[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 53 (Wednesday, April 2, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H2821-H2833]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SAVE AMERICAN WORKERS ACT OF 2014
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 530, I call up
the bill (H.R. 2575) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
repeal the 30-hour threshold for classification as a full-time employee
for purposes of the employer mandate in the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act and replace it with 40 hours, and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 530, the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Ways and Means, printed in the bill, is adopted. The bill, as amended,
is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 2575
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Save American Workers Act of
2014''.
SEC. 2. REPEAL OF 30-HOUR THRESHOLD FOR CLASSIFICATION AS
FULL-TIME EMPLOYEE FOR PURPOSES OF THE EMPLOYER
MANDATE IN THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT AND REPLACEMENT WITH 40
HOURS.
(a) Full-Time Equivalents.--Paragraph (2) of section
4980H(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
(1) by repealing subparagraph (E), and
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following new
subparagraph:
``(E) Full-time equivalents treated as full-time
employees.--Solely for purposes of determining whether an
employer is an applicable large employer under this
paragraph, an employer shall, in addition to the number of
full-time employees for any month otherwise determined,
include for such month a number of full-time employees
determined by dividing the aggregate number of hours of
service of employees who are not full-time employees for the
month by 174.''.
(b) Full-Time Employees.--Paragraph (4) of section 4980H(c)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
(1) by repealing subparagraph (A), and
(2) by inserting before subparagraph (B) the following new
subparagraph:
``(A) In general.--The term `full-time employee' means,
with respect to any month, an employee who is employed on
average at least 40 hours of service per week.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) and
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) each will control 90 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp).
General Leave
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have
5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to
include extraneous material on H.R. 2575.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Today, I rise in support of restoring Americans' work hours so they
can see bigger paychecks and more opportunities.
ObamaCare places an unprecedented government regulation on workers,
changing the definition of ``full-time work'' from 40 hours per week to
30 hours. As a direct result, Americans across the country are having
their hours cut at work, and they are seeing smaller paychecks. At a
time when the costs of groceries, gas, and health care keep increasing,
lower paychecks are simply unacceptable.
The bill we have before us today, the Save American Workers Act,
would repeal ObamaCare's 30-hour workweek definition of ``full-time
employment'' and would restore the traditional definition of a 40-hour
workweek. Today, we are voting to restore hours and wages and to give
businesses and their workers some relief from the burdens of ObamaCare.
This is a critical step in creating an America that works.
I hear about the effects of ObamaCare from workers and employers
across mid-Michigan. Recently, Central Michigan University was forced
to cut back student employees' hours. As one student said:
Students use that money to pay for finances and school, and
I think it's going to become increasingly harder for them to
pay for school when we can only work 25 hours.
A faculty member at a community college in my district wrote to me
recently, and said:
I hold two part-time positions . . . Today, I was informed
I cannot continue to do both jobs because of ObamaCare laws.
Beginning in August, I will no longer be advising and will
lose approximately one-third of my income. Last year, I
bought a house, a house I now fear I will no longer be able
to afford.
By forcing employers to shift workers from full time to part time,
the 30-hour rule is destroying hardworking Americans' abilities to earn
more during these tough economic times. At a time when the President is
calling on Congress to increase wages, it is his health care law that
is forcing Americans to see smaller paychecks. ObamaCare is putting
full-time work and the potential to earn more wages out of the reach of
millions of Americans. Those who are hit the hardest are low-income
Americans who are already struggling in these tough economic times.
According to a Hoover Institution study, 2.6 million Americans making
under $30,000 a year are most at risk of having their hours and wages
cut as a result of the 30-hour rule. Of that, over 60 percent are
women, and 90 percent do not have a college degree.
The administration has made exceptions and has implemented delays for
big businesses and political allies. Why not American workers and job
creators?
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office confirmed the bill we are
considering today will reduce ObamaCare's unacceptable burden on job
creators and will increase wages for American workers. According to the
Congressional Budget Office, the Save American Workers Act will
increase cash wages for American workers by $75 billion, repeal $63.4
billion in ObamaCare tax increases, and reduce the number of employers
subject to penalties related to ObamaCare.
I applaud Congressman Todd Young, a distinguished member of the Ways
and Means Committee, for his work on this legislation.
It is time to vote in support of Americans who are facing higher
bills and smaller paychecks. I urge my colleagues to join me in a
``yes'' vote.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Young) to control.
[[Page H2822]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoder). Without objection, the gentleman
from Indiana will control the time.
There was no objection.
Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as the Senate continues to push for a 25 percent
increase in the Federal minimum wage, they continue to ignore that
millions of hourly workers face as much as a 25 percent pay cut as a
result of ObamaCare. Because of the 30 hours is full time provision
buried in the employer mandate, many employees face the prospect of
being limited in their work hours. When they are not allowed to work
more than 29 hours, they simply aren't able to generate the income they
need to support themselves and their families.
It is worth noting that an employee who sees his hours cut from 39 to
29 is losing 10 hours a week, which, over the course of a month, is an
entire week's worth of wages. The employees we are talking about are
the people who most depend on getting every hour and every bit of wages
that they can. We are talking about custodians, cafeteria workers, and
substitute teachers at your child's school. We are talking about the
waitresses and busboys at your favorite restaurant, about the cashier
who rings you out at the grocery store, and about the guys on the
assembly line who help make your car. In my district, we are also
talking about adjunct professors at places like Ivy Tech Community
College and Indiana University.
These are all Americans who want to work, but they are dealing with
the unintended consequences--and I do believe they are unintended--of
this health care law, ObamaCare. Some of these provisions are limiting
their hours and pay, and this needs to be fixed. So I introduced the
Save American Workers Act because I want to help these hardworking
Hoosiers and other Americans who are just trying to make ends meet. By
simply repealing this provision and restoring the traditional 40-hour
workweek, we can help make an America that works.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill.
I commend my colleagues on the other side who have already signed on as
cosponsors.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My colleagues on the Republican side in the House are so blinded by
their ideology that they will not or cannot see reality or hear other
voices. So here is the reality:
7-plus million people have enrolled in private plans through the ACA
marketplaces. The ACA is working; millions have new coverage under
Medicaid; up to 129 million Americans with preexisting health
conditions, including 17 million children, no longer have to worry
about being denied coverage or about being charged higher premiums due
to their health status; 3.1 million young adults have gained health
coverage because they can now, up to age 26, stay on their parents'
health plans. That is the reality of ACA.
There is more. There is also the reality of what this legislation
would do, and I want to emphasize this because I don't think it has
been accurately stated to date.
It would force 1 million people out of employer-based health
insurance. According to the CBO, 1 million people would be forced out
of employer-based health insurance. It would increase the number of
uninsured by about a half a million people, also according to the CBO.
So they are bringing this up at the same time that 7 million people
have enrolled in private plans through the marketplace and when
millions now have coverage under Medicaid. They essentially want to go
in reverse in terms of health coverage, and they don't face up to this.
I think it has also been misdescribed. This bill would add $74
billion to the deficit, according to the CBO, when there is no offset.
{time} 1415
That is $74 billion, and you are coming forth here, the day after we
receive the latest information about ACA and all that has happened
beneficially and now coming and saying knock people off of employer-
based insurance and add $74 billion to the deficit.
If any of those figures are wrong, I would like someone to stand up
and say so.
