[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 98 (Wednesday, June 27, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H4067]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      COMPANION CARE WORKERS BILL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Walberg) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WALBERG. Rising health care costs remain a top concern for many 
Americans, particularly the Baby Boomers heading off into retirement 
and individuals with disabilities. However, one service in particular--
home companion care--has come under attack from the Department of Labor 
and faces a sharp rise in costs. Currently, the Fair Labor Standards 
Act provides exemptions for home care workers. And for more than four 
decades now, the exemption has helped seniors and individuals with 
disabilities maintain access to affordable in-home care.
  Companion care workers play a crucial role for those who desire to 
remain independent, performing a range of everyday tasks like helping 
to prepare meals, opening the mail, providing light housekeeping, and 
even offering someone to talk with, which is immensely helpful. 
However, the greatest service these individuals play is providing 
families with a sense that mom or dad or their loved ones are not alone 
when we need to be away.
  But in December of 2011, the Department of Labor introduced a 
proposal championed by President Obama to remove the companionship 
exemption from the Fair Labor Standards Act, a move which would 
virtually eliminate the current exemption. On top of that, it will 
raise costs for businesses and families and lead to reduced hours for 
home companion care workers. Even the Department estimates the cost of 
companion care under the proposed rule may increase by up to $2.3 
billion over the first 10 years. It will be families and seniors and 
the disabled that will struggle to pay these costs out of their own 
pockets. These changes run in stark contrast to what Congress intended 
when it first established this important exemption nearly four decades 
ago. While I recognize the delivery of services has evolved over the 
years, the need to maintain access to affordable in-home care has not.
  Seniors and the disabled in my home State of Michigan have been 
devastated by the fallout from this flawed policy. In 2006, Michigan 
made similar changes to the State law that the Department of Labor is 
currently considering. This was confirmed by a constituent in my home 
State who testified that his home companion care business, employees, 
and clients are worse off since the change went into effect. Seniors, 
those with disabilities, and their families are often unable to pay 
higher prices for the overtime requirement, forcing them to take on 
different caregivers throughout the day. This disruption to their 
schedule takes away the certainty of working with trusted caregivers. 
Many seniors and individuals with disabilities are then left with no 
choice but to leave their own homes because of the cost.
  In response, I have introduced two bills to ensure seniors and 
individuals with disabilities keep their access to affordable companion 
care. Both bills will also prevent the Federal Government from 
interfering with decisions that should be made by families. The first 
bill, H.R. 5969, the Ensuring Access to Affordable and Quality 
Companion Care Act, will clarify that home caregivers employed by a 
third-party employer or living with the individuals receiving care 
continue to be exempt from the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards 
Act. The second, H.R. 5970, The Protecting in-Home Care From Government 
Intrusion Act, will stop the Secretary of Labor from finalizing or 
enforcing a proposed rule that severely narrows the Fair Labor 
Standards Act exemption for in-home caregivers.
  If the Obama administration's proposal is not stopped, home care 
workers will lose hours and possibly their jobs. Seniors and those with 
disabilities will lose affordable care they want and need. This is 
simply a risk that we cannot afford to take.

                          ____________________