Jim McDermott

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote 478 (On Passage of H.R. 5230), had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I come today to this floor on what I believe is a very sad day for this House. There is no place left safe for children. Yesterday and today, we have condoned and endorsed activities which put children at risk. Children are not safe in mosques, in churches, in U.N.-protected schools, in hospitals, in ambulances, or even playing on the beach. 167 years ago, my great-grandmother came from Ireland, 12 years old, by herself, on a boat, landed in the docks of New York. If this Congress had been sitting then, she would have been sent back to Roscommon County, to her people, to her family, where a third of the people were dying of famine, a third emigrated, and a third stayed. That is what we would have sent her back to, without a hearing, without anything. She had no rights. And, luckily, it wasn't that way. There is no resonance for Jesus' command: Suffer the little children to come unto me. Our country will rue this day.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation that will address the gaping hole in our country's workforce of primary care physicians. Due to the retirement of a generation of physicians, the aging of our population, and the entry into the system of some 30 million newly insured thanks to the Affordable Care Act, we do not have enough primary care doctors to meet demand. One estimate projects a national shortage of approximately 45,000 primary care doctors by 2020. This problem will continue to worsen without a major initiative to produce new physicians. Primary care doctors are the front lines of our physician workforce. Under the right conditions, they oversee and coordinate health care for their patients. They educate patients on how to prevent illness and manage chronic conditions. They are the medical generalists who establish long-lasting bonds with patients throughout their lives. Proper primary care is also one of the keys to containing health care costs. On the other hand, inadequate primary care leads to neglected and mismanaged conditions, which causes costly emergencies and illnesses downstream. I am introducing the RDOCS Act to help solve this problem. Modeled after the successful ROTC program, RDOCS offers full scholarships to medical students in exchange for a 5-year service commitment in a medically underserved area. RDOCS will be administered by the states, which will send RDOCS scholars to their state-operated medical schools. RDOCS officers (as they are known after graduation) will then become licensed and serve as primary care doctors in their state of residence. The program is designed to ensure that at least 4,000 new scholarships are awarded each year. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, we are going to get close to universal health coverage in the United States. But universal coverage will not be meaningful if we don't have enough doctors to serve our population. RDOCS is a major step in this effort, and in the future Congress must build upon this program by expanding graduate medical education and creating additional residency slots to train these new doctors. I am optimistic that Congress can demonstrate the leadership needed to restore our physician workforce for the next generation.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation that will address the shortage of physicians at medical facilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs. As we have learned from recent events, long wait times at VA facilities are, in part, a consequence of understaffing and a doctor shortage. The lack of primary care physicians in VA facilities is particularly troubling. Recently, the VA estimated that it had about 400 unfilled vacancies for primary care doctors. Through the Health Professionals Educational Assistance Program, the VA currently provides for loan repayment and scholarships that fund the education and training of a range of health providers. Unfortunately, Educational Assistance Program benefits are limited and, as currently designed, the program does little to encourage primary care physicians to work at the VA. Furthermore, recent proposals to reform the VA do not go far enough to emphasize training VA doctors who are committed to the practice of primary care medicine. That is why I am introducing the RDOCS-VA Act, legislation that will strengthen the Educational Assistance Program. Modeled after the successful ROTC program, RDOCS-VA will provide scholarships and stipends covering the full cost of attending medical school, in exchange for a five-year commitment to service as primary care doctors at the VA. RDOCS-VA is designed to directly address the VA's needs by requiring the creation of a minimum of 400 RDOCS-VA scholarships, with flexibility to award even more scholarships in the future. Once fully implemented, the RDOCS-VA program will be an important tool to ensure that our veterans have access to primary care. As part of future efforts, Congress must build upon this program by expanding graduate medical education and creating additional residency slots at VA facilities. This will allow us to train primary care doctors who are fully prepared to serve our veterans for years to come.