Also, there has been much discussion about the impact in terms of
part-time employment. I want to read what the CBO said definitively in
February. In CBO's judgment:
There is no compelling evidence that part-time employment
has increased as a result of the ACA.
So as we heard in testimony, a community college came forth and said
they had reduced the hours of teachers in order to avoid paying health
insurance. Somebody in the education came forth and said that is their
policy.
I suggest, instead of foregoing their responsibility as employers,
they ought to go into the marketplace and see what they can do to bring
more coverage for the people who are working hard.
Essentially, what you are doing here today is saying to many, many
people who are working hard and who need insurance that this bill will
knock you off your employer-based insurance and increase the number of
uninsured by half a million, while increasing the deficit by $74
billion. Ideology is indeed blind when this kind of a proposition is
put forth.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is worth noting this bill would decrease by $63
billion the amount of taxes on our employers during the worst economy,
some will say, since the Great Depression. It will cause our wage
earners around the country to realize an additional $75 billion in wage
income.
I take the fiscal condition of this country very seriously. I find it
very hard to believe, though, that anyone--a Member of this body--would
desire to pass a national health care law that is paid for on the backs
of our hourly workers, those who can least afford to absorb lower
wages, fewer hours, and perhaps losing their job altogether.
I think that is essentially the argument I hear from the other side
when I hear the $75 billion figure put forward.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Buchanan), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means
Committee.
Mr. BUCHANAN. I want to thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, there is no issue today that is more important in this
body than growing the economy and creating jobs.
The Wall Street Journal noted that there are fewer jobs today than
since the recession began back in 2007.
The gentleman from Michigan mentioned we need to go in the
marketplace. I have been in the marketplace for 30 years, as someone
who created a lot of jobs, and I can tell you this health care mandate
that has employees looking at 30 hours or less a week unless they get
health care is a big issue. The 30-hour requirement is forcing
businesses to reduce working hours and cut wages.
I had a gentleman in my congressional district last week that has
three restaurants and 291 employees. He has mentioned to me numerous
times that he is going to have to cut quite a few employees from 40
hours to 29 hours.
He has even suggested that, in many cases, to reduce his health care
costs, he is going to have to push some people down even more hours, so
he can bring down his health care costs.
The fact is that health care costs in my district are as much as
$1,500 to $2,000 an employee, so it is a big issue.
Another employer in our area--one of our larger employers--is going
to be moving hundreds of employees from 40 hours to 29 hours a week, so
it is a very big issue in my congressional district in Sarasota.
With that, I would ask my colleagues for quick passage. We need to
move this bill quickly.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
The evidence is clear that more people would have their hours reduced
if this bill passed than might be true under the present ACA.
I said what the CBO has said in terms of reduced hours of work. Once
again, you are just not facing the reality. Changing this to 40 hours
will hurt all around.
I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro).
[[Page H2823]]
Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Thank you, Ranking Member Levin, for yielding.
We speak a lot in this body about the freedoms that we as Americans
have been endowed with by our forefathers and that are enshrined in the
Constitution, whether it is the freedom of speech, the freedom of
religion, or our Second Amendment freedoms.
I think we all understand and know--unfortunately, too many Americans
know firsthand--that when you are sick and lying in a hospital bed or
at home and have a child that you can't afford to take to the doctor,
those freedoms mean very little.
For someone who couldn't get health insurance, whose life is
spiraling downward, who can't afford to make their car or mortgage
payment, how much are those freedoms worth when their life is spiraling
downward because they can't afford health care anymore?
The fact is one of the greatest things that the Affordable Care Act
has done is allowed more Americans to be able to enjoy the freedoms
that all of us here in Congress fight so hard to protect for the
American people.
A few of the troubling things about this bill is that up to a million
people would lose their health care coverage if this piece of
legislation was enacted. As Congressman Levin mentioned, it would cost
$74 billion to the American people, adding to our debt and deficit.
What is also interesting is that just about every bill that is now
allowed to pass through the House of Representatives requires a pay-
for. In other words, the Republican majority does not allow a piece of
legislation to be passed unless it is paid for by cutting something
else.
What is different about this piece of legislation is that there is no
question that it would cost $74 billion, and yet there is absolutely no
pay-for in this bill.
I would also note, as was mentioned, that this would cost American
business some money. Well, a few things; first, many, many American
businesses don't define the workweek as 40 hours. They define it as 32
hours or, sometimes, lower. Sometimes, it is 30.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.
Mr. CASTRO of Texas. So this is inconsistent even with how millions
of American businesses define full-time employment, and I would also
point out this: we know that, as our economy has started to rebound
from the worst recession that we have had since the Great Depression,
many American businesses are doing well.
Wall Street is hitting all-time highs, and the stock market has
soared. That is a good thing for America. We certainly don't begrudge
any company or business that, but small businesses are already exempted
from the ACA requirements, so this is about more sizable companies.
In an economy where business is doing well, why should we say to all
of these workers--people who are going to work every day, who have
incredible work ethic, who are powering our economy--that they don't
deserve health insurance?
I was in San Antonio--and I know it happened in many cities--and we
had long lines on Monday to enroll in the Affordable Care Act. People's
faces lit up because, for the first time in many of their lives, they
were going to be able to afford health care coverage. Many of them had
their kids with them. There were teenagers and senior citizens there.
This is a milestone in people's lives, and this bill would take that
away from a million people.
Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I know my good colleague spoke with a great deal of sincerity and
earnestness when he talked about pay-fors.
It is worth noting, once again, that the attempt to pay for this
Affordable Care Act--ObamaCare, as it is popularly known--on the backs
of our hourly workers strikes me as unconscionable and something that
none of us ought to be contemplating, which is why this is a bipartisan
effort.
Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California
(Mr. McCarthy), the distinguished majority whip.
Mr. McCARTHY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of
H.R. 2575, the Save American Workers Act.
Mr. Speaker, working on an hourly wage is tough. I know this. I
worked every single job in a deli I started 25 years ago. Working an
hourly wage is an opportunity to start, to work hard, to impress, and
to be able to move up; but in today's world, it is a little different.
Today, because of ObamaCare, you don't have the opportunity to work
the extra hours. You don't have the opportunity to expand.
Mr. Speaker, I listened to another colleague on this floor who said
small businesses up to 50 employees were exempt, so now, our law is
saying: you have to stay small, you can't grow, you can't have that
American Dream to be something bigger.
Mr. Speaker, this affects business, but it also affects the public
sector as well. In every single district across this country, this is
having a great deal of effect.
In my own hometown in Kern County, the board of supervisors no longer
allows seasonal workers, such as seasonal firefighters, because they
can't go beyond the time allowed.
My community college in my district no longer has that extra job for
the students. The students packed the boardroom and wanted to know why
we could no longer do this. They pointed to one bill, ObamaCare.
Those are the stories you hear, the stories you know about, but
numbers don't lie.
So what have the numbers shown since this law has gone into effect?
Last December, the Department of Labor showed low wage workers
clocked the shortest workweek on record, only 27.4 hours a week. That
is lower than during the recession.
Today, we have an opportunity to change that. Today, we have an
opportunity to unshackle this, so an individual can work more hours. An
individual that maybe owns a business can give other people
opportunities; and, yes, the barrier will not be there to make sure you
are only small, but you can have the American Dream. You can grow.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all to join us and make it a bipartisan bill, when
individuals have cosponsored this bill, to move America forward.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It is too bad that we don't have a position called fact-checker on
the floor. We could yield to the fact-checker every time something is
misstated. If there were such a position here today, that person would
be immensely busy.
