Floor Statements

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

Madam Speaker, the tax extenders being considered today are important to small businesses and have been supported by Democrats.

The first two bills impacting S corporations regard the gain on the sale or distribution of appreciated assets and how charitable contributions of an S corporation are taken into account by shareholders. Over the years, we have modified these provisions and extended them on a bipartisan basis.

The section 179 expensing provision which we will consider second has been in the Tax Code since 1958. It was expanded and nearly quadrupled to a maximum expensing allowance to nearly $100,000 in 2003.

In 2008, as another recession took hold, that allowance was increased to $250,000; and in 2010, we again expanded the provision, this time to $500,000, as we continued action to spur the economic recovery. This level was in effect through 2013, and this bill before us would make these significant expansions permanent--unpaid for.

When these expansions were first enacted in 2003, House Republicans noted that these expansions ``reflected the need for an economic stimulus and growth package.''

Republicans want to talk about certainty. Well, this much is certain: the expanded 179 provision will be extended

again. Our economy still needs it, and if Republicans had any interest in working on a bipartisan basis on comprehensive tax reform, we could discuss how best to make a stimulus effort a long-term part of the Tax Code.

The opposite is being done today. It is tax reform in reverse. The S corporation provisions surely also will be extended, but in reality, we are not here to make law. I think that is evidenced by the atmosphere about these provisions as we take them up today.

The President has indicated he will veto the approach--permanent, unpaid-for tax cuts--taken in the Republican bills before us today, and importantly, the Senate Finance Committee has approved, on a bipartisan basis, legislation to extend all tax extenders for 2 years.

The total inability of the House Republican majority to take action to help our recovery, to bolster small businesses, and to grow our economy has resulted in smoke-and-mirror votes, like the ones before us today. They want to signal that they support small business, but their action is so inconsistent with their past positions that it is rendered hypocritical.

Ways and Means Republicans put forth a comprehensive tax reform proposal and received accolades--the chairman did--for making it revenue neutral. Chairman Camp included these extenders in his comprehensive tax reform proposal fully offset, the opposite of today.

The measures in front of us today add up to $75 billion in deficit increases--$75 billion more. When you add in the R&D credit that passed the House last month and the eight other provisions that have moved through Ways and Means Committee, it adds up to--everybody take notice--$614 billion, unpaid for and permanent.

There are still more than 40 tax provisions left unaccounted for. When all is said and done, Republicans are well on their way to increasing the deficit by $1 trillion, and we all know where it will lead--to future Republican demands to cut vital domestic priorities that have been on the chopping block for the GOP: funding for education, public health, and transportation--as we saw yesterday--to name a few.

Chairman Ryan put forth a Republican budget resolution, which the Republican majority passed through this House. That budget that you all here today on the Republican side voted for stipulates that any change in tax law must be offset. These bills today shred that principle. You are shredding it.

You are inconsistent. You moved in one direction with some praise and now you are essentially moving in the opposite.

And the final hypocrisy is one that hits home for 3 million unemployed Americans, I must say, for their families and for millions of Americans who care. The Republican majority insists that unemployment insurance be paid for, but when it comes to tax cuts, they can simply be added to the deficit. The bill before us today is seven times more expensive than the cost of extending Federal unemployment insurance for the remainder of the year. And I should note that we have simply already agreed to offset the cost of such unemployment extension.

Democrats stand ready--more than ready--to extend these provisions for small businesses. We stand ready--more than ready--to act on all of these expired tax provisions. We stand ready--more than ready--to act on comprehensive tax reform. And we certainly stand ready--more than ready--to extend unemployment insurance for 3 million job-seeking Americans and be paid for. But we will not be silent in the face of the Republican hypocrisy on display today. What they are doing today is reckless and irresponsible. Once again, here they go again.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Let this be very clear to our distinguished chairman. These bills being brought up here unpaid for come to $75 billion. The total of the bills that have come through Ways and Means comes to $614 billion. So 75 today, we had 300-and-some a week or so ago. The train is on the track as you have positioned it, 614 just to start. To extend these provisions for 2 years is $3.4 billion. That is why it is irresponsible to simply go off into the wild deficit, irresponsible yonder. That is where you are.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself an additional minute.

There is a tremendous difference between 3.4 and 75 in these bills and 614 when you add this together with more to come. It also means it gives us time to look to see whether they should be permanent under what conditions.

So that is why it is reckless, it is irresponsible, it is contrary to your tax reform bill where you lauded it and we applauded that aspect that you paid for it. You called it revenue neutral. We wanted something beyond that. We didn't want deficit wild.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), an active member of our committee.

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis), a distinguished member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the ranking member on the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland.

Well, since you stated how many times I have voted to extend temporarily, I will now yield some time to Mr. Van Hollen and then I will continue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen). I don't think it will take very long to refute the statement made by the gentleman from Washington.

Is the gentleman ready to close?

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

I am glad the chairman spoke because this back-and-forth really illustrates what this is all about.

