Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this budget resolution and its intent to compromise the health insurance of all Americans.

Republicans continue to pursue the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, root and branch, despite the fact that there is no credible plan to deal with the chaos that this repeal will create.

Thirty million Americans will lose their insurance, the vast majority being working families. There is no plan to protect the other Americans who have enjoyed improved consumer protections and benefits.

Although the rates have gone up, they have gone up at half the rate that they had been going up before ObamaCare, and most of those in the marketplace don't even have to pay those increased prices because of increased tax credits.

When Republicans talk about repeal and replace, the only thing guaranteed is the repeal part. Republicans have shown little interest in producing an alternative. We have heard lots of complaints, but we have not seen a plan that will make things any better.

Remember, when Medicare was created, most of the Republicans in Congress voted ``no.'' Republicans in the House have voted numerous times, over 60 times, to repeal some or all of the Affordable Care Act without proposing a credible alternative, and now we have some vague ideas but no plan to deal with the total chaos that will be created if ObamaCare is repealed.

I urge my colleagues to save the health and economic security of all Americans by defeating this resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, over the past 2 weeks, the majority has considered three bills on the House floor designed to undermine the ability of the executive branch to implement essential economic and public health protections for the people we have the honor to represent: the so- called Midnight Rules Relief Act, which could retroactively disallow rules issued as far back as June of last year; the REINS Act, which requires a majority vote of both Houses of Congress before any major rule can go into effect; and today's Regulatory Accountability Act, which is an 82-page omnibus bill which would effectively tie the executive branch into so much red tape that environmental, workplace, and consumer protections might never see the light of day.

By enacting these statutes, Congress would impair the constitutional duty of the executive branch to ``take care that laws be faithfully executed'' and replace them with a series of layers that can be applied by deep-pocketed special interests, including one provision that prevents some rules from going into effect that may affect public safety if somebody files a lawsuit.

The question is: Who loses when these playing fields are tilted this way? Well, just a couple within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and Labor, 4.2 million working people would lose. That is the number of people who would be eligible for overtime pay as a result of the responsible actions taken by the Obama administration. They would lose the benefit of overtime for time worked in excess of 40 hours a week. Working families and seniors could lose their retirement savings.

Last year, the Obama administration released a fiduciary rule that ensures that retirement savings are protected from financial advisers who may prioritize fees over services. Without the rule, working families and seniors could lose billions of dollars every year in retirement savings by being unnecessarily charged by unscrupulous financial advisers.

Students in low-income school districts could lose. Without the Department of Education's new supplement-not-supplant rule, these students would lose critical resources, and those resources would be redirected to wealthier districts.

So let's be clear. The bill before us is not on the side of children, workers, and retirees. Instead, the bill throws sand in the gears of the regulatory process by adding more layers to the process, rigging it in favor of powerful corporate interests, and encouraging frivolous lawsuits. That is not what Congress should be focusing on. Instead, we should be building on the progress that has been achieved over the last 8 years. We should be considering legislation that increases wages, improves the lives of working families, increases access to high quality child care and early childhood education, supports quality public schools in every neighborhood, makes colleges more affordable, helps American families balance work and family life, and empowers workers to organize and collectively bargain.

That has been the focus of my Democratic colleagues on the Education and the Workforce Committee, and that focus will remain in the years ahead. So I urge the majority to partner with us to protect and promote the rights of working people and students by defeating this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment to the Regulatory Accountability Act, H.R. 5, if adopted, would exempt regulations proposed by the Mine Safety and Health Administration or the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, MSHA and OSHA, which are needed to prevent or reduce the incidence of traumatic injury, cancer, or irreversible lung disease.

I am deeply concerned that this legislation would impose layers of unnecessary procedures to the rulemaking process and provide incentives for frivolous litigation, while hindering workplace safety agencies trying to help keep workers safe.

Current procedures that govern OSHA's rulemaking already involve an extensive review process and stakeholder engagement from small business review panels, risk assessments, economic feasibility determinations, public hearings, and multiple opportunities for public comment.

According to the GAO, to meet these requirements, it takes OSHA 7 years to issue a new safety standard. In fact, it required 18 years for OSHA to update a rule that reduces exposure to beryllium, a metal that causes irreversible lung disease, even though there was broad agreement between employers and unions on the new standard.

