably has nothing to do with an attempt to expedite this project.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

At this moment, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

In response to the transport, yes, pipelines are generally safer, but the

consequences--look at the case in Michigan--when a pipeline goes are generally much greater, much greater volumes.

Even in the horrific train accidents we have had, the volumes were relatively small that were spilled, even though the consequences-- particularly in the one in Canada--were very, very damaging. Minimally, you should have added to the bill requiring them to pay into the oil spill liability trust fund. That would make that slightly less objectionable.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.