For example, I think it is correct that student workers are exempted
from the count, so to come here and talk about students, I think,
misstates the facts.
The same is true of the story about the ACA would hurt workers, when
the truth of the matter is this shift from 30 to 40 would indeed have a
major impact in terms of people.
{time} 1430
Let me read to you from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
dated October 12, 2013:
Moreover, raising the law's threshold for full-time work
from 30 hours a week to 40 hours would make a shift toward
part-time employment much more likely, not less so. That's
because only a small share of workers today, less than 8
percent, work 34 hours a week and, thus, are more at risk of
having their hours cut below health reform's threshold.
In comparison, 43 percent of employees work 40 hours a
week, and another several percent 41 to 44 hours a week.
Thus, raising the threshold to 40 hours would place more than
five times as many workers at risk of having their hours
reduced.
That is the reality. And to come here and to say that what would
happen if we don't pass this bill is that more people would have their
hours reduced than if we pass the bill, that simply is not correct.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the House majority leader.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for his
leadership in bringing this bill forward, the Save American Workers
Act. It is today that I rise in support of the Save American Workers
Act.
Mr. Speaker, every working American deserves a fair shot at climbing
the economic ladder of success, and every wage earner deserves a chance
to
[[Page H2824]]
live the American Dream. However, over the past few months, we have
watched the President's health care law wreak havoc on working families
and squeeze the middle class, who are already struggling to make ends
meet.
As we all know, millions of people have seen their premiums and
deductibles go up under the President's health care law, while others
have been forced off the very plans they were promised they could keep.
But that is not the full picture. Because of the 30-hour workweek
provision in ObamaCare, wage earners could see their hours reduced,
resulting in a 25 percent cut to their pay.
Now, let me just take a moment to explain exactly who might see their
paychecks shrink. According to a study by the Hoover Institution, there
are 2.6 million Americans especially at risk of having their wages cut.
Of those 2.6 million, 59 percent are younger workers between the ages
of 18 and 34, many of whom may be trying to save for college or for
their first home; 63 percent are women, many of them single moms trying
to support their children. The median household income for families
most at risk from harm under this ObamaCare regulation is just over
$29,000. That is the median household income most at risk.
The bottom line is this: the workers most affected by these cuts are
those who earn the least. For someone who currently earns $10 an hour
and works 40 hours a week, being cut to 29 hours means a loss of $110
each and every week. Three out of four Americans are already claiming
they are working paycheck to paycheck. A 25 percent cut to their income
would have a devastating effect. This is not how America should work.
While this rule will impact Americans in all different industries,
those who are most likely to be affected work in retail, restaurants,
manufacturing, and even America's education sector.
In my hometown of Richmond, many school districts have begun to limit
part-time workers to less than 30 hours a week to avoid added costs
imposed by the advent of this health care law and would thus strain
their budgets.
A substitute teacher named Amy, from Chesterfield County, Virginia,
was asked by the Richmond Times-Dispatch about the burdens of this rule
under ObamaCare, and she said: ``The people that it is going to affect
are the people that need or want to work every single day.''
So why is the government punishing those who are looking to earn an
honest wage?
This administration believes that they can hide the reality of the
wage cuts with an increase in the minimum wage. But that proposal,
which the nonpartisan experts say will result in 500,000 lost jobs, is
not the answer. The answer is restore the 40-hour workweek and let
people work.
We have known for a long time that the President's health care law
was broken, but now it is beginning to break the backs of American
workers. Our constituents don't deserve this broken law or more broken
promises. They deserve a fair shot at success without the government
standing in the way.
Today, we have an opportunity to unclench this middle class squeeze
and restore the 40-hour workweek so that wage earners don't have to
worry about smaller paychecks. So let's stand together, in a bipartisan
fashion, and take a big step towards creating an America that works
again--and works again for everyone.
I would like to thank Chairman Camp, Representative Young, and the
rest of the Ways and Means Committee for their hard work on this issue,
and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support working
families by passing this legislation.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I shall consume.
I knew the majority would come here and talk about the middle class.
They are trying to escape from their failure to help take action to
provide jobs for middle class Americans.
They also, by the way, so far haven't helped out to provide the
continuation of the unemployment insurance for hundreds of thousands of
people, so many in the middle class, who have lost their jobs.
Look, I quoted from CBO, and I guess I will have to quote again. This
is in February. ``In CBO's judgment, there is no compelling evidence
that part-time employment has increased as a result of the ACA.''
I will quote again from this study of the Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities, and it is headed this way: ``Health reform not causing
significant shift to part-time work, but raising threshold to 40 hours
a week would make a sizable shift likely.''
I quoted why they say that because the number of people who are
working 40 hours or thereabouts, that number is so much larger than
those who are working 30 hours or thereabouts; and so any employer who
wanted, essentially, to shift the burden from them to others, they are
more likely to do it under this bill than under the present
circumstance. That is the reason why it has been said by CBO that it
would force 1 million people out of employer-based health insurance,
and it would add $74 billion to the deficit since it is not offset.
You haven't refuted a single one of those statements. If they are not
true, I would like you to say so. I would like you to say CBO is wrong,
and also wrong when they say it would increase the number of uninsured
by half a million people.
Those are three CBO statements. They stand here to refute the myths
that are being brought here in defense of this bill.
So you raise the middle class banner. At the same time, you
essentially, with this bill, would take away health insurance from
many, many, many, many, many middle class citizens. That is what you
would be doing here.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind Members to address
their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen), a distinguished member of the Committee
on Ways and Means.
Mr. PAULSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, it has been said before, the more we learn about the
President's health care law, the more the facts show it is hurting more
people than it is helping. The latest development now is the law's 30-
hour rule is forcing some companies to scale back hours with more part-
time jobs and less full-time jobs, so that those employees that have
good full-time jobs are now having to go to part-time jobs.
Mr. Speaker, I met with a small business owner. He owns seven
different restaurants. And I know that a lot of folks think that people
in the restaurant industry, they only employ part-time workers, but 41
percent of his workers he employs full-time. But because of the new
law, where now 30 hours is the standard being considered full-time
work, he is being forced to lower the work hours for those employees,
nearly all of them, to 29 hours or less. That absolutely makes no
sense. These reduced hours are now going to force a 25 percent
reduction in pay for those workers. Many will now have to go out and
find a second part-time job just to make up for the hours that they
lost.
Another small business owner I talked to from Minnesota, he was
imploring me when he contacted me: please, Congress needs to correct
the 30-hour rule so that it reflects his workforce's needs and his
employees' desire to have more flexible hours. He said, if it's not
addressed by Congress soon, there will be disruptions in the workforce,
and the flexible work options for his employees could disappear
altogether.
The 30-hour work rule is negatively impacting restaurateurs,
manufacturers, and even our schools, as was mentioned earlier, Mr.
Speaker. We should be removing these barriers to work. We should not
punish employees who want to work more, and we should be helping
American workers.
So let's pass this legislation. It will restore some common sense and
a common understanding in America that full-time work is 40 hours. It
will pass with bipartisan support.
I commend the gentleman for his leadership on this issue for getting
Americans back to work.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
[[Page H2825]]
I would like to also indicate the fact that I, too, have read the
Congressional Budget Office's estimate of this legislation. They
indicate that $75 billion in wages will be lost as a result of the
Affordable Care Act if something like the Save American Workers Act
isn't implemented.