H.R. 5 imposes 60 additional procedural steps in order to issue a new rule, on top of extensive layers of review already required by the Administrative Procedure Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Data Quality Act, and numerous executive orders. The goal of adding these layers is obvious: to tie agencies such as OSHA and MSHA in red tape so they can't do their jobs protecting workers and improving workplace safety.

One especially troubling part of the bill would require a super- mandate that requires agencies to use the least cost alternative instead of the most protective rule. Nobody favors excessive cost, but this requirement overrides the carefully balanced requirements in OSHA that require life and limb must be fully protected, provided that the safety requirements are technically and economically feasible. That is the present law.

The question that needs to be asked is: The least cost to whom and at what cost to others? What is the least cost mandate protection of workers? Is the least cost mandate secondary to worker safety in order to limit cost to corporations? And then again, who decides?

Under the bill, some regulations could be delayed until the end of any litigation, the final determination in a lawsuit which, with trials and appeals, could take years. The bill prohibits the rules from going into effect until the end of the litigation. Now, normally, you can get an injunction, but that would require the court to consider the likelihood of success of the lawsuit and the potential harm done if the injunction is issued or not issued.

Under H.R. 5, rules could exceed the least cost alternative, but only if the agency demonstrates that the additional benefits outweigh the additional costs. This eliminates a well-established test under OSHA which requires ``the most productive standard which is feasible,'' and that standard obviously just invites litigation which will delay the final rule for years.

The problem with the least cost framework is that it would tilt the playing field to ensure the least cost for industry but at the expense of workers and the American public. According to expert witnesses before the Judiciary Committee, this bill will add another 2 or 3 years to the regulatory process, and these delays will allow preventable injuries and occupational diseases to continue unabated.

Mr. Chairman, the premise behind this legislation is based on the erroneous assumption that regulations issued over the last 8 years have obstructed job growth; however, employment statistics do not bear this out. Since the end of the recession, the U.S. economy has gained almost 16 million jobs, while establishing the longest consecutive months of job growth on record.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment to ensure that, even if the bill passes, OSHA and MSHA will be able to prevent or reduce the incidence of traumatic injury, cancer, and irreversible lung disease.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment will preserve the ability of the executive branch to promulgate rules, which will save lives and avoid preventable deaths and disease. A vote for the amendment is a vote for a safe workplace. I would hope that the amendment would be adopted and save lives.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for organizing this Special Order.

I will be brief. There are a lot of people who want to speak. I will just speak to the jurisdiction of the Education and the Workforce Committee, on which I have the honor of serving as the ranking member.

Mr. Speaker, as we consider appointments to the Departments of Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services, we shouldn't just look at people's personalities, but at what the policy implications are of their appointments. The Senate must reject those nominees who will fail to stand up to the goals and aspirations of America's children and workers.

The first nominee I will speak to is that of Secretary of Labor, Mr. Puzder, who was the CEO of CKE Restaurants. He has spoken out many times in opposition to an increase in the minimum wage. Many States have recognized that the minimum wage is so low that people who work full time fail to make a wage that exceeds the poverty level.

What is his position going to be on increasing the minimum wage? With overtime, are people entitled to work overtime after 40 hours?

The regulation is in place. Will he enforce that new regulation? Or will he try to overturn the regulation that recognizes and honors the 40-hour workweek, whereby those who work more than 40 hours will get time and a half?

If you look at CKE's retirement plan, it leaves a lot to be desired in terms of fees.

What will his position be?

When you look at the fiduciary rule--which requires financial advisers, when they are looking at somebody's retirement fund, to have the worker's best interest in the forefront, not their personal profits and what they can rip off from someone but to look at the worker's views as paramount--will he change that so that we can go back to the days in which people could take advantage of unsophisticated workers and sell them products that are not in their best interests?

What are his positions going to be on enforcing Federal regulations?

CKE Restaurants has been found in violation of many wage regulations.

Will he vigorously enforce those?

Those are the kinds of things that we need to look at when we look at the Secretary of Labor.

The Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, is best known for her support of vouchers. Vouchers in Michigan have shown that they fund schools that are actually worse than the average, so they have not done any good.

Will she support public education? Or will she support the privatization of education?

Finally, Health and Human Services: Will we privatize Medicare? Will we repeal without replacing the Affordable Care Act?

A lot has been said about repeal and then replace later. Let me tell you, until you have seen a plan, you can just count on the repeal; there will probably never be a replace.