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, in H.R. 4935, the Child Tax Credit Improvement Act of 2014, Republicans are offering a bill that claims to help families but actually does great harm to low-income families with children. It is really quite a surprising piece of legislation, actually, because it is a backdoor pay increase for Congressmen and Congresswomen who have children. We don't give ourselves any kind of cost-of-living increase, but this is a backdoor pay increase put forward by the Republicans. Under this bill, couples making between $150,000 and $205,000 would be newly eligible for the child tax credit. So that is all of us, folks. Thank the Republicans for this. This bill does not, however, make permanent a key provision made to the law in 2009 that is set to expire in 2017. This improvement expanded the refundable portion of the tax credit for millions of hardworking, low-income Americans. Under H.R. 4935, families making minimum wage would lose a portion of their tax credit in 2018. This means that a single mother in South Lake Union, Seattle, working full- time, making $14,500 a year, struggling to support two children, will lose $1,725 in 2018. In addition, this bill requires one of the taxpayers claiming the child tax credit to have a Social Security number. This provision will harm millions of American kids who are United States citizens living in immigrant families. These children and their families will be cut off from crucial tax relief if this becomes law. That is why the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops opposes this bill's Social Security number requirement. They recognize what you are doing. You are going after people at the bottom to give a pay increase to Congressmen. Vote ``no.''

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Strengthening Child Welfare Response to Trafficking Act of 2014. Today, more than 293,000 American youth are at risk of sexual commercial exploitation and trafficking each year. Far too often, State child welfare systems fail to properly identify and assist trafficked and exploited children. The protective services and protocols established for abused and neglected children within the child welfare system are rarely extended to trafficked children and youth. In many States, such children are often not even categorized as victims. I would point out that we have on our borders today 57,000 youngsters who have come in whatever way they have come to our attention. One of the real dangers in sort of sending people back into whatever is that you may well be sending them back into sexual trafficking. This is one of the issues that should be looked at in every case where you find a youngster roaming the streets. States have got to look at this issue and figure out a way to deal with it. We know that youngsters when they age out of foster care have no skills, they have no job, and they have very little to keep themselves alive, and, therefore, they easily become victims of sexual trafficking. This is an issue that this country, if we really care about children, we are going to look carefully at every kid and what are the risks to which they are being exposed.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Taxpayer Identity Protection Act of 2014. This bill will help cut down on tax fraud from identity theft, a serious problem that costs the government billions of dollars annually. My bill would truncate Social Security Numbers on Forms W-2, and the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that implementing it would have a negligible revenue effect. At the moment, W-2 forms contain a person's full Social Security Number, making it easy for someone to steal an identity. This bill would give the IRS the authority to shorten Social Security Numbers on W-2 forms, making it tougher for a person's identity to be stolen if their W-2 ends up in the wrong hands. The Treasury Department wrote in the Greenbook that ``the risk of identity theft from Form W-2 is high because employers are required to file a Form W-2 for each employee who receives wages.'' It added that, ``providing the IRS authority to require or permit truncated SSNs on Forms W-2 would reduce the risk of identity theft and improper payments resulting from false or fraudulent returns.'' In 2010, a Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) report estimated that ``$21 billion in potentially fraudulent refunds'' would be issued over the next five years as a result of identity theft. The report noted that this estimate is likely conservative.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I was a Navy psychiatrist during the Vietnam war. I treated men who believed they were doing the right thing, but who, having witnessed the obscenity of war, came home shaken, brutalized, and lost. These men were demonized for their experience. Today, we are making the same mistake with Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl. Yesterday, I watched as members of the House Armed Services Committee attacked a U.S. citizen who volunteered to serve his country and who was held in the most deplorable of conditions for 5 years. In my time in Congress, I have never seen a more disgraceful, purely political attack on a U.S. soldier. How many times have we heard from our generals and our admirals that we never leave a warrior behind? We sent Sergeant Bergdahl to war. We gave Sergeant Bergdahl his gun and his orders. We must bring Sergeant Bergdahl home and take care of him.