So, effectively, I hear some of my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle making the case that we ought to be funding the Affordable
Care Act essentially on the backs of these hourly workers, and I don't
think that is a position anyone wants to find themselves in.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Salmon).
Mr. SALMON. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting, as we throw all these numbers around,
I guess they mean a lot on the floor debate, but to the real people
that are suffering, they don't really mean anything.
There is an old adage that says there are lies, damn lies, and
statistics. We are throwing numbers around here like they matter, but
the fact is there are real people's lives that are being hurt, being
destroyed.
In fact, I read an article just a few months ago that the community
college where I met my wife is actually notifying 1,300 employees, 700
of them that were adjunct professors, that their hours are going to be
reduced, and they are being reduced because of this law. They are being
hurt.
I guess we can quote them a statistic to tell them: go on your merry
way. I know you can't pay for your mortgage. I know you can't make your
car payment. You can't pay for your child's college education, but we
got this great statistic that we just got out of Congress that ought to
make you feel better about your life.
The fact is we ought to be more concerned about individuals than we
are throwing numbers around.
I understand CBO also said that total implementation of ObamaCare
would cost $2.1 trillion. The fact is we can use statistics to say just
about whatever we want them to say, but real people's lives are being
hurt; and we have a responsibility here in this body to do everything
that we can to try to raise the lifestyle in this country, not degrade
it.
People are losing their jobs. My son lost his insurance because of
ObamaCare. He was one of that small percentage--again, a statistic--
that we were quoted, but the fact is he lost his insurance. Now he just
told us that he is having his third child. The first two children were
delivered by a doctor that they know and trust, but because of
ObamaCare, their doctor is not covered under their new policy. To add
insult to injury, when he went on the exchange to sign up, after he was
told that his policy was no longer covered because of ObamaCare, his
premiums went up from $450 a month to $850 a month. That is hardly
helping people.
I think that it is safe to note, this law was passed without one
Republican, and it is time that we stopped our high horse of statistics
and actually care about people.
{time} 1445
Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, if you care about people you should be for the ACA.
Seven million people have been enrolled in private plans through the
ACA marketplaces, 7 million-plus. And millions--we will get the
figures--now have coverage under Medicaid. That is lots of millions of
people, and you come forth with an individual case?
In many cases, I don't know your instance, these cases have turned
out to be incorrect. They have been put in political ads, and they have
been refuted.
I now want to read the Statement of Administration Policy from the
President:
The administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R.
2575, the Save American Workers Act--it should be the so-
called Save American Workers Act--because it would
significantly increase the deficit and reduce the number of
Americans with employer-based health insurance. Rather than
attempting once again to repeal the Affordable Care Act,
which the House has tried to do over 50 times, it is time for
the Congress to stop fighting old political battles and join
the President in an agenda focused on providing greater
economic opportunity and security for middle class families
and all those working to get into the middle class.
This legislation would weaken the provision of the
Affordable Care Act that keeps employers from dropping health
insurance coverage and shifting the cost to taxpayers.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, it would
increase the budget deficit by $73.7 billion over the 2015 to
2024 period. Moreover, the proposed change would reduce the
number of people receiving employer-based coverage by about 1
million, while increasing the number of uninsured.
The Affordable Care Act gives people greater control over
their own health care. Since October 1, over 7 million have
signed up for insurance in the health insurance marketplaces.
Because of the Affordable Care Act, Americans who have
previously been denied coverage due to a preexisting
condition now have access to coverage. Additionally, the law
helps millions of Americans stay on their parents' plan until
age 26 and provides access to free preventive care like
cancer screenings that catch illness early on.
While the administration welcomes ideas to improve the law,
H.R. 2575 would undermine it by shifting costs to taxpayers
and causing employers either to drop or to not expand health
insurance coverage.
``If the President''--and this is underlined--``were presented with
H.R. 2575 he would veto it.''
With that very effective, I think so convincing statement--I hope all
listen to it--I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe what I just
heard. I heard that individual cases ought not be cited, that that is
somehow off limits.
Mr. Speaker, one of my colleagues just cited the example of his son,
lost his insurance despite the promises of this bill during campaign
season. He lost his doctor. He saw his insurance premiums and copays go
up. These are real lives we are talking about. These are real hours and
real wages that we are trying to remedy. This is a real 40-hour
workweek that people depend upon.
Then to cite the Statement of Administration Policy as somehow being
more authoritative than these personal examples I find, frankly, a bit
off-putting.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), the chairman of the Education and
the Workforce Committee.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
It was pointed out by the chairman in the House Education and the
Workforce Committee, as the name suggests, the committee has broad
jurisdiction over policies affecting our Nation's classrooms and
workplaces. It goes without saying that both face difficult challenges
today.
Budget constraints continue to plague States, school districts, and
institutions of higher education, straining their ability to
effectively serve students. Workers and job creators are still
struggling in a persistently anemic economy, making it difficult for
many Americans to pay the bills and provide for their families.
Unfortunately, the health care law is making things worse. Thanks to
the President's government-run scheme, full-time jobs are being
destroyed, not created. Health care costs are going up, not down; and
millions of individuals are losing the health care plan they like--an
example of which we just heard earlier--instead of keeping it as
promised.
This reality isn't limited to private businesses. It is a reality
unfolding in schools, colleges, and universities across the country.
Recent headlines confirm in stark detail how the President's health
care law is hurting our education system.
From The Washington Free Beacon: ``Alabama schools face shortage of
substitute teachers due to ObamaCare.''
From The Weekly Standard: ``Hours cut for 200 North Carolina teachers
due to ObamaCare.''
And just in case my friends from the other side of the aisle would
accuse me of selecting only conservative publications, from The New
York Times: ``Public sector capping part-time hours to skirt health
care law.''
Aside from press reports, we have also heard firsthand accounts of
how ObamaCare is making it harder for school leaders to meet the needs
of students. In December, the committee asked the public to share
personal stories about the effects of the health care law on local
classrooms and campuses.
Helieanna, from Saint Anthony, Minnesota, described her dream to
teach at the school she once attended as a student. While that dream
may have come
[[Page H2826]]
true, she wrote that her financial situation is less stable than it was
before the health care law.
Kate, from Hemet, California, informed the committee that her
community college would have to restrict workers' hours, noting this
impacts our ability to properly serve students.
Secretary Sebelius once dismissed concerns about jobs lost and hours
cut under ObamaCare as ``speculation.'' Yet for Helieanna, Kate, and
countless others, the health care law is wreaking havoc on their
families, their livelihood, and their schools. It is time to do
something about it.
By restoring the traditional standard of full-time work, the Save
American Workers Act will help restore workers' hours and allow them to
earn the wages they deserve. Just as important, the legislation will
provide relief for schools grappling with a flawed health care law.
Congress should not stand by while teachers have their hours cut and
students receive diminished access to educational opportunities, all
because of bad policies out of Washington.
Certainly I urge my colleagues to provide relief for our Nation's
workplaces and classrooms by supporting the Save American Workers Act.
I would point out, as my colleague did, that taking the
administration's Statement of Administrative Policy as definitive here
defies, frankly, all logic.