The chairman made these three provisions permanent and paid for. This bill here doesn't pay one dime. We have voted to continue these programs on a short-term basis for a variety of reasons.

For example, on bonus depreciation, the notion to make it permanent was contrary to its purpose. The chairman left it out of his reform and then comes here to vote to make it permanent.

We need an honest debate about tax reform and what provisions should be made permanent. You have prevented any kind of an honest debate. You don't even allow us to bring up some way to pay for any of this.

I previously pointed out the difference. It is so striking. If you extend these provisions, as the Senate does, for 2 years, the cost is $3.4 billion. These two bills are $75 billion.

There could be no more dramatic example of irresponsibility and of recklessness, and the mystery is: Why in the world are you doing this?

As you can see, there aren't huge numbers of Members here for the debate. You are going through the motions. These are rifle shots, and you are shooting yourselves in the foot.

Don't bring up the number of times that someone has voted to continue these on a temporary basis as you argue to make them permanent. That is dishonesty.

I want to emphasize the path that is being followed here is not only contrary to the tax reform proposal, contrary to the Ryan budget. It is also

going to lead to the Republicans, as Mr. Van Hollen said so eloquently, raising this huge amount of deficit--$614 billion, going towards a trillion--and then the Republicans are going to come back here and say: wow, look at how much the deficit has increased.

So you now need to cut these critical programs relating to the lifeline of all of the people in this country, the middle class and all who need some help.

So I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Small business can have full confidence that this provision will be extended--period. Indeed, the fact that I have voted for it many times in the past, as pointed out, is confidence that it will be continued. As to the suggestion that we have made to continue it for 2 years, we are already well into the first year, and if we don't act until the end of the year and extend it for 2 years, that would be another one not even for another full year, but there would be a 2-year extension. So small business can be fully confident this will be extended. There is no threat to it. There is zero threat to its extension.

When it was said earlier by the chairman that small business can have no idea as to whether this will be extended next year, that simply is not correct. The Senate has before it a bill to extend it for 2 years. At some point, that will pass, and that is the bill that will be taken up in the House.

The chairman did extend permanently this provision--not many others. He paid for that. The chairman extolled the fact that he paid for it, and now they have gone in reverse and now suggest that we proceed unpaid for permanently. The cost of this is far different than a 2-year extension, as I have mentioned--far different. We are talking about over $70 billion compared to a few billion dollars.

Let me just say that everybody has to be mystified as to why in the world the Republicans are doing this when it violates their budget, when it violates the chairman's and the Republicans' Ways and Means tax proposal, and when, if this is done, it is going to be part of a ratcheting up of the deficit of $614 billion and will have major ramifications for so many programs.

Essentially, what they are doing is, on the one hand, increasing this deficit dramatically--through the ceiling. Then they are going to come back on the other hand and say, ah, the deficit went through the ceiling, so we need to take away, with the other, education programs, health programs--all kinds of programs that are necessary-- transportation programs. They are going to say, well, we just don't have the money when, essentially, the reason is that they have tried to pass a bill that throws money out the window.

We are going to extend the small business tax cut. We are going to do that--Democrats will stand together to make sure that that happens--but not in a way that is part of a reckless, irresponsible approach. That is a major, major reason we simply have to say: extend it for 2 years. Then let's sit down and talk about what we are going to do with these provisions as part of a tax reform effort that is serious and is bipartisan.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our whip.

I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman.

I yield myself 1 minute and yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the whip.

The whip is so correct.

The gentleman from Indiana is very confused. He is using his voting card as a credit card. $73 billion on this bill. Our voting card is not a credit card, but the Republicans are turning this into a credit card, with calamitous results.

I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), another distinguished member of our committee.

I yield the gentleman from Texas an additional 1 minute.

I yield the gentleman from Texas an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), another distinguished member of our committee.

I yield the gentleman from Oregon an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), another distinguished gentleman of our committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Is the gentleman ready to close?

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

The fact of the matter is that this provision is going to be extended. And

you can vote for Mr. Neal's motion to recommit. I guess it is against your creed to vote for it, so you can vote ``no.'' But you will vote later. And it may be a few months from now, it may not be until after the election. I think it would be better to do it now, if not now then in the next month.

So don't scare, Mr. Tiberi, the small business people in your district. Tell them what the reality is. We are going to extend this. But we are not going to make it permanent unpaid for. It hasn't been done before for good reason, including the need to review it now and then, and also to take into account the cost. I think what the Republicans are doing, to kind of use an old slogan, an old way of saying it, you are giving hypocrisy a bad name.

This is contrary to your budget that you voted for. It is contrary to the Republican Ways and Means tax provisions put together under the leadership of Mr. Dave Camp. What is going to happen is, when you add all this together, you have an astronomical addition to the debt--$614 billion, climbing, if you follow this path, to $1 trillion.