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I am here today to speak for the citizens of Florida, Texas, Washington, Tennessee, Nevada, Alaska, South Dakota, Wyoming, and New Hampshire. These are States without an income tax. They do not have a State income tax. They are allowed to deduct their sales tax that they pay from their Federal income tax and receive a credit for it this year. Now, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee spent 3 years working on putting a bill together; and in that bill--it is called tax reform--it repealed, it didn't just sort of leave unmentioned or anything else, it directly repealed that provision in the law. We are out here today--nobody denies that small business needs some help. We certainly think that is a good idea. But where are the priorities of the ordinary taxpayers in Florida, Texas, Washington, Tennessee, Nevada, Alaska, South Dakota, Wyoming, and New Hampshire? They are going to pay an extra thousand dollars next year in taxes. They are going to get a tax increase from the Republicans by failing to give them this deduction. It costs $6.5 billion. We are going to spend 75 or 71--or whatever it is today--billion dollars. One-tenth of that would cover the tax exemption for the people in these States, the ordinary tax citizens that everybody says they are worried about, the middle class, the middle class who is struggling in this society. But this Congress says, no, we have to take care of business. That is all we have taken care of is business so far. When the chairman had the possibility, he repealed this. Now, he is from Michigan. Why not? Who would care? They wouldn't affect his State. What is hard for me to understand is how anybody can come out here and not defend the interest of their own citizens. If you represent Florida, Texas, Washington, Tennessee, Nevada, Alaska, South Dakota, Wyoming, and New Hampshire and you vote for these tax bills today and say to your people back home we don't care what happens to you, it ought to be an interesting experience to go on the stump running for election this year. Everybody's talking about taxes, but we are taking away a tax deduction for the people of these States. And why? I guess we haven't got the money, or maybe the chairman doesn't live in one of those States, or I am not quite sure how all this works, but I'm here to say that people from the State of Washington need to have a tax deduction for the sales tax that they pay in lieu of an income tax.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 100th anniversary of Seattle's Fishermen's Terminal. Originally planned to be a simple moorage facility, Fishermen's Terminal now proudly stands as home to the finest fishing fleet in the world. For over a century, these fishermen here have contributed immeasurably to local communities and have built a deserving reputation for the Pacific Northwest as America's source for world-class seafood. Since its founding in 1914, the Fishermen's Terminal has been a fundamental asset to the local economy. Its fresh water location and proximity to large and profitable markets make it an ideal spot for hard-working commercial fishermen to unload their catches. Despite the turbulent nature of the industry, Fishermen's Terminal continues to generate well-paying jobs within the State of Washington. My hat goes off to our local fishermen who for decades have persevered through the various political, economic, and physical challenges of their work. This centennial gives us an opportunity to reflect on the deeply rooted connection between the Fishermen's Terminal and our community. It is an integral component of the Port of Seattle with an extensive history that predates the establishment of tech or aerospace industries in our State. The resilience that the Fishermen's Terminal has displayed over the last century gives me confidence that it will continue to thrive well into the future. I extend my heartfelt gratitude to the multiple generations of fishermen and their families for their dedicated work which has given life to Seattle's Fishermen's Terminal for an entire century.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to re-introduce legislation to establish a carbon tax on fossil fuels. Earlier this month, the Third U.S. National Climate Assessment, the most comprehensive and authoritative scientific report ever generated about climate change in the United States, was released, offering just the latest in dire warnings of the impact climate change is already inflicting on our planet. This is not an abstract notion for future generations to cope with and address; it is happening now and will only get worse with inaction. I am re-introducing this legislation to continue the serious discussion on climate change that has long been overdue. With extreme weather events becoming more common, every corner of the United States is already grappling with the effects of climate change. As the problem grows more urgent, businesses and even the U.S. military are recognizing the very real costs associated with doing nothing. President Obama's Climate Action Plan underscores the need to address this issue, and with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency releasing its climate rule for existing power plants next week, I am pleased to see the discussion turning into action. My legislation, the Managed Carbon Price Act of 2014, places a price on carbon emissions that would increase over time, which would in turn create a market incentive to reduce emissions. The proceeds from this legislation go into a newly-created Energy and Economic Security Trust Fund where 100 percent of the revenue goes back to the public to offset any price increases. This bill is good for the environment and good for business. The legislation recognizes and incentivizes the market for green technologies and innovation and levels the playing field for companies already investing in sustainable business practices. By putting a price on carbon we are setting the stage to export these technologies worldwide. We owe it to ourselves and to our children to do more than just watch idly as droughts, floods, sea ice melt, ocean acidification, rising sea levels and other effects of climate change continue to take their toll. This legislation is a small step toward meeting this commitment. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Investing to Modernize the Production of American Clean Energy and Technology Act of 2014, a bill that will continue this Nation's march towards sustainable power solutions. This bill will continue a number of valuable tax provisions used by clean energy companies to level the playing field so that clean energy can compete with its more established traditional-energy counterparts. This is done by extending tax provisions for onshore and offshore wind and other renewable energy production. The bill also provides incentives for clean energy manufacturing, energy efficient appliances and homes, electric vehicles, and a new era of natural gas-powered vehicles. At the same time, this bill prevents major oil companies from continuing to benefit from corporate giveaways tucked into the tax code at a time when their industry is making record profits. This bill is a statement of principles and vision as much as it is about tax policy. America needs clean renewable energy sources in the coming decades, resources that cannot be developed overnight. This bill will ensure America remains a strong and prosperous Nation while laying the groundwork for an economy built on clean energy.

Mr. McDERMOTT

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

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Chairman, fisheries management is something that has had a long history on the Pacific coast. As we built the dams on the Columbia River back in the 1930s, we made treaties with the Canadians. The Mitchell Act was passed, and we have been subsidizing the propagation of fish since that period. We also have Canadian and United States treaties for the fish caught in the rivers along our borders. The fish don't know where they came from. They don't know whose fish they are, and the human beings have got to sort it out. We have had these treaties in place, but we have been gradually reducing the amount of money we spent in this enforcement and propagation of fish. Now, this $3 million seems like a very small amount, but what it is really all about is it means a hatchery closure, which will reduce, by 3 million, the Chinook that are released next year, along with another 500-some odd thousand other kinds of salmon. You can't do this fisheries management by turning on the switch and turning off the switch. The fish go out for 3 years, they come back, and it is a longstanding process, and we are gradually whittling down what we are doing to one of the major sources of protein for this country. It is a huge economic effect on Alaska, Washington, Idaho, and northern California, and it is money well-spent. If you don't understand fish and you don't live in a community, as I do, where the entire Alaska fishing fleet is right now getting ready to go up and catch the salmon that you are used to eating in this country, you don't understand what it means when you don't have hatcheries producing salmon. The enforcement issue is really a matter of getting people to count and make sure that we get what is ours and also make sure that the fish are counted, so we know about the sustainability. One of the issues that is going on in the world today that people are not paying attention to is the acidification of the ocean. Acidification of the ocean means that salmon eggs are not as fertile as they were before, and you are coming to a time when we are going to have serious problems with our fisheries all along the northwest coast of the United States. So this $3 million, although it seems like a very minimal amount, is necessary to continue the treaties with the Canadians and to continue the propagation. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Medicaid Physician Self-Referral Act of 2014. This important legislation provides a necessary clarification to Section 1902 of the Social Security Act. The legislation provides that Medicaid designated health services claims are subject to the same requirements as Medicare designated health services claims are under the Physician Self-Referral Law. Health care providers subject to the Physician Self-Referral Law should not be able to avoid penalties under the law simply because a claim is a Medicaid claim rather than a Medicare claim. Both programs involve taxpayer money and we need to ensure the long-term solvency of the Medicaid program, just as we do with the Medicare program. The Department of Justice, mindful of this, has worked to bring causes of action against providers under the False Claims Act involving violations of the Physician Self-Referral law--even in the Medicaid context. In one recent case, the Department of Justice relied on 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1396b(s), which provides that a state shall not receive federal reimbursement for a claim submitted through the Medicaid program if the same claim would be rejected under the terms of the Medicare program, had the service been covered by Medicare instead of Medicaid. It is important to align Title XIX with other provisions involving the Physician Self-Referral Law and the Medicaid program. Thus, while the law has always provided that the Medicaid and Medicare programs were on equal footing vis-a-vis the Physician Self-Referral Law, this clarification makes this clear and leaves no doubt that Congress intends this to be the case.