What will happen to everybody if there is no plan?

Twenty million people--maybe 30 million--will lose their insurance, and the insurance market for everybody else will be in chaos. We need to make sure that we look at this and get these decisions straight before we confirm anybody.

All of the nominees and others should be reviewed not on their personalities, but on the policy decisions they will be making. The next generation of Americans will base their education, their jobs, and their health care on the decisions these nominees will make. The Senate should reject any of the nominees that will take us in the wrong direction.

``No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.''

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would exempt from coverage under the REINS Act any rule which pertains to workplace health and safety made by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, or the Mine Safety and Health Administration, MSHA, that is necessary to prevent or reduce the incidence of traumatic injury, cancer or irreversible lung disease.

I am offering the amendment because we should not be creating obstacles to the protection of life and limb. We should be concerned about repealing such workplace rules. Actually, this concern is not theoretical. There was a report from the chairman of the Freedom Caucus that actually calls for the repeal of multiple safety and health rules.

One OSHA rule, for example, will reduce slip, trip, and fall hazards, which are actually a leading cause of worker deaths and lost workday injuries. We found that this rule had not been updated since 1971, and OSHA has calculated that over 10 years the rule will prevent nearly 300 worker deaths and more than 58,000 lost-time injuries. The net benefit, cash benefit, of the rule is projected to be over $3 billion over 10 years.

Another rule at risk is the modernization of OSHA's beryllium exposure limit, a 70-year-old standard that was obsolete even before it was issued. Workers who inhaled beryllium can develop debilitating, incurable, and frequently fatal illnesses. One known as chronic beryllium disease also increased lung cancer.

In the 1940s, workers at the Atomic Energy Commission plants were contracting acute beryllium poisoning. To deal with the problem, two scientists agreed to set the exposure limit at 2 micrograms per cubic meter of air while sitting in the back of a taxicab on their way to a meeting. This discredited standard is often called the taxicab standard because there was no data to support it, and there is now significant scientific evidence that show that it has failed to protect workers.

One cost of keeping the so-called taxicab standard is estimated at the loss of nearly 100 lives a year. So we need to make sure that this rule is updated. It is in final stages after 18 years of development. The finalized rule is expected to come out soon. Other rules involve mine safety and other safety and health concerns.

The REINS Act would make it harder to protect workers' health and safety. The bill would create more bureaucracy by requiring that any major rule receive bicameral resolution of support within 70 legislative days prior to the rule taking effect.

This bill even provides for a reach back to consider rules issued last spring. Under this bill, a single House of Congress could block a rule. That raises significant constitutional concerns. By allowing a one-House veto, the bill violates the presentment clause of the Constitution of the United States.

My amendment ensures essential workplace safety protections are not jeopardized by this flawed legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 21, the so-called Midnight Rules Relief Act, which amends the Congressional Review Act. The Congressional Review Act allows Congress to overrule regulations promulgated by the executive branch. That law expects a deliberative approach to considering each and every rule.

H.R. 21 would allow Congress to consider a joint resolution to simultaneously disapprove of multiple regulations all at once when such rules are issued in the last 60 legislative days of a session of Congress during the final year of a President's term. In this case, the 60 legislative days reach-back would apply to rules issued as far back as June of last year, almost 7 months before the end of the President's term. To call rules issued that long ago a midnight rule is a particular misnomer.

This bill puts in place an indiscriminate process to eliminate rules, many of which have been under development for years--or even decades-- to protect consumers, working families, and students. This bill denies Congress the opportunity for a careful, individualized, case-by-case review that is appropriate for a reasoned, decisionmaking legislative body.

Under the Congressional Review Act, if a rule is eliminated, such rule can never be taken up again in similar form without additional legislation overriding the restriction, even if the undesirable rule turns out, upon further reflection, to have been the best alternative.

Some of the rules that could be impacted that are just under the jurisdiction of the Education and the Workforce Committee include the Department of Labor's rule requiring Federal contractors to provide up to 7 days of paid sick leave annually for their employees; the upcoming OSHA rule, which has been under development for 18 years, which would protect workers from exposure to beryllium, a metal that can cause lung disease, resulting in a victim essentially suffocating to death; the Department of Education's rule involving the borrower's defense, which helps student borrowers who are defrauded by their universities; and the Department of Education's K-12 accountability rule, which involves the implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act, making sure that all students can graduate ready for success for college and career.