There is no one in America who would be surprised that the President
doesn't want changes to his law, unless he unilaterally makes those
changes, because after all, Mr. Speaker, if you like your health care
plan, you can keep your health care plan--unless you can't. If you like
your doctor, Mr. Speaker, you can keep your doctor--except when you
can't.
Before I yield back my time, I would like to thank the Ways and Means
Committee for their excellent work on this legislation, and I would
like to take a moment to recognize my friend and colleague, Dave Camp,
who announced earlier this week his plan to retire. During more than 20
years of service, Chairman Camp has been a distinguished Member, a
dedicated reformer, and tireless champion of working families. We are
going to miss him. I wish him all the best.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the balance of
our time today be managed by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel),
a member of the committee.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. RANGEL. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Lynch).
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for
yielding.
I rise today in opposition to this bill, the so-called Save American
Workers Act, and to speak in support of working men and women of this
great country. I am here today and every day, not only as a Member of
Congress, but as someone who knows what it is like to work for a
living.
As someone who for 18 years as an ironworker strapped on a pair of
work boots during boom times and down economies, I know what it is like
to stand in an unemployment line when my local shipyard closed and when
our auto plant shut down.
Mr. Speaker, I am part of the American workforce. Like many of my
colleagues, I represent hundreds of thousands of hard-working people
who struggle every day to make ends meet. That is why I am deeply
offended that the Republican leadership of this House, the people's
House, has the temerity to refer to any of their efforts in the context
of saving the American worker.
Now, the simple fact is that during my time in Congress the actions
of my colleagues, especially the Republican leadership, have spoken
loudly to the contrary. It is impossible in the time allowed to me to
cover all the anti-worker efforts that the Republican majority has
undertaken since I have been in Congress. They have continually tried
to roll back prevailing wage laws and workers' rights and protections
that have been in place since the 1930s. They tried to cripple the
National Labor Relations Board, put in place in 1935 to protect
American workers.
Their attacks on the Federal workforce are ceaseless, freezing pay
and cutting benefits, and demoralizing our hard-working men and women
in government. The Republican leadership has opposed equal pay for
women; they have opposed raising the minimum wage; they have opposed
employee nondiscrimination legislation. In fact, they won't even bring
some of those bills for a vote.
As we struggle to recover from the worst economic downturn since the
Great Depression, the Republican leadership has refused to extend
emergency unemployment benefits to the long-term unemployed, many of
whom use that money just to put food on the table while they search for
work.
Now the Republican majority has the audacity to put forward a bill
they call the Save American Workers Act. We have got to save the
American worker from you. That is who we need to be saving them from.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. RANGEL. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I thank the
Speaker for his indulgence.
The bill before us today is more of the same. According to the
Congressional Budget Office, the bill will add $74 billion to the
Federal deficit, force 1 million more people to lose employer-covered
health care, and leave 500,000 completely uninsured.
According to a study released by the University of California
Berkley, this bill will cause 6.5 million workers to lose more hours.
This bill, like so many others offered by my colleagues from across the
aisle, is not crafted to save the American worker. It is crafted to
increase the profits of large employers while workers continue to
struggle.
Perhaps this bill should be named the ``Save American CEO Act.'' It
is the height of hypocrisy, that after all their efforts to harm the
American worker my colleagues should have the audacity to even offer a
bill entitled ``Save American Workers Act.''
We all know and realize that we need to save the American worker from
the Republican leadership. That is what we need to do. So I urge my
colleagues to continue to oppose these efforts to destroy the middle
class and sabotage the American worker and the American family.
Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Roe), a member of the Education and Workforce
Committee.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, this bill would repeal ObamaCare's
mandate on employers to provide insurance to all employees working at
least 30 hours per week and would instead restore the traditional 40-
hour standard. Everywhere I go, I hear concerns about the lack of jobs
and the need for job creation. Tennessee's unemployment rate is still
near 7 percent. We need to be doing everything possible to encourage
employers to not only create jobs, but to maintain current jobs.
That is why the 30-hour standard makes no sense. Employers are
already struggling to make their budgets work in the stagnant Obama
economy. We all know how the employers are forced to respond: by
cutting hours or hiring fewer workers. There is concrete evidence this
is already happening, not just in the private sector. In my own
hometown, Johnson, Tennessee, where I was mayor before I came here, the
city school system been forced to keep approximately 200 employees,
including substitute teachers, below the 129 hours a month.
{time} 1500
This hurts the families that count on that income and the
schoolchildren that benefit from the efforts of these adults.
President Obama's case for defending this flawed law is built on a
false premise: that there is no other way to help individuals who
cannot afford health insurance or who have been affected by a
catastrophic illness or disease.
Mr. Speaker, I have spent my entire adult life as a physician taking
care of people from all walks of life. I want every American to have
access to an affordable health care plan, and I have worked since I
arrived in Congress to develop patient-centered solutions to help
people afford health care, like H.R. 3121, the American Health Care
Reform Act.
[[Page H2827]]
There are ways to reach this goal without creating massive new
bureaucracies, spending $2 trillion, weakening the doctor-patient
relationship, or increasing premiums for millions of hardworking
Americans, but the President won't even engage in a conversation. So,
in the meantime, we must do everything we can to protect the American
people from this law. That is why I encourage my colleagues to support
this bill.
Mr. RANGEL. I yield myself, Mr. Speaker, such time as I may consume.
I think, Mr. Speaker, this is about the 52nd time that the Republican
majority has attempted to either repeal or derail the Affordable Care
Act. I don't know why they do it so often since constitutionally it is
abundantly clear that they don't have the votes to pass it in the
Senate, and clearly, if it ever reached the President's desk, it would
be vetoed, and there are not enough votes to override the veto. So,
clearly, this madness continues even after more than enough people have
enrolled, far beyond those that were expected by some of the
Republicans. And this struggle, this madness, goes on as though
Democrats are the only people that are going to become sick and need
health care.
So I don't know where we go from here. I assume that comes the next
election, once again, the voters will speak out. And for those people
that have had kids on their insurance policy, we will hear from them;
for those who have had preconditions and couldn't get health insurance,
we will hear from them; for those that thought that getting preventive
health care was a luxury, we should hear from them; but, more
importantly, the people who just could not afford insurance. I cannot
conceive how these people are all Democrats, in that the Republicans
have no people that are vulnerable to illnesses and the severe expenses
that are involved.
But, clearly, it has been my opinion that if this bill doesn't work,
if it fails, and if some of these tactics had been successful, that the
Democrats would be embarrassed by its failure. But I also thought--and
it makes a lot of sense to me--that if, indeed, the American people
started to understand the complexities of the bill and thought they
were in need of health insurance, as close to 10 million people feel,
then the Republicans would have to defend their negative position as to
why they fight so hard to deny people health insurance.
So I understand from Mr. Lynch that the bill is named after workers.
So that brings me to include a letter for the Record from the AFL/CIO.
Clearly, this is not a management outfit but really supports the
workers, and they, of course, are opposed to this bill that is drafted
to go nowhere.
In addition to that, I include for the Record, Mr. Speaker, a letter
from the AFSCME into the Record, which represents county and municipal
employees, and they strongly oppose the legislation that the Republican
majority has brought to the floor.
Lastly, I include for the Record a letter from the National Education
Association that opposes this legislation.