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that would make a simple modification to the Civil Monetary Penalty Law. The modification will ensure that physicians and hospitals can align incentives, which is especially important since they are being called upon to do this more often in the pursuit of providing improved care at a lower cost. In the movement to replace fee for service medicine with a model that emphasizes quality, this legislation will facilitate relationships that will allow movement in this direction. The modification will ensure that the penalties for the Civil Monetary Penalty Law are fully retained; the modification makes no change to the penalties prescribed under the law. However, the modification will allow hospitals and physicians to enter into relationships designed to decrease the provision of medically unnecessary services. This legislation recognizes that in the new delivery system models, the emphasis should be on reducing the provision of medically unnecessary services for patients. After all, such services do not serve the patient--who may suffer from hospital acquired infections, if kept in the hospital longer than necessary, for example. Such services also are not in furtherance of the goal of operating a more efficient, higher quality health care system. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 100th anniversary of the Women's University Club in Seattle. For a century this commendable organization has been a steadfast leader within the women's movement and a critical source of education and empowerment for women throughout Seattle and the United States. Since its founding in 1914, WUC has continuously broadened its reach throughout the community to meet increasing demand for social and educational fulfillment. What started as a small, local establishment to network and learn grew into a treasured institution with 900 current members representing over 400 different colleges and universities. The home of WUC, which was built in 1922, proudly stands today as a local and national historical landmark. I applaud WUC for generously committing its resources to scholarships and community service. Since 2003, 31 scholarships have been awarded to deserving young women seeking to pursue higher education. WUC helps keep the American Dream alive by providing hard- working individuals with the networking and educational opportunities to permanently improve their lives. With the publication of a commemorative book, The First 100 Years: Women's University Club of Seattle, 1914-2014, WUC shares the rich tapestry of its first century and reaffirms its commitment to remain a stalwart presence in the community for the future. I would like to convey my sincere congratulations to WUC on its proud centennial and express my heartfelt gratitude for all the WUC has done over this last century.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Chairman, I was one of the 16 people who was on that committee. It used to be a committee with four Republicans from the Senate and four Republicans from the House, four Democrats from the Senate and four Democrats from the House. It was a balanced committee. It looked at the technological questions of what we are spending billions of dollars on. Now we have a choice of where we get our information. The GAO looks backward. All of the government organizations look backward. They don't look forward. That is not their role to imagine what will happen out there. What we need is an organization that can look forward as we proceed to spend billions of dollars in technology. We can either get the information from a nonpartisan organization that is controlled evenly by both sides of the House and the other body, or we could go to industry. They will come in here, and they will give us all of the information of their having the best thing since sliced bread. I think we need the OTA, and I urge you to adopt the amendment.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Fair Playing Field Act of 2014. In 1978, Congress was concerned that lack of clarity as to the proper classification of some workers, increased IRS enforcement activity, and retroactive application by IRS of interpretations that were arguably new had caused hardships for some small businesses and other taxpayers and confusion as to the applicable rules. To allow time to develop a comprehensive approach to the problem, Congress enacted section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978 as an interim measure protecting taxpayers from liability for misclassification if the taxpayer has a reasonable basis for classifying a worker as an independent contractor and meets certain other conditions. In addition, the Act prohibited the Secretary of the Treasury from publishing regulations or revenue rulings on workers' employment tax status pending the expected