So, I think there is no choice here to avoid hypocrisy, or if you want to continue the hypocrisy on your side, vote for this. We are not going to do that. This is a bad idea to proceed this way. We support continuation of this provision, in a responsible, not an irresponsible way, and in a way that isn't reckless.

So I strongly urge all the Democrats to look at the full picture here, the hypocrisy on their side and the ramifications, if we continue on this path, for the programs that we believe in, the programs that have helped to make the middle class of America and the programs that need to be continued and not snuffed out because the Republicans, on the one hand, essentially skyrocketed the debt, and then they come back to us and say, we are sorry that we are so in debt that we have to keep cutting the programs that middle America counts on for their livelihood, for their jobs, for their education, and their health.

So I strongly urge a ``no'' vote, and I look forward to the motion to recommit by Mr. Neal.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the distinguished career of Bob King as the United Auto Workers (UAW) assembles for their 36th Constitutional Convention next week. Bob King--as an individual, as a 44-year Member of the UAW and its President since 2010--vividly represents the proud and historic tradition of the UAW. Like his union, he has devoted his life to the rights to workers, to the fundamental belief in collective bargaining, to the strength of diversity, and to the cause of economic justice and civil and human rights for all.

Bob King combines in his leadership a generous spirit--a kindness-- and a tenacious determination. At his core, he is an organizer in the finest tradition knowing that workers are stronger when their voices are united. He listens broadly, and acts decisively, always with the best interest of workers at the UAW and throughout the U.S. and around the world at the forefront of his efforts.

Bob King started his career in his twenties at Ford Motor Co.'s Detroit Parts Depot and began his electrical apprenticeship in 1972. He joined Local 600 where he later served as President. He served three terms as Regional Director and three terms as a Vice President. He took the lead as the National Organizing Director and participated in many successful negotiations. He has also played a leading role on the international stage bringing together the efforts of workers around the globe in common cause.

From serving his country in the U.S. Army, to serving the workers of the UAW, Bob King is a unique individual who is smart, thoughtful and results-oriented. It has been a privilege to work alongside of him on so many policy issues. Mr. Speaker, next week, Bob King will oversee the transition of leadership at the UAW, and while he no longer will serve as the President, I am confident that he will continue to serve-- and work on behalf of the rights of workers. I also know that he will continue to speak out on behalf of the economic and social justice issues that are vital to creating opportunity and ensuring fairness in our society. I offer my best wishes to Bob and his wife, Moe and look forward to the next chapter in advancing the causes they devote their lives to.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the ranking member on the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis), another distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), a member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), the chairman of our Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our distinguished whip.

I yield the gentleman from Maryland an additional 1 minute.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), a distinguished member of our committee, to put it mildly.

(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a most distinguished member of our committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I support R&D. Mr. Speaker, I support it now. I have never voted to make it permanent without paying for it. So this bill is a dangerous dodge.

Mr. Camp, you paid for what you suggested was permanent, and I salute your being forthright. That isn't what is happening, is not happening today. So this isn't only fiscally irresponsible. What it does is to threaten programs that we care about. What was not done with one hand yesterday, automatic cuts, will be done by the Republicans with the other. They will use this deficit to cut programs we care about mentioned earlier: medical research, Head Start, Pell Grants, and other extenders that we deeply care about.

This bill today is, as I said, a dangerous dodge. We should not be party to it. We should not be party to it. It is irresponsible, it is hypocritical, and it is harmful to what we really care about and what the American people care about.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this is really not about the R&D tax credit. I have favored it. I continue to favor it. Democrats, indeed, are in favor of tax incentives. Sometimes, we are criticized for that, but that is not the issue here.

It is whether we make this permanent without paying for it. It is fiscally irresponsible to do so, and it endangers key programs that matter for all Americans, and that is why the veto message from the President.

Why fiscally irresponsible? It is unpaid for, costing, over 10 years, $156 billion. As you said, the gentleman from

Oklahoma, it is part of a package, the total of which would be $310 billion; and if you add the others referred to, the package could be $500 billion, more or less--a huge sum--unpaid for. The $310 billion that is represented by this package is more than one half of the projected deficit this year.

So it is not only fiscally irresponsible, it is also hypocritical. It violates the Republican budget itself that requires extenders to be paid for, if permanent, with other revenue measures.

Here is what the chairman of the Budget Committee said last month:

Our debt has grown more than twice the size of our economy.

You can't have a prosperous society with that kind of debt.

Mr. Brady, who, I guess, will be speaking on this, said last month:

Americans have had it with Washington's fiscal

irresponsibility, and I don't blame them. While families

across the Nation continue to tighten their belts due to

rising costs and shrinking paychecks, Washington continues to

spend more than it takes in.

In 2009, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee said:

The path to our economic recovery starts with fiscal

responsibility in Washington.

Interestingly enough, the tax reform draft presented by the chairman makes R&D and some of the other extenders permanent, but without impacting the deficit. It is revenue neutral--it is paid for--and now, you come here and not pay for it.

This doesn't even include other key extenders, like the new markets; like the work opportunity tax credit as you referred to, Mr. Hastings, on veterans; renewable energy.