H.R. 21 is poised to allow wholesale undermining of critical protections for students, workers, taxpayers, and consumers. I, therefore, urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in opposition to H.R. 596.

As the new ranking member on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I know that protecting access to affordable health care for America's workers and families is a high priority. Despite scare tactics and misinformation, the bottom line is that the Affordable Care Act is working. Perhaps those who want to repeal the Affordable Care Act have a short memory. It is important to remember why the Affordable Care Act was passed in the first place.

Before the ACA, employer-provided coverage was shrinking. More and more employers were dropping coverage altogether. There were months in 2008 and 2009 when 14,000 people a day were losing their health insurance because employers were not providing it and because it was above their ability to pay. From 1999 to 2010, the cost of premiums for employer-provided health insurance increased by 138 percent while workers' earnings only went up around 40 percent. And those who were employed were often locked into their employment for fear of losing their health care insurance because even though they wanted to retire, they couldn't get insurance somewhere else, and so they were stuck in that job.

Every American family with insurance had to pay a hidden tax of approximately $1,000 per family for the cost of paying for those without insurance who would go to the hospital and not pay, and so when they went to the hospital, they would have to pay a little extra. That little extra was about $1,000 per year for every family with insurance. This was the reality that American workers and their families faced before the passage of the Affordable Care Act. We should not go backwards.

Today, thanks to the ACA, workers are enjoying the peace of mind that they have options. If employer-provided coverage is not available, they can enter the marketplace. If it is available, they have the security of new consumer protections such as the requirement that at least 80 percent of the premiums be spent on actual health care, not corporate jets and CEO bonuses. And we ended insurance practices such as caps on payments that would only pay so much overall and then you are on your own, or so much for your lifetime and then you are on your own. And cancelations where they could just arbitrarily cancel your insurance after you have paid premiums year after year. You get sick, and they check and just want to cancel your premium. Those abuses can no longer take place.

Employers will also suffer under a repeal. In 2014, premiums for employer-provided health care grew at the lowest rate in 15 years. If the ACA is repealed, many employers could again be charged health- related premiums, so if they have a few sick employees, they will see their premiums skyrocket. The vast majority of large employers who provide health insurance to their employees may suffer an increase in premiums due to the return of the hidden tax, the cost shifting of uncompensated care.

And when employees leave a job, they are on their own to get insurance, if they can, because there was a prohibition that they could deny people with

preexisting conditions. So if you have a preexisting condition and leave your job, who knows what is going to happen.

In addition, small employers would suffer since all small group market reforms, including rating reforms, would disappear. Small employers used to pay 18 percent more in premiums than large businesses, on average. ACA leveled the playing field so now they are paying rates like everybody else. If you repeal the Affordable Care Act, they are up another 18 percent, where it was before.

Now we have heard all of the statistics: over 3 million uninsured young adults have access to health insurance through their parents' policies; 8 million senior citizens in the so-called Medicare doughnut hole have been getting relief and have saved billions. Twelve million more Americans have health insurance because of the Affordable Care Act.

These numbers represent real people, and these real people would lose access to their benefits if the Affordable Care Act is repealed. Those trying to repeal the law should be honest to seniors about what would happen to their free preventive care in the absence of the Affordable Care Act. They should explain to young adults that repealing the law would kick them off their parents' policies. They would have to explain to millions of Americans who only have insurance because of the Affordable Care Act--many for the first time in their lives--why they will now have to go without coverage.

And while the Republican majority continues to talk about repeal, we should be talking about the progress we have already made and how we can continue to move in the right direction. So when the Republicans talk about replacement of legislation, it is important to note that there is no meaningful replacement proposal on the table. Delaying the effective date of this repeal for 180 days does not make a meaningful replacement any more plausible or likely.

This is the 56th attempt to repeal or undermine the Affordable Care Act. This is a distraction, and I hope the Republican majority will refocus efforts on real policy solutions for the American people, American families, and workers.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

Mr. Speaker, I enter into the Record the following letters in opposition: one from the National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare, another from Easter Seals, another from the AFL-CIO, and another from the SEIU.