near-term enactment of clarifying legislation. During the ensuing 33 years, Congress made section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978 permanent, however, changes in working relationships and the continued prohibition on new guidance have increased the uncertainty as to the proper classification of workers. Many workers are properly classified as independent contractors. In other instances, workers who are employees are being treated as independent contractors. Such misclassification for tax purposes contributes to inequities in the competitive positions of businesses and to the Federal and State tax gap, and may also result in misclassification for other purposes, such as denial of unemployment benefits, workplace health and safety protections, and retirement or other benefits or protections available to employees. Workers, businesses, and other taxpayers will benefit from clear guidance regarding employment tax status. In the interest of fairness and in view of many service recipients' reliance on current section 530, such guidance should apply only prospectively.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, a budget is a statement of a society's moral principles. The Democratic budget is an investment plan that creates a job for a marine who comes back from Afghanistan. It guarantees health security for a single mom and her asthmatic daughter. It expands the opportunity for a bright-eyed son of immigrant parents to go to college. On the other hand, the Ryan manifesto doesn't create a job for that marine. The Ryan budget fires 3 million Americans over the next 2 years, and it protects tax breaks for companies shipping those jobs overseas. The Ryan budget repeals the Affordable Care Act, forcing that single mother and baby daughter back into the intolerable days when families could not afford health care. In summary, the Republican budget asks not what you can do for your country, but proclaims your country refuses to do a thing for you. The Democratic budget invests in our greatest resource, the American people, the key to our Nation's continued greatness in the years to come. Vote ``yes'' on the Democratic alternative.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Republicans have branded this bill as clarification. But what demands clarification is the cold, hard fact that this legislation is a bailout for insurance companies. This has never had a hearing in the House. It has never been discussed. We have never had witnesses. No regular order whatsoever. This appeared out of nowhere. This bill, pure and simple, is a case of Republicans seeking special treatment for certain insurance companies who would like nothing more than to avoid the responsibilities under the law and sell inferior insurance policies to Americans and foreign workers and their families in the United States, which is exactly why the American people are fortunate to have the ACA as the law of the land. It is currently protecting them from these kinds of intolerable insurance company practices. Republicans have focused on coming out against bailouts for insurance companies in several other ACA contexts, but it is all sound and fury because it means nothing. With this legislation, however, Republicans want a bailout for a few insurance companies that sell so-called expatriate coverage. But why should this situation be any different? Why do the Republicans get to pick and choose? As the Republicans are now in the business of picking and choosing winners in this case, the losers are going to be the patients. Republicans claim this bill is a simple fix intended to clarify the ACA when it comes to expatriate coverage, and perhaps there is a need for that. Perhaps there is a need. We might have found it out if we had had one hearing. The current guidance defines individuals under expat plans as those who are out of the country for at least 6 months during the year. The theory is that the people are gone more than they are here. But this bill overrides current regulations and ignores the comments given by the administration to define a covered individual, and it does it and says, you are an expat if you are out of the country for as few as 90 days, or 15 trips. Now, I don't know how many people in Seattle make 15 trips out of the country in a year when they are working for Boeing or working for Microsoft or all the international companies. I have got those people in my district. This means that to serve people who move across the border daily, or frequent fliers for work, they would be exempt from the enrollees who are gone for only a few weeks. In addition, the legislation says that all foreigners who are living and working in the United States but are outside their own country for 90 days or 15 trips can also be covered by these plans. As a result, the provisions of this bill would severely undermine current H1B visa requirements that level the playing field with American workers. If you are bringing people in from the outside and they go home, or they are gone for only 90 days, well, you can somehow pay them less. This legislation will open the door for U.S. employers who wish to avoid the ACA to hire foreign workers rather than American citizens. That is why the United Farm Workers are against this bill. The United Farm Workers do a pretty good job of clarifying this bill when they say ``Congress should not pass laws that create an economic incentive to hire guest workers over professional