Before I reserve the balance of my time, I would like to join in with
the majority that has complimented the work of Chairman David Camp. His
announcement surprised most of us, but I don't think in his challenge
that he has really proven his chairmanship to be all that we expected
from him and then some. I regret the Republicans have passed over his
opportunity to reform the tax law, but, then again, the chairman's tax
reform law made too much sense for anybody to think that it would be
picked up by the Republican majority. But it was a bill that would be
great for discussion; it was hard hitting; it provided a lot of
savings; and it reduced the rates.
So I don't know why before he leaves that we couldn't have this taken
up, but it is my understanding that the gift that was given to him by
his majority was just to allow him to present his draft. I think that
is unfortunate because, if ever there was a time we need to reform the
tax laws, it would be now. So I congratulate Chairman Camp for his
attempt to introduce this to the House, and I regret that the
Republican majority has, out of hand, rejected it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial
Organizations,
Washington, DC, January 28, 2014.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the AFL-CIO, I am writing
to express our strong opposition to the Save American Workers
Act (H.R. 2575) sponsored by Congressman Todd Young and the
Forty Hours is Full Time Act (H.R. 2988) introduced by
Representative Dan Lipinski.
Both of these bills would weaken the employer
responsibility requirements of the Affordable Care Act (ACA)
by increasing to 40 hours per week the threshold at which
employers are required to either offer coverage or pay a
penalty. Contrary to the intent of this legislation, economic
data show that raising the threshold would cause more
employers to reduce the hours of their workers, and it would
result in millions of working families losing employment-
based insurance coverage.
As the Ways and Means Committee examines these issues in a
hearing this week, and as discussions continue, the House
should instead seek to strengthen the employer responsibility
requirements of the ACA by lowering the hours threshold,
requiring employers to provide coverage for workers who work
20 hours a week or more, and by applying a pro rata shared
responsibility penalty if workers with fewer than 20 hours
are not offered coverage. This is the only way to protect
groups of workers--such as low-wage employees, school staff,
and adjunct professors--that will lose wages under the
existing incentive to reduce hours.
Unfortunately, the ACA's employer responsibility
requirements do not adequately sanction employers that drop
coverage or decline to offer affordable, comprehensive
coverage. The $2,000 penalty for not offering coverage to a
full-time employee pales in comparison to the average annual
cost of single coverage, which was $5,884 in 2013. The ACA's
extension of Medicaid eligibility to the uninsured will tempt
low road employers to move lower-income employees into the
program, since the law has no penalty to discourage employers
from shifting the responsibility for covering these workers.
In the construction industry, where the vast majority of
firms have fewer than 50 employees, there is no penalty for
companies that fail to provide coverage, creating a
competitive disadvantage for employers that do provide
coverage. A true ``employer mandate'' would address these
issues and other weaknesses in the employer requirements.
The bills introduced by Representatives Young and Lipinski
would take the ACA in the opposite direction, compounding the
problem they seek to solve. A December 2013 analysis by the
UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education found
that the approach employed by this legislation--moving the
threshold for coverage from 30 hours to 40 hours--would
result in reduced work hours for three times as many workers
(6.5 million) compared to the number vulnerable to a
reduction of hours at the current threshold (2.3 million).
The researchers also found that the approach would
``effectively eliminate'' the employer shared responsibility
requirement, because employers could cut workers to 39 hours
or less with relatively little cost. Pointing to the
Congressional Budget Office estimate that one million workers
will lose job-based coverage as a result of the
Administration's one-year delay in implementing the current
employer responsibility rules, the researchers warned that
making the ``employer requirement effectively non-binding on
a permanent basis'' would cause many more workers to lose
employment-based coverage. The responsibility for covering
this group would shift from employers to the federal
government, incurring substantial new costs. Instead, the
authors recommend that the incentive to reduce hours created
by the 30-hour cliff could be addressed by applying the
employer requirement to part-time workers and by pro rating
the penalty for these workers.
The AFL-CIO endorses this kind of approach. We seek a full
penalty for employers that fail to provide affordable,
comprehensive coverage to workers averaging 20 hours a week
or more. A pro-rated penalty should apply if adequate
coverage is not provided to employees working less than 20
hours. This policy would eliminate the cliff imposed by the
current 30-hour threshold, rather than simply shifting it
higher and creating a new incentive for employers to reduce
hours.
We look forward to working with you to strengthen the
employer responsibility rules of the ACA, by extending
coverage requirements to part-time workers and bolstering
requirements related to the affordability and
comprehensiveness of coverage. Achieving the coverage goals
of the Affordable Care Act will depend upon maintaining
employer responsibility for providing coverage to working
families.
Sincerely,
William Samuel,
Director,
Government Affairs Department.
____
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees, AFL-CIO,
Washington, DC, February 3, 2014.
House Ways and Means Committee,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.6 million members
of the American, Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees, I am writing to express our strong opposition to
the Save American Workers Act
[[Page H2828]]
(H.R. 2575), sponsored by Rep. Todd Young and the Forty Hours
is Full Time Act (H.R. 2988), sponsored by Rep. Dan Lipinski.
Both of these bills would weaken employer responsibility
requirements of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) by increasing
to 40 hours per week, the threshold at which employers are
required to either offer coverage or pay a penalty. Based on
research described in testimony to the Committee last week,
three times as many workers would be at risk of a reduction
in hours if one of these bills became law. Rather than
resolve any problems that may exist, these bills would make
them worse.
Financing our health care system must be a shared
responsibility. While our health care system is based on
employer-provided coverage, some employers are shirking their
responsibility. Instead of making it easier for employers to
do so, the ACA should be strengthened to ask more from
employers. We urge the Committee to approve legislation that
would require employers to provide coverage for those working
20 hours or more, or pay a penalty. A pro-rated penalty
should apply for workers who put in fewer than 20 hours per
week.
Today, we urge you to oppose legislation to raise the
hour's threshold to 40.
Sincerely,
Charles M. Loveless.
____
National Education Association,
Washington, DC, February 4, 2014.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the 3 million members of
the National Education Association, and the students they
serve, we urge you to vote NO on the Save American Workers
Act of 2013 (H.R. 2575), scheduled to be voted on in
committee today. We oppose the bill because we believe it
would create a disincentive for employers to provide health
care coverage, negatively impacting employer sponsored health
insurance and harming families, children and educators who
need coverage.
We believe that the Affordable Care Act's shared
responsibility for employers, sometimes referred to as the
employer penalty, supports the overall goal of expanding
quality, affordable coverage to all Americans.
We are concerned that this bill's changes to the ACA's
definition of what constitutes full-time employment from ``on
average at least 30 hours of service per week'' monthly to an
average of 40 hours per week monthly would adversely affect
overall employer-sponsored health coverage. It also may lead
to higher costs to the federal government as workers are
passed off to exchanges and potentially become eligible for
premium tax credits and cost-sharing reductions.
Additionally, if employer-based coverage is reduced, an
even greater number of low-income individuals and their
families in the 25 states that have refused to expand
Medicaid will be unable to afford buying health benefits. In
those states, childless adults whose incomes fall below 100
percent of the federal poverty line will not only be denied
access to Medicaid coverage, but they will be ineligible for
premium tax credits and cost-sharing reductions through a
health insurance marketplace (exchange). Moving the full-time
definition from 30 hours to 40 hours, as this bill does,
would only expand the number of people hurt by this coverage
gap.