February 2, 2015.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the millions of members

and supporters of the National Committee to Preserve Social

Security and Medicare, I urge you to oppose H.R. 596, a bill

to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Repealing the Affordable Care Act (ACA) would be

detrimental to Americans of all ages: It would undercut the

ability of marketplace insurance plans to offer affordable

health coverage to individuals, including those with pre-

existing conditions. Repeal would mean that young adults

could no longer count on remaining on their parents'

insurance plans until age 26. In addition, the number of

uninsured ``young seniors,'' aged 50-64, would increase,

leaving them in poorer health by the time they are eligible

for Medicare--thereby increasing Medicare's costs.

Repealing the ACA would also eliminate many of that law's

provisions that benefit Medicare beneficiaries today,

including help with prescription drug costs and preventive

screenings and wellness visits with no out-of pocket costs.

In addition, the payment and delivery system reforms that are

being implemented due to the ACA are slowing the rate of

increase in health spending while improving the care that is

being provided, especially care to people with multiple

chronic conditions. Slowing the rate of increase in health

spending has also lowered costs for beneficiaries--the Part B

premium has stayed level for three years in a row--and is

extending the solvency of the Part A trust fund.

We oppose H. R. 596 because it interferes with the ability

of marketplace insurance plans to offer affordable health

coverage, and hurts millions of seniors who benefit from the

Medicare improvements contained in the ACA. The National

Committee strongly urges you to vote against this anti-senior

legislation.

Sincerely,

Max Richtman,

President and CEO.

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

Mr. Speaker, I enter into the Record letters in opposition from the following organizations: the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Diabetes Association, and the American Public Health Association.

February 3, 2015.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: The House of Representatives is

scheduled to vote on HR 596, which would repeal the Patient

Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). The AAFP urges

Congress not to repeal this nearly 5-year-old health care

reform law, but rather focus on how the measure can be

revised to improve patient care and restrain health system

costs.

The ACA addresses several important persistent problems

with the nation's delivery of health care. First of all, it

has demonstrably improved access to health care. As the most

recent Gallup poll of the uninsured shows, the uninsured rate

in the fourth quarter of 2014 fell to 12.9 percent, which is

the lowest since Gallup began measuring it. By comparison,

17.1 percent were uninsured at the end of 2013. This

substantial decline in the uninsured rate in one year has

been broadly felt since it was evident in all the demographic

categories.

Second, the ACA establishes critical insurance reforms to

prevent abuses such as reducing or eliminating coverage due

to preexisting conditions, or setting prohibitively high

prices on the individual market based on health status.

Third, it encourages innovation in health care delivery

through extensive research performed by the CMS Innovation

Center. As recently as last week, for example, CMS announced

early results of the Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative

which demonstrate significant cost reductions in the first

year due to investments in primary care. Fourth, the ACA

requires both Medicare and private health plans to cover

preventive health services (without cost-sharing), which is a

proven long-term strategy to improve health while reducing

costs.

There are elements of the ACA that cause the AAFP concern,

including the poorly constructed Independent Payment Advisory

Board (IPAB). Congress should carefully review these elements

with an eye to improving them for patients, for physicians

and other providers, and for taxpayers, generally. The AAFP

will continue to offer you our support for such efforts.

However, in the meantime, it is important to avoid the

disruptions and turmoil that repeal of the ACA would cause.

Sincerely,

Reid B. Blackwelder, MD, FAAFP,

Board Chair.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe the gentleman from Alabama is prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

I rise in opposition to H.R. 285, the SAVE Act. While I support the underlying goal of ensuring that those who facilitate sex trafficking through advertising are prosecuted to the full extent of the law, I am opposed to the bill's mandatory minimum sentencing provisions.

Mandatory minimum sentences have been studied extensively and have been found to distort rational sentencing systems, discriminate against minorities, waste money, and often require a judge to impose sentences that violate common sense. To add insult to injury, studies have shown that mandatory minimum sentences fail to reduce crime.

Under this bill, the advertising of sex trafficking will result in a mandatory penalty of 10 or 15 years, depending on the circumstances of the crime. There is no doubt that many of these individuals prosecuted under this bill should receive long prison sentences, but in some cases a mandatory sentence of 10 or 15 years may not be justified.

This is particularly troublesome when you consider the possible scope of defendants who could be prosecuted under the bill. Notably, the prohibition on advertising does not only apply to the sex trafficker who places the ad, or the employee who accepted the ad, but also includes those who benefit financially from the ad.