U.S. agricultural workers.'' The AFL-CIO is against this bill because it would undermine the health security of 13 million green card holders, people with work visas, and individuals who are granted visas for humanitarian reasons. The National Immigration Law Center is against this bill because it eliminates minimum essential standards for ``expatriate health insurance plans provided to individuals who travel abroad.'' As a result, this bill would deny health coverage security for low-wage immigrant workers, including farm workers and caregivers. This bill contains too many loopholes that amount to an extraordinary bailout for insurance companies. This bill also establishes a precedent for employers to hire guest workers. It is being brought here as a suspension bill with no opportunity to amend it. It might be that we could make it a better bill if it had been through the process, but it is being rammed through here by insurance companies who want to get a benefit. This bill is yet another attempt on the part of the Republicans to repeal the Affordable Care Act. They want to drill another hole in the bottom of the bill. They are going to keep drilling holes--trying--this is number 53. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I will yield myself the balance of my time to close, having no further requests for time. I have been an expat. I was in the State Department. The State Department sent me overseas. I lived over there. I came home 1 month a year. I would leave. The rest of the time, I was an expat. That is pretty clearly an expat. My daughter teaches at the King's Academy in Amman, Jordan. She is an expat. She lives over there. She comes home in the summertime for a month or so. She is an expat. Everybody understands that. What this bill says is, if you live in Seattle and you make 15 trips a year out of the country, then you are an expat, or you could be considered an expat. Now, that is not exactly what I think most people think of when they think of an expat--or somebody who works as a contractor. Suppose you work for the Federal Government for 3 months overseas. Are you an expat? According to this, you are. You can easily be put in that category and not be offered the protections. That means you don't have any protections around the issues of preexisting conditions. You can't necessarily put your kids on your insurance up until age 26. Your lifetime limits, all of the things that are built into the Affordable Care Act, the insurance companies now can say: we don't have to offer that to you because you are out of the country 15 times a year, or you have worked overseas for 90 days. As Mr. Waxman said, you are creating a second class of citizen in this country, and Mr. Becerra raised the issue on the reverse side. People who come from other countries are expats, right, because they came from somewhere else, so they can be put into a plan that does not give them the protections of the ACA. That is not what I think my friend from Delaware or my friend from California really wanted to do. What is missing here is that we did a backroom deal. We had Members of Congress sit in a back room somewhere with somebody from the White House, talk about something and decide something, and here it is, fait accompli, no chance to change it, no chance to make it better or make it closer to what people really thought. And most interestingly for Republicans is you are sending a bill to the House and expecting that the Senate is going to fix it. Now, our experience here on the floor and in the Congress the last few months, expecting the Senate to do something is, well, it is probably--it is not like wishing for the tooth fairy, but it is certainly putting your trust in a rather weak situation. The House sent over--what?--500 bills in the last session and got 12 or 15 back? And you are saying that this one is going to be fixed? I doubt it. I yield back the balance of my time. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Washington, DC, April 8, 2014. Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.6 million members of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), I urge you to oppose the Expatriate Health Coverage Clarification Act which is scheduled for a vote tomorrow. While the bill may be intended to address concerns of health plans covering those who work part of the year outside the United States, the reach of the bill is much greater. The bill's definition of expatriate workers include 13 million individuals who are lawful permanent residents, people with work visas and individuals who were granted visas for humanitarian reasons. The bill exempts employers and insurance plans from meeting Affordable Care Act (ACA) coverage standards for these millions of people living and working in the United States. Instead, the bill would allow these employers to use their own judgment in determining whether coverage is adequate. This bill does much more than simply clarify a technical matter of the ACA. It defines a large group of people who will be treated differently by the ACA and afforded weaker protections than others. The bill undermines the premise that all families are entitled to a minimum standard of coverage and could lead to erosion in standards for other groups and eventually all families. We urge you to oppose the Expatriate Health Coverage Clarification Act. Sincerely, Charles M. Loveless, Director, Federal Government Affairs.

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