We believe the bill misses the mark by substituting ``40
hours'' for ``30 hours'' because it would do nothing to stop
employers' misuse of the ACA's employer penalty provisions as
a justification for cutting employees' hours. Experience with
this portion of the ACA shows that one of the biggest
implementation challenges in the education sector consists of
making sure that employers and other health plan sponsors
fully understand the law's provisions related to shared
responsibility for employers. For years, we have engaged with
the Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service
to ensure that regulations on shared responsibility for
employers work consistently well in the education sector, and
believe regulators have taken important steps to correct
this.
The changes contemplated in H.R. 2575, however, would
simply shift the hours-related context in which these common
errors take place:
Mistakenly believing that the only way to avoid employer
penalties is to cut employees' hours to under 30 a week or to
under six hours a day;
Misunderstanding how and when to use proposed regulations
related to an optional hours-counting method called the look-
back measurement method;
Overestimating the potential cost of complying with the
law's provisions on shared responsibility for employers; and
Failing to incorporate into decision-making the statutory
and regulatory provisions that ensure that this part of the
ACA establishes possible penalties on large employers rather
than an ``employer mandate.''
These and other ACA-implementation errors can lead to
exaggerated responses that hurt students, workers, and
families alike. Unfortunately, H.R. 2575 would just shift the
hours-related focal point for such errors.
Employers who take the time to understand the law and
regulations as they currently stand can develop common sense,
constructive, and consensual approaches to properly
implementing the law.
Again, we urge you to vote NO on H.R. 2575. We would
welcome the opportunity to work with the committee on this
issue.
Sincerely,
Mary Kusler,
Director of Government Relations.
Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge that
to get a bill this far in the legislative process requires the work of
a lot of people: my own staff within my office, the committee staff,
and my fellow colleagues who are willing to provide a consultative
role, constructive advice, and a very strong leadership role.
So, with that, I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Michigan, Tim Walberg, who helped us
introduce this bill. He is a member of the Education and the Workforce
Committee.
Mr. WALBERG. I thank the gentleman. I thank you for your leadership.
Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to stand here in support of this
legislation--good legislation--that will help people in my district in
Michigan, a hard-hit State because of economic problems and, I think,
bad, bad efforts and policies from an administration that didn't
understand that workers who are encouraged to work to their fullest
extent produce an economy.
It is hard to take seriously the objections of the Democrat side of
the aisle here when they talk about the middle class, they talk about
employees and their efforts to help them, a party who enshrines the
minimum wage and unemployment insurance as the golden grail of what
grows an economy. I find that absurd.
It is a party who has decimated the middle class in the last 6 years
with policies including what we are discussing today. Moving from 40
hours to 30 hours as full-time worker requirements? I don't get it.
We also understand it is the same party that told us, if you like
your insurance, you can keep it--no. If you like your doctor, you can
keep it--no. If you like your hospital, you can keep it--no. And now we
hear their objection that basically says, if you like your job, you can
keep it--no.
Back in September, before this ill-advised law took place, Janet from
Jackson, Michigan, called my office in tears, a 56-year-old mother of
three, single parent, who had just been told that morning by her job
provider in home health care--a very valuable field of service--that
she no longer would be working 36 hours, which was her normal working
hour opportunity, and was being moved back to 28 because of what? The
Affordable Care Act requirements. And so she said to my office staff,
in tears:
How am I now going to make it when I was making it on 36
hours at that job, supplementing that with a waitress job on
the weekend, and I was paying my mortgage and my insurance,
and now I am going to be asked to pay for all that on 28
hours? I am 56 years old. Where am I going to get another
job?
That is what is being produced by this. We want to give Janet the
opportunity to have her 36 hours back. We want to give Jim, Jerry, and
Joan, and all the rest of the people, the opportunity to have the
fullest hours they can possibly have in an America that grows the
middle class and gives opportunity for success.
Mr. RANGEL. I just don't know what part of the Constitution the
gentleman doesn't understand, but the truth of the matter is that this
law passed the House of Representatives, passed the Senate, was signed
into law, and verified by the United States Supreme Court, and still we
hear people yelling at the darkness that we should repeal it.
Now, there are ways to do these things, but one thing is abundantly
clear: the way we have been going about this, the 52 parliamentary
opportunities that the House has had, this doesn't work. And so if you
tried something 51 times, it would seem to me, unless somebody is
putting something in the water on the other side of the aisle, that we
will try something else like try to repair it, try to fix it, try in a
bipartisan way to see where we agree that changes could be made to make
it easier for employers and employees. But this barking at the Moon, to
me, is just a waste of taxpayers' money and time.
How many speakers do we have, and how much time do we have remaining,
Mr. Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hultgren). The gentleman from New York
has 62 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Indiana has 64 minutes
remaining.
[[Page H2829]]
Mr. RANGEL. How many speakers does the gentleman have? I only have
two speakers.
Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. We have six speakers on this side.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I would like to include in the
Record a letter of support for the Save American Workers Act, the
bipartisan bill, by the National Restaurant Association.
Mr. Speaker, I also now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), a member of the Education
and the Workforce Committee.
National Restaurant Association,
Washington, DC, April 1, 2014.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the National Restaurant
Association, the leading trade association representing the
restaurant and foodservice industry, I write to urge you to
vote YES in favor of H.R. 2575, the ``Save American Workers
Act,'' when it is considered on the House floor this week.
The National Restaurant Association may consider any votes
on, or related to, such legislation in our annual ``How They
Voted'' legislative scorecard.
H.R. 2575 would reinstate the historic definition of full-
time as working 40 hours per week. The law's definition of
full-time set at 30 hours could have lasting impacts on the
labor market, far beyond the Affordable Care Act, with the
unintended consequence of potentially limiting hours for
workers who do not intend to rely on their employer for their
insurance needs.
One reason so many Americans are drawn to restaurant and
foodservice industry jobs is the flexibility to build a work
schedule or change hours to suit their personal needs.
Generally, most restaurant operators have classified
positions as salaried and hourly, not full- or part-time.
Previously, hourly workers were able to take on extra shifts
as available and as they chose to work. However, under this
law, there is now a bright line as to who is considered full-
time and who is considered part-time. As a result, the
flexibility so many enjoy and seek out in working for the
industry may become harder to find.
In its analysis of the legislation, the Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) acknowledged employers' commitment to
offering coverage to employees and projects that only a small
percentage of employers would either reassign or reduce hours
of employees who work more than 40 hours per week. More than
156 million people would continue to be covered by employer-
sponsored plans, underscoring the CBO' s conclusion that
``most of the affected employers would continue to offer
coverage because most employers construct compensation
packages to attract the best available workers at the lowest
possible cost.''
Aligning the law's definition of full-time employee status
with current levels used by restaurant and foodservice
operators would help avoid any unnecessary disruptions to
employees' wages and hours, and would provide significant
relief to employers. The National Restaurant Association
supports H.R. 2575 and encourages you to vote YES when it is
considered on the House floor.
Sincerely,
Scott DeFife,
Executive Vice President,
Policy and Government Affairs.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Thank you, Congressman Young, for
yielding.
As an original cosponsor, I am very grateful for Chairman John Kline
and Congressman Todd Young for their thoughtful leadership on this very
important issue with the Save American Workers Act.
ObamaCare is the saddest example of Big Government failure. The
American people have lost their health care plans, access to their most
trusted doctors, and been forced to pay significant premium increases
for poorer coverage and higher deductibles.