That is all of the employees, including the receptionist or the computer guy, everybody on the payroll who might have seen the ads or read in the paper that the company publishes some illegal ads but decided to look the other way; they should be held responsible under the provisions of the bill. And many of them would certainly warrant a sentence of 15 years or even more, but not all of them.

Madam Speaker, mandatory minimum sentences didn't get into the criminal code at all once but one at a time, each one part of an otherwise good bill. If we expect to get rid of mandatory minimums, we have to first stop passing new ones like this.

Madam Speaker, if people ask why a judge in Florida had to sentence Marissa Alexander to 20 years for firing a warning shot at her abusive boyfriend, or why some drug dealer's girlfriend got 25 years when she had no meaningful role in his drug dealing, or why the United States has 5 percent of the world's population but 25 percent of the world's prisoners, they would not understand why anybody said they had to vote for a bill that further expands mandatory minimum sentences.

Fifteen years in prison, mandatory for everybody on the payroll that gets caught up in this bill--that is what is in this bill. There is no discretion afforded to the judge. The sentence would have to be imposed, whether it makes any sense or not.

Madam Speaker, if we expect to repeal mandatory minimum sentences, the first order of business is to stop passing new ones. This bill contains a new mandatory minimum that someday will require a judge to impose a sentence that violates common sense. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 468, the Enhancing Services for Runaway and Homeless Victims of Youth Trafficking Act of 2015.

I am honored to join my colleagues, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heck), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), and the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Kline, and appreciate their leadership on this important issue.

Our bill makes important changes in the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, so that victims of sexual exploitation and trafficking can get more of the help that they need. We know that trafficking and youth homelessness are often affecting the same populations.

Young people that have run away or are homeless are particularly vulnerable to sexual exploitation and trafficking, and programs targeted towards the runaway and homeless youth should be simultaneously equipped to support victims of trafficking when there is such an overlap.

Research consistently confirms the correlation between running away and becoming exploited through prostitution. For example, according to a 2006 FBI Uniform Crime Report, girls who run away from their homes, group homes, foster homes, or treatment centers are at high risk of being targeted by a trafficker or becoming exploited.

Street outreach programs were created to provide services to runaway and homeless and street youth who have been subjected to or are at risk of being subjected to sexual abuse. Every year, 25,000 of these young people find shelter as a result of these programs.

The legislation being considered today ensures that street outreach programs can rely on funding already available through the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act. This allows the Department of Health and Human Services to provide street-based services such as individual assessments, treatment, counseling, or other shelter for runaway and homeless youth who are also victims of trafficking.

Additionally, the bill authorizes States, organizations, and other entities to use runaway and homeless youth research grants for staff training to work with these young victims. Such additional training will allow service providers to successfully address the behavioral and emotional effects of the abuse and assault that these victims endure.

Our bill also enhances training programs so that staff will be able to recognize and respond to the unique needs of trafficking victims. This is a small but important change, one necessary to improve services available.

Updating the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act with this legislation is an important first step, but it is also important for Congress to consider reauthorizing the entire act, which expired last year.

In the 113th Congress, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bipartisan reauthorization bill that would provide other critical support to runaway and homeless youth, including extending time for safe and appropriate shelter, establishing performance standards for assistance programs, strengthening data collection, and ensuring that adequate resources for all runaway and homeless youths are available.

It is my hope that the House can continue the spirit of bipartisanship and comprehensively update the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act. Our Nation's most vulnerable youth need us to come together and work together on their behalf.

Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to support the legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Strengthening Child Welfare Response to Trafficking Act of 2015, sponsored by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass).

This bill will support victims of child sex trafficking by helping them find services they need, by training child protective services workers to identify cases of child sex trafficking, and by improving data collection on the number of child sex trafficking victims.

This legislation would also require the Department of Health and Human Services to submit a report to Congress that describes the type and prevalence of severe forms of trafficking to which identified victims are subjected.

This bill also summarizes State practices to identify and serve trafficking victims and those at risk of trafficking and describes Federal statutory or regulatory barriers that may prevent child trafficking victims from getting the services they need, including an evaluation of the State's capacity to address such victim's needs.

The bill would also allow the State welfare agencies to include child labor trafficking in their provisions of staff training. Under the bill, if a State includes child labor trafficking in those responsibilities, the States must also collect data on the number of those victims.