It leaves in jeopardy some key provisions that expire in 2017--the EITC, 27 million people affected; the child tax credit, 24 million; the American opportunity tax credit--education--12 million. The $310 billion is three times the amount spent on education, job training, social services in a full year. Nondefense discretionary is now just about 3 percent of GDP, as low as it has been in decades.

Any permanent R&D has to be done comprehensively, not piecemeal and unpaid for. To do it this way is fiscally irresponsible. I think it is hypocritical and is programmatically dangerous.

So I oppose this rule, and I hope everybody who is thinking of voting ``yes,'' including on the Republican side, will think back on what they have said before about the deficit.

I hope we Democrats will think we are for this incentive R&D. It needs to be done comprehensively, not piecemeal--threatening so many of the programs that benefit so many Americans.

Mr. Speaker, let me sum up what this is really all about.

This hallowed institution must not be turned into a campaign arm of either political party. That is what the House Republicans are exactly doing here.

It has been a year since multiple committee investigations began into the IRS handling of 501(c)(4) organization applications, and Republicans are no closer to finding evidence to back up their baseless allegations of a ``White House enemies list,'' as they said, or a ``White House culture of coverup,'' as a Republican said on day one.

So here is what has been going on.

More than 250 employees at the IRS have worked more than 100,000 hours and sent nearly 700,000 pages of documents to Ways and Means in response to Republican requests. More than 60 interviews have been conducted. Also, $14 million in taxpayer money has been spent by the IRS responding to congressional investigations.

And here is what we know.

Documents show that the IRS used inappropriate criteria to treat progressive groups as they did for conservative groups. There was never any evidence of White House involvement. Nada.

There was never any evidence of political motivation. In fact, before the flawed audit was published last May, the IG's head of investigations reviewed 5,500 pages of documents and determined that there was ``no indication that pulling these selected applications was politically motivated.'' Instead, the head of investigations said the cases were consolidated due to ``unclear processing directions.''

Republicans have indicated that they think this action today is necessary because the Department of Justice did not react quickly enough to the referral of information from Ways and Means on Lois Lerner that was sent last month. There is a letter from the Department of Justice saying that they have received this information and have referred it to those in charge of the IRS investigation at Justice.

The Republicans say they want an independent investigation, but what they really want to do is to interrupt the investigation going on and preempt it with their own political theater.

Indeed, talking about fixation, their political fixation, I say this not only to my colleagues but to every one of our citizens: this is the House of Representatives, not a political circus.

I ask my colleagues to see this for what it is worth and vote ``no'' on the resolution.

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

There is no doubt about where Democrats stand. We have taken the lead to make sure there is no offshoring, and there has been a good faith effort here, up to a point. Surely, that has been true of Mr. Carney in all of his efforts, working with Mr. Nunes.

But the problem is that there remain some serious shortcomings in this bill, and unfortunately, we cannot try to remedy it through an amendment, so the notion there is an open process here isn't correct.

The definition of expatriate has been tightened. I think there remain some issues, at least one regarding it; but the major problem relates to the language and how it would impact, potentially, health insurance for an estimated 13 million legal permanent residents and others who are lawfully present foreign workers in the U.S.

Let me just give you examples of where the standards remain weak. For example, under this legislation, expat plans would have dispensation to be weaker than other employer plans in this country.

They could, for example, impose cost sharing on preventive benefits. They could impose annual and lifetime limits on coverage. They could impose unduly long waiting periods.

Indeed, the only ACA provision that would clearly remain in effect would be that they would have to offer coverage to young adults under 26.

So the bottom line is, unfortunately, that the legislation, in its present form, could substantially undermine health security for foreign workers, as well as American dependents who remain in this country.

Also, what it does is provide unprecedented special treatment for these plans in terms of exempting them from financing mechanisms.

Let me say further, as we found out from the Joint Tax Committee and CBO, they confirm this bill would cause some employers who would offer ACA-compliant plans under present law to offer less generous expatriate plans that are no longer subject to the ACA. This is the reason the administration issued, I think just today, a Statement of Administration Policy, and they say they do not support H.R. 4414.

The ACA gives people, it continues, greater control over their health care; and what they say is that this is not true sufficiently in this case.

It says, because of the ACA, Americans who have previously been denied coverage due to a preexisting medical condition now have access to coverage, and that may well not continue.

So the administration concludes it remains willing to work with Congress to improve H.R. 4414 to address those issues and to maintain basic consumer protections for all workers. There are straightforward changes to the legislation, which we have shared with the Congress, that would satisfy these goals, and the Congress should pursue a solution.

Unfortunately, because of this rule, we cannot propose an amendment which would essentially implement these proposals from the administration that they have shared with the Congress. That is why I, unfortunately, have no choice but to suggest a ``no'' vote on the floor of this House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Carney), a colleague and friend who is a sponsor of this legislation.

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

It is now my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

I now yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), a member of our committee and also the chair of our Caucus.