On top of all of these broken promises, it is tragic for American
families that the President's signature health care law will also
destroy jobs. Every day, real constituents living in South Carolina's
Second Congressional District reach out to me expressing frustration
with this broken law. Jennifer, a true small business owner from
Lexington, writes:
Keep trying to repeal ObamaCare at all costs. The employer
mandate will cause my business to move full-time employees to
part-time.
Dozens of actual people express these same sentiments and plead with
Congress to provide relief. The National Federation of Independent
Business, NFIB, was correct that ObamaCare will destroy 1.6 million
jobs.
ObamaCare's 30-hour workweek rule is lowering wages for a significant
portion of hardworking Americans, the very ones the President claims to
champion.
On behalf of the millions of Americans who are receiving smaller
paychecks and having to work multiple jobs, I urge my colleagues to
support this bill and provide greater economic security and opportunity
for those who need it the most.
Mr. RANGEL. At this time, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman), the former chairman of the Energy and Commerce
Committee that played such an important role in bringing this historic
legislation to the floor and to the law.
{time} 1515
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, this is an historic week for the economic
security of the American people. After the unprecedented surge in
enrollment, the Affordable Care Act has led to the largest expansion of
health insurance coverage in half a century.
More than 7.1 million Americans have signed up for private coverage
through the marketplaces. More than 3 million young adults are covered
through their parents' plans, and millions more Americans are now
covered through Medicaid or through private insurance purchased
directly from an insurer.
According to an analysis by the Los Angeles Times, more than 9.5
million Americans who previously lacked health insurance now have
coverage because of the Affordable Care Act.
These millions of Americans now have the peace of mind and economic
security that comes with quality, affordable health insurance, and
every American knows that they will never be discriminated against
because of a preexisting condition. These are historic achievements.
However, despite these reforms to our health system, the Affordable
Care Act does not change the fact that the vast majority of Americans
who have health insurance get it through their employer. In fact, the
law strengthens the employer-sponsored insurance system.
It encourages larger employers to do the responsible thing and offer
their employees affordable coverage. It ensures that workers get
quality coverage and do not face harsh annual limits on their coverage.
The bill before us today, however, weakens the employer-sponsored
insurance system and hurts American workers. The Congressional Budget
Office has indicated that the bill would cause 1 million Americans to
lose their employer coverage.
CBO found that the bill will cause half a million Americans to become
uninsured, and CBO found that the bill will cost taxpayers nearly $75
billion.
Republicans claim that all these costs are worthwhile because their
legislation will keep workers from having their hours cut, but the fact
is this bill is a solution in search of a problem.
CBO said it plainly:
There is no compelling evidence that part-time employment
has increased as a result of the ACA.
Since the Affordable Care Act became law, we have added more than 8.6
million private sector jobs. After years of increasing part-time labor,
the number of part-time workers today is actually lower than it was
before the ACA was enacted. The flimsy justification for this bill just
does not stand up to scrutiny.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that the end of the ACA's first open enrollment
period can be an opportunity for the Congress to change its approach to
this law. More than 7 million Americans have signed up for coverage
through health insurance marketplaces.
Tens of millions more will sign up in the months and years to come.
Rather than pushing divisive legislation, let's come together to
acknowledge the fact that millions of Americans getting covered is a
great step forward for this Nation.
Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a letter
of support from the International Franchise Association for this bill,
and I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon),
a member of the Education and Workforce Committee.
International
Franchise Association,
Washington, DC, February 3, 2013.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the International
Franchise Association, I write today to urge you to support
H.R. 2575, the Save American Workers Act, sponsored by Rep.
Todd Young (R-IN). This legislation will change the
definition of a full-time employee in the Affordable Care Act
(ACA) to 40
[[Page H2830]]
hours, the definition that employers have traditionally used
to manage their workforce, and will help small businesses
better adjust to the ACA's employer mandate.
For decades, employers have used the 40-hour work week as a
standard for workforce management. The ACA's provision
requiring employers to provide coverage to full-time
employees, and defining full-time as 30-hours, will cause
many employers to simply manage their part-time employees to
fewer hours. Data from a recent Public Opinion Strategies
survey commissioned by the IFA and the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce shows that 31 percent of franchises and 12 percent
of non-franchised businesses have already reduced worker
hours to lower costs, a full year before the employer mandate
is set to take effect. Not only has the employer mandate
discouraged job creation and business expansion, it has also
damaged existing jobs by including a misguided statutory
requirement that discarded more than a half-century of
established labor policy.
The employer mandate will hurt American workers in many
ways, but one of the most devastating effects of the mandate
is that fewer workers will be offered health insurance, and
employees will be less able to afford their own coverage when
working fewer hours. Allowing employers to manage their
workers to the traditional 40-hour work week will give
employees more flexibility and eliminate the need to revamp
longstanding employer personnel policies.
IFA urges you to support the Save American Workers Act.
This is a common-sense effort to a problem we know is only
going to get worse. The passing of this bill would provide
much-needed relief and flexibility for employers and
employees by avoiding the worst effects of the employer
mandate.
While this measure will not make the Affordable Care Act
completely workable for the 825,000 franchise locations
nationwide or the 9 million workers they employ, it will help
both employers and workers better absorb the impact of the
employer mandate.
Sincerely,
Stephen J. Caldeira,
President & Chief Executive Officer,
International Franchise Association.
Mr. BUCSHON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this
legislation. Let's focus on schools in my district. Greencastle School
Corporation was forced to cut the hours of 54 employees from full time
to part time.
The Terre Haute School Corporation was forced to cut the hours of
hundreds of employees. Many of them are bus drivers who are no longer
allowed to provide transportation for afterschool activities.
Washington Greene County School Corporation was forced to cut the
hours of 150 employees from 40 to 29 hours.
Eastern Greene County School Corporation announced that all of their
employees who aren't receiving health insurance will have their hours
cut to 28 hours a week.
Dubois County School was forced to reduce the hours for instructional
assistants, cafeteria employees, and custodial staff.
Mr. Speaker, the vast majority of these employees already receive
health insurance either through their spouse or other sources, and many
of them have worked for their school corporation for many years.
School corporations don't have the luxury of raising taxes to pay for
these provisions of the Affordable Care Act. They are not a major
business that can raise their prices.
School corporations simply can't afford the Affordable Care Act.
These Hoosiers work every day with students, and because of this
provision in the Affordable Care Act, our students will suffer.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this legislation and urge my
colleagues to vote in favor of it.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our distinguished minority whip. Maybe after he
expresses what makes common sense, our Republican friends may change
their minds, and so I yield for the hard work he has done in this area,
and good luck.
(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I might say that the chairman in exile of the
Ways and Means Committee and his confidence in my ability to change
minds is wonderful, but probably overstated. I regret that, but I will
try anyway.
The previous speaker said that people will be forced to reduce hours.
Now, they will only be forced to reduce hours from 40 to 39, as opposed
to 30 to 29. In other words, if you work 39 hours a week, you won't
have to be covered.
You won't have to have health care insurance, and somebody else will
pay their bill, maybe Medicaid, depending upon how much they make.
Maybe all of us will pay that extra thousand dollars in our premium so
the uninsured can be funded; or maybe the other employers who do, in
fact, believe it is good to offer their employees health insurance,
even though they only work 39 hours a week, somebody else will pay the
bill.
That is what has been happening with employers who don't provide
health care insurance. Their competitors who do are in an unfair
position.
Why did we