The bill is a product of good bipartisan work and diligent negotiations by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass) and her staff and Democratic and Republican staffs in the Education and the Workforce Committee.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, which has the backing of child welfare advocates and will improve services and responses to child trafficking victims.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass), the sponsor of the bill and a strong supporter and advocate for foster children.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I would like to thank the chief sponsor and other supporters of the legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 246, a bill to improve the response to victims of child sex trafficking.

The bipartisan bill, sponsored by the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty), would amend the Missing Children's Assistance Act by adding the term ``child sex trafficking'' to the list of items which may be reported to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children's CyberTipline.

Under the act, the center operates the CyberTipline to allow online users and electronic service providers a way of reporting Internet- related child sexual exploitation, including child prostitution.

The term ``trafficking'' more accurately describes the circumstances by which children are sexually exploited and reinforces the notion that they are victims, not criminals. Adding trafficking to the list of items that may be reported to the center will not only help the center continue its outstanding work of finding and helping victims, but it will also help experts in the field of missing and exploited children better understand the nature and extent of the problem.

I am grateful to the gentlewoman from Ohio for introducing this important legislation, and I appreciate her partnership with the majority, including the chairman of the full Committee on Education and the Workforce, Chairman Kline; the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg); and other sponsors.

I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty), the sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, how much time is available on this side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass), who has worked on all of the bills we have considered today.

Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests for time. I want to thank all of the sponsors of the legislation for bringing it forward, this and the other two bills that we have also considered.

I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise against the underlying bill.

Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot about job growth. We just want to remind people that our economy has experienced job growth in excess of 200,000 for 11 consecutive months, a record that hadn't been seen since the Clinton administration, and 58 consecutive months of private sector job growth, a string that hasn't been seen in recorded history.

So, continued economic growth and strong regulatory protections are not mutually exclusive. In fact, regulations are often necessary to protect the investments the American taxpayer makes in our economy and to ensure stability, order, and safety inside and outside of the workplace.

Unfortunately, this legislation will impose unnecessary burdens and delays on agencies seeking to issue or improve rules and regulations, burdensome delays that can threaten taxpayer dollars and the lives and health of workers.

Mr. Chairman, I offered two amendments that would have improved the bill, but neither was accepted by the Rules Committee. The first would have insured that inspector general recommendations would not be subject to the potentially dangerous delays and extra hurdles found in the bill.

Inspectors general are taxpayers' independent watchdogs who investigate and seek out problems and inefficiencies in our government. For example, two alarming audits issued last year by the Department of Education's inspector general found that criminal fraud rings were preying on money available through distance learning programs and that expensive, bank-sponsored debit cards were used to perpetuate waste, fraud, and abuse in the financial aid program.

Fortunately, in both of these situations the inspector general urged the Department of Education to quickly issue new rules to ensure that billions of dollars aren't wasted.

Unfortunately, without my amendment, this bill would deeply impair the ability of the Department of Education and other agencies to address similar known abuses of taxpayers' funds.

Delays in inspector general recommendations can also threaten the

lives and health of workers. For example, the Department of Labor's inspector general found that the Mine Safety and Health Administration had a regulatory gap that allowed mine operators who habitually violated mine safety standards to easily avoid sanctions and continue to operate unsafe mines.

The unfortunate consequence of these loopholes was seen at the Upper Big Branch mine in West Virginia, where 29 mine workers were killed in the largest coal mine disaster in the United States in 40 years.

Following that disaster, the inspector general recommended fixes that would close these loopholes, and the administration quickly adopted new regulations that are estimated to prevent about 1,800 miner injuries every 10 years. Had this bill been in effect, these regulations might not have ever been adopted in a timely manner.

My second amendment, Mr. Chairman, would have also strengthened protections of workers' health and safety. The amendment would have exempted regulations or guidance proposed by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to prevent health care workers from contracting infectious diseases.

As it stands, the legislation could possibly delay OSHA's workforce protections and make it far more difficult for OSHA to prevent health care workers from contracting lethal infectious diseases.

Under current regulations that govern OSHA's rulemaking, it takes OSHA an average of 7 years to issue standards, and this bill could add another 3 years, possibly delaying and essentially shutting down OSHA's ability to issue rules altogether.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation will seriously compromise the ability of agencies to protect both taxpayers and workers, so I urge my colleagues to oppose the legislation.

Section 6:

``The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.''