I yield the gentleman from California an additional 1 minute.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), another member of our committee.

Can I ask my colleague, are you ready to close?

So I will do the same.

I would like to place in the Record a letter of opposition to this bill as presently formulated from the AFL-CIO, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the American Federation of Teachers, Farmworker Justice, the UAW, the National Council of La Raza, the National Education Association, the National Immigration Law Center, the Service Employees International Union, the UNITE HERE, the United Farm Workers, and the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union.

April 28, 2014.

Dear Representative: We write today regarding the

Expatriate Health Coverage Clarification Act (H.R. 4414),

scheduled for floor debate on Tuesday. Although negotiations

are apparently occurring behind closed doors on a final

version of the bill, it is our understanding that these

discussions are unlikely to address major shortcomings of the

bill. Barring substantial revisions to the bill, we urge you

to oppose it.

As you know, the bill is intended to accommodate health

plans providing coverage for workers that work in multiple

countries, and it is reasonable to grant these plans some

flexibility to pursue this role. We understand that these

``expatriate'' health care plans currently cover fewer than

300,000 workers. However, the current draft of the bill could

impact a much wider population, resulting in a lower standard

of health care coverage for 13 million lawful permanent

residents (LPRs or green card holders), as well as

individuals with visas for more highly skilled work and

people in dozens of other nonimmigrant categories.

It is important that these workers, who live and work

beside other U.S. workers, enjoy the same coverage

protections provided by the Affordable Care Act (ACA). It

would simply be unfair to provide them a lower level of

protection, and it would exert downward pressure on the

benefits offered to all other workers.

We do believe it is possible to accommodate the needs of

expatriate health plans while avoiding this impact on

millions of workers. First, the Department of Health and

Human Services (HHS) can continue its work developing

regulatory approaches to easing the administrative burdens

faced by these plans. Second, more work can be done on a

legislative approach that appropriately reduces the burden

faced by legitimate expatriate health plans, without creating

a loophole that could be exploited by plans seeking to skirt

the coverage standards of the ACA.

The bill has been improved in some ways since it was first

considered on the House floor. U.S. citizens may only be

included in the plans if they travel out of the country for

more than 180 days a year, and a benchmark has been added to

encourage employers to offer coverage with an actuarial value

of 60 percent or higher.

It remains imperative, however, to ensure that LPRs and

individuals in nonimmigrant visa categories are not exposed

to a gap in ACA coverage protections. More must be done to

exclude these groups from the populations covered by this

bill. Additional employer reporting and enforcement

provisions would help ensure that employers would not stretch

the definition of expatriate employees to offer substandard

coverage to workers.

We welcome the opportunity to help improve this legislation

to address the concerns of the expatriate health plans

without having a negative impact on workers who live and work

in the U.S. It is unlikely that H.R. 4414 will be amended to

meet these goals before the scheduled floor vote, however,

and we urge you to vote against the bill.

Sincerely,

Also, I submit for the Record a letter in opposition to this bill as presently formed from the National Immigration Law Center.

National Immigration Law Center,

Los Angeles, CA, April 30, 2014.

Dear Speaker Boehner and Democratic Leader Pelosi: As the

House of Representatives considers the Expatriate Health

Coverage Clarification Act (H.R. 4414) again today, we urge

you to oppose it. Already defeated in the House on April 9,

2014, this bill, absent key changes, will lead to an erosion

of Affordable Care Act (ACA) standards and lower quality

health coverage for immigrants who are unreasonably and

mistakenly classified as expatriates under the legislation.

Supporters of the bill claim that the problems contained in

the original bill have been adequately addressed. This is

simply not true. While some positive changes have been made,

the most egregious provisions remain firmly in place,

including those with broad implications for low-income

immigrants living and working in the U.S. These remaining

problems leave the bill vulnerable to legal challenges.

H.R. 4414 would eliminate the ACA's group plan consumer

protections for ``expatriate health insurance plans,''

including for U.S.-regulated issuers, provided to individuals

who travel ``abroad.'' This blanket exemption alone should be

cause for concern. However, what is far more troubling is

that the bill uses a broad definition for ``expatriate'' that

includes many immigrants who live in the U.S. permanently and

do not travel abroad for work. This definition extends far

beyond the purported objectives of the legislation and must

be fixed.

Specifically, the definition of ``expatriate'' in H.R. 4414

includes lawful permanent residents (LPRs or green card

holders), most of whom spend the vast majority of their time

in the United States. These individuals reside in the U.S.,

are on a path to citizenship, and have built their lives in

the U.S. Simply put, they should not be defined as

``expatriates'' if they do not travel outside of the United

States for work for extended periods. Instead, their health

insurance plans should have the same consumer protections

codified by the ACA as others who live and work in the U.S.

This bill would create a loophole that could lead to inferior

coverage for these individuals.