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the gentlemen from the other side of the aisle have already 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 through a family member's job. As for the Affordable Care Act, when

we passed it, at that time, 96 percent of all businesses with over 50 employees provided health insurance for their full-time employees.

So that we wouldn't dismantle the President's system--rather, that we would build on it--we established a mandate. Those employers--those businesses--with over 50 employees would be mandated to provide insurance for their full-time employees. Ninety-six percent were already doing it without a mandate, and those with under 50 employees weren't subject to the mandate.

This bill would change the ACA's definition of ``full-time employee'' for somebody 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, as 96 percent were already doing it--can escape their responsibility of providing the insurance.

They are 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. Ninety-six percent were already being provided their insurance.

Now, if you are working from 9 to 5, with an hour off for lunch, suddenly, you are no longer a full-time employee. That is only 35 hours. If the employer sends everybody home at 4 on Fridays, that is 39 hours. You are no longer a full-time employee.

As a result, many people--those currently working between 30 and 40 and those who will have their hours cut--will suddenly be part-time employees, not entitled to employer-provided health insurance. According to the Congressional Budget Office, that is about a million people who will lose their employer-based health coverage.

Mr. Speaker, this is just another attack on the health security of American families. It is an attack that families do not want, but it will help that handful of businesses that just wants to deny hardworking employees their health insurance.

I want to put one thing on the record. We have had more consecutive months of 200,000-plus job growth than anytime in recent history, so the job-killing aspect of it can't be doing too badly--a lot more than there were under the previous administration.

We ought to be building on the ACA, not diminishing it. We ought to be working to strengthen it, including fully expanding Medicaid to all 50 States. We can do better. This hurts families.

It might help a few businesses that want to deny hardworking Americans their health coverage that has been mandated, although 96 percent of businesses already were doing it.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate a continuing legacy of faith and community in Virginia's Third Congressional District. This year, First Church of Newport News (Baptist) in Newport News, Virginia is celebrating its sesquicentennial, and I would like to take a moment to reflect on the history of this esteemed institution and its contributions to the greater Newport News community.

First Church of Newport News (Baptist) holds the distinction of being the first form of organized religion located within the original city limits of Newport News. In fact, it predates the city by 32 years, having been originally organized in 1864 as First Baptist Church by the Reverend Thomas Poole of Isle of Wight County. The small wood framed church located under what is now the 28th Street Bridge was a spiritual home for many slaves, freed by the Emancipation Proclamation, whose only exposure to Christianity had come from their previous masters.

Under Reverends Carr and Cooley, the church moved its location to 23rd Street and Jefferson Avenue and continued to grow. Under Reverend William H. Dixon in 1897, planning and construction began on the new church building that would house the church for most of the 20th century. The impressive structure would include a steeple that was believed to be the highest in Newport News and was a landmark on the city skyline for decades.

A church is more than its building, and First Baptist's ministry in Newport News continued to expand under Reverends Harris, Taylor and

Henderson. In 1919, Dr. A. A. Galvin became Pastor and many ministries and facets of parochial life at First Church that still exist were founded during his tenure, including the Benevolent Fund and the Men's Star Bible Class. Under the next pastor, Dr. John F. Williams, the church formed both a Gospel Choir and a Deaf and Blind Ministry.

In 1961, Dr. Fred J. Boddie, Jr. succeeded Dr. Williams and began his 39-year tenure, the longest of any pastor in the church's history. It was under Dr. Boddie that the church moved to its current location on Wickham Avenue and changed its name from First Baptist Church to First Church of Newport News (Baptist) to reflect its historic roots. Dr. Boddie led First Church into the 21st century, retiring in 2001. Under his leadership, the church truly lived up to its motto becoming, ``the friendly church on the corner where everybody is somebody and Christ is all''.

In 2005, Dr. Reginald Dawkins was called to be pastor. In 2011, Rodney Johnson was installed as the twelfth leader of First Church and the church continues to grow in its outreach to the community under his stewardship. This dedication to service is reflected in the theme for First Church's Sesquicentennial, ``Renewing Minds and Transforming Lives with a Legacy of Hope and Charity''.

As First Church gathers to celebrate this historic milestone, the church can truly remember its past, celebrate its present, and focus on its future. I would like to congratulate all of the members of First Church of Newport News (Baptist) on the occasion of its 150th Anniversary, and I wish them many more years of dedicated service to the community.