H.R. 4414 would have an unintentional, disastrous impact on

LPRs and other low-wage immigrant workers. We urge you to

oppose the bill, and we look forward to working with members

of Congress to close its loopholes and find workable

solutions.

Sincerely,

Marielena Hincapiee,

Executive Director.

Finally, I submit into the Record the Statement of Administration Policy from the Obama administration.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 4414--Expatriate Health Coverage Clarification Act

(Rep. Carney, D-Delaware, and 24 cosponsors)

The Administration does not support House passage of H.R.

4414, the Expatriate Health Coverage Clarification Act, in

its current form, because it would reduce consumer

protections and create even more loopholes in the tax code.

The Affordable Care Act gives people greater control over

their own health care. Since October 1, eight million have

signed up for private insurance and millions more have been

enrolled in Medicaid. Because of the Affordable Care Act,

Americans who have previously been denied coverage due to a

pre-existing medical condition now have access to coverage.

Additionally, the law helps millions of Americans stay on

their parents' plans until age 26, and helps provide access

to free preventive care like cancer screenings that catch

illness early on.

The Administration remains willing to work with the

Congress to improve H.R. 4144 to address these issues and to

maintain basic consumer protections for all workers. There

are straightforward changes to the legislation, which we have

shared with the Congress, that would satisfy these goals, and

the Congress should pursue a solution.

So let me close, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I think it is regrettable that we are here in this predicament when we don't need to be. I think we do need to fix the expat issue, but not by unfixing health care reform for millions of people. This is more than about 300,000 people. We are talking about the health care protections and provisions applicable to 13 million people in this country who are here legally.

It has been said, and I very much respect this, it has taken 3 years to try to fix this problem, and Mr. Carney and others have truly been working, and Mr. Nunes, and there have been bipartisan discussions.

But here is the problem: If we are really going to continue effectively to work together when there is an outstanding issue, when there has been this aura of good faith, the majority should have let the minority place on the floor an amendment to the bill and let us debate it.

In fact, it only works against bipartisanship in this kind of circumstance to say it is essentially a closed rule. What is there to fear? The only thing to fear is that we would have discussion that

might make this a still more bipartisan bill. So instead of getting a likely minority of members on the Democratic side, we would have, I think, an overwhelming majority on both sides determined to keep jobs here, but not at a price of undoing necessary protections in terms of the health of millions and millions of Americans.

So that is where we are here and essentially so for so many of us placed in a situation where we say we must do better, we shouldn't simply leave it to the other body, we have the abilities within this House with true bipartisanship to continue working, and after 3 years, it might take another week or 2, that would be worth it in terms of trying to restore the reality of bipartisanship that really works.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the men and women of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 58, who celebrated their 100th Anniversary at a gala I was pleased to join on Saturday, April 12th. In 1914, IBEW Locals 18 and 271 merged to create IBEW Local 58. For the last 100 years, IBEW members helped to build the City of Detroit and Southeast Michigan, served our nation at home and overseas during wartime, engaged in volunteer activities to strengthen our communities, and have stood at the forefront of workers' rights on the job.

The rich history of Local 58 is inextricably bound with the history of Southeast Michigan and of the nation. Local 58 was created to ensure that its members have safe working conditions, receive fair wages and health and welfare benefits, and security when they retire. These vital responsibilities helped propel the men and women of Local 58 to the forefront of the labor movement in Southeast Michigan, and due to their efforts as well as those of many others, working people can achieve and thrive in the American middle class.

While building the middle class, the members of IBEW Local 58, along with their brothers and sisters in other building trades unions, literally built the City of Detroit and the Southeast Michigan region. Iconic Detroit projects such as the Ambassador Bridge, the Fisher Building, the Guardian Building, the Detroit Opera House, the Fox Theater, and the Masonic Temple were built using the skills of IBEW Local 58's members. In 1948, Local 58 wired Briggs Stadium for lights so that the Detroit Tigers could play nighttime games. As Detroit and the region grew along with the growth of the automotive industry, Local 58 workers brought electricity to the new homes being built in Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb counties.

Local 58 members have served in the armed forces in every war our nation has fought since World War I. Beginning in World War II and in every war since then, Local 58 has ensured that those members who served in the military during wartime would have their union dues paid while they were in service, and that they could return to the union with no loss of status or seniority when their service was completed. The men and women of Local 58 also served our country at home during times of war, most notably during World War II, when Detroit was known as the ``Arsenal of Democracy'' and skilled workers were needed to retool automobile factories to produce the aircraft, tanks, and artillery needed to win the war. More than half of the tanks, 75 percent of the aircraft engines, and 92 percent the cars and trucks used by the military in World War II were built in Detroit factories.

The men and women of Local 58 have always been involved in efforts to strengthen the communities in which they live and work and to support causes important to them. From their donations to the American Red Cross, Boys Town and the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis in the 1940s and 1950s to their work on behalf of Habitat for Humanity and to local churches, community centers and schools today, IBEW members have been willing to commit their time, talents and money to help others.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent so many members and families of IBEW Local 58 in Michigan's 9th Congressional District. For the last century, they have demonstrated a steadfast commitment to excellence on the job, to the rights of working people, to the well-being of Detroit and Southeast Michigan, and to the strength of our country. I hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating the men and women of Local 58 as they celebrate 100 years of excellence, and in wishing them continued success in their second century.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 99th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide.

The 9th Congressional District of Michigan, which I represent, is home to a vibrant Armenian-American community. Every member of this community has been tragically affected by the Armenian Genocide, despite the distance of time. I am proud to call them my friends. And I am proud to stand with them today.

This time every year, we pause in solemn remembrance and honor the victims who perished at the hands of the Ottoman Empire 99 years ago. The Armenian Genocide, an intentional and systematic campaign of mass murder, began with the deliberate targeting of 300 Armenian leaders and culminated in one and half million dead and 500,000 forcibly exiled from their homes.

And while the primary purpose of Armenian Remembrance Day is to remember, it also serves another important purpose. Indeed, the act of remembering, the commitment to never forget, sends a clear message to the world that we cannot abide a culture of impunity. That we will not gloss over historical atrocities.

That we must not fail to hold to account those responsible for gross human rights violations. If we fail to remember horrific acts like the Armenian Genocide, we doom ourselves to repeat the most tragic chapters of history.

Accordingly, during my time in Congress, I have cosponsored House resolutions that have clearly stated the U.S. record regarding the true nature of the Armenian Genocide--an officially orchestrated ethnic execution of innocent men, women and children.

In closing, I respectfully request that all my colleagues join me today in honoring the victims and survivors of the Armenian Genocide.

Madam Speaker, today marks the 100th day that unemployed Americans have been cut off the Federal unemployment insurance program.

Let me give voice to how they have spent the last 100 days. A woman from Pennsylvania wrote:

It's scary, Mr. Levin, not knowing what will happen from

day to day. My landlord has tried to be as patient as he

could, and now, he had no choice but to serve me an eviction

notice. It is scary to think that my America is this cruel.

Carol from New York:

I have been in the medical field for over 25 years and

unable to find work. I can't pay my rent, electric bill,

phone bill, no money for gas, no money for food. I can't even

print out my resume for a job because I can't afford to buy

ink for my printer.

This is the first time in my life I had to go to a food

pantry. I was ashamed. Never in a million years would I

imagine this is where I would be. I am not looking for a

handout. I just need a little help to get back on my feet

until I find a job.

Tonight, the Senate will pass a bipartisan UI extension. This House must not ignore these stories. We must act.

Mr. Speaker, several of us come together to talk about unemployment insurance.

The majority leader said to accept the Senate bill is to accept the status quo. That is simply not correct. No, it is not accepting the status quo; it is whether we will penalize over 2 million long-term unemployed looking for work who have lost their unemployment insurance because of the overall economic situation in this country that is getting better, but for them, not nearly good enough. So don't raise the issue of the status quo as a reason to penalize over 2 million Americans.

Mr. Speaker, 2 months ago, a number of us invited a number of unemployment workers to be our guests at the President's State of the Union Address. We wanted to give a voice to the over 2 million Americans who have had their unemployment benefits cut off.

When these jobseekers told their stories one by one, I thought to myself: This is America, these are folks who come from every walk of life, who have worked hard, very hard, and who have played by the rules in pursuit of the American dream; now, they have lost their jobs, through no fault of their own, and they are desperately seeking new employment.

You can understand their complete bewilderment when uninformed people call them lazy, and you can feel their utter disbelief that their government apparently has abandoned them.

My guest for the State of the Union Address was Josie Maisano from St. Clair Shores, Michigan. Josie proudly told us she had worked since she was a teenager, but now, at age 60, she could not find a job.

Her unemployment benefits were helping her to keep her head above water as she searched for work, but when her benefits were cut off, she fell behind on her mortgage payments, struggled to keep the power on, and worried about becoming homeless, worried about that every day.

Josie and over 2 million Americans just like her are desperately waiting to see if this Congress will finally act to help those seeking jobs, not saying we are ratifying the status quo, but as I said to the majority leader, not letting the status quo--which is changing a bit but not enough--let that status quo penalize her.

Indeed, the good news is that the Senate is expected to take that critical step on Monday by passing bipartisan legislation--bipartisan legislation--to retroactively extend the unemployment insurance program through May.

So the question is this: Whether this House will also act or will it leave town and leave America's jobseekers in the lurch?

If every Member of this Chamber will simply take a few minutes to talk with unemployed workers in their district, to people like Josie, I have no doubt we will do the right thing and act; but up to this point, action has been scant, while the excuses have been plentiful.

We have heard that an extension of unemployment benefits must be paid for, even though these emergency benefits have traditionally not been offset, but the Senate unemployment extension is fully paid for with bipartisan offsets, so end of excuse.

We have heard that any legislation extending unemployment benefits must also create jobs, but the CBO has estimated that continuing emergency unemployment benefits would create 200,000 jobs by raising consumer demand, so, again, end of excuse.

We have heard that extended unemployment benefits aren't needed any more because the economy has recovered. The economy certainly has improved from the depths of the Great Recession, but we continue to have near-record rates of long-term unemployment.

Indeed, the percentage of those long-term unemployed in this country are the largest in our records, and we have never cut off these benefits in the past with anything close to this level of long-term unemployment, so end of that excuse.

Again, we have heard that it is too late to help the unemployed because the Federal UI program has been expired for too long, but as the whip said,

the Secretary of Labor has sent a letter saying that it can be implemented.

Governors and State UI directors have said they stand ready, willing, and able to restore these critical benefits, as has been done after prior lapses in benefits, so let there be an end of that excuse.

So let's get past any excuses and focus on the facts. Anyone receiving an unemployment benefit must look for work, and they have ample reason to do so, given that the average unemployment benefit is only $300 a week.

Even at that modest level--and I want to emphasize this--unemployment benefits have lifted 11 million Americans out of poverty since 2008, according to the Census Bureau.

The end of the Federal emergency unemployment program in December has left only one out of every four jobseekers receiving unemployment benefits, the lowest coverage in over 50 years.

The bipartisan Senate bill that will be voted on--we now expect Monday--would restore this vital lifeline to nearly 2.8 million Americans, including Josie Maisano, and 106,000 other jobseekers in my home State of Michigan.

Someone recently asked me if this issue is personal to me. It is. When you hear the unemployed tell their stories, when you see the anguish in their faces, and when you know how hard they are struggling to find work, it is impossible to not take it personally. America, these are our friends, our neighbors, our fellow Americans. How can we give them the cold shoulder?

This poster, 2.8 million Americans, these are the people whose livelihoods, whose lifelines are at stake here. I fervently hope that this institution will rise up to its greatest traditions, to respond to the needs of Americans out of work through no fault of their own, looking hard for work, unable to find it.

Often, people who are in their forties, fifties, and older find it difficult to find someone who will give them a fair shot. These are people like us, and they are everywhere. We need to act.

I now yield to a colleague and friend of mine, a member of our committee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her moving remarks. I hope the country is listening.

Now, another person who has devoted so much time as Ms. Sanchez has to this effort to bring to the attention of this country what this is really all about, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford).

Thank you so much for your eloquence. I hope this country is listening as well as your beloved State.

Now I yield to another friend of mine and, most importantly, to somebody whose life embodies caring for others, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis).

I thank you for your eloquent remarks.

Mr. Speaker, how much time is left in our hour?

Before I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Nolan) for the remainder of my time, I just want to conclude in this way.

This is a bipartisan bill that is coming over from the Senate. This country has asked for bipartisanship. That bill embodies it. This country has asked for fiscal care. Traditionally, unemployment insurance has not been paid for. This bill is paid for on a bipartisan basis.

So what more is America asking for?

It is asking for people in this institution to step into the shoes of several million people who are hardworking, who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, who are looking for work, many of them never having been unemployed before. If there is a vote allowed in this institution, this bill will pass. There is only one obstacle to our doing what is right, and that is whether there will be a decision on the part of the leadership of this House to let us vote, and it won't be ourselves voting. It will be America voting. America wants a vote to help the several million and their families.

So I leave here, going out of Washington, hoping that when all of us return that we will have looked into the eyes of fellow and sister Americans out of work, that we will have reached out and will have listened to their stories, and that we will come back with a sense of urgency, with a sense of decency, and with a conscience. This issue should be on the consciences of every Member of this House.

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

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

The gentleman who has just spoken has it backwards. What would hurt American workers is not the Affordable Care Act. Millions have signed up to be covered. What would hurt American workers is this bill.

I said yesterday--and no one has refuted it--this bill would mean that 1 million people, according to CBO, would lose their employer- based health insurance. By definition, these are people who are working. They would lose their employer-based health insurance. That is what CBO has estimated, and no one has refuted it.

It would increase the number, according to CBO, of uninsured by half a million. No one has refuted this.

CBO also says that it would add $74 billion to the deficit--again, this is CBO--and no one on the Republican side has refuted this.

This would put five times more people at risk of adverse effects than would be true under any other circumstance.

So, essentially, you have a bill that would cost 1 million people their employer-based health insurance, would increase the number of uninsured by about half a million, and would add $74 billion to the deficit.

Instead of talking about unemployment insurance, instead of talking about minimum wage, instead of talking about immigration legislation, we have a bill up today that would have these adverse consequences.

We would be passing a bill that will never go anywhere in the Senate, and because we aren't acting on these other measures, they are spreading out debate on this bill for 2 days. When it leaves here, it goes nowhere. It will be vetoed by the President, if it ever passed the Senate, which it never will.

So this is worse than an exercise in futility. This is an exercise in doing harm, when ACA is bringing benefits to millions and millions of people. It is deeply unfortunate.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of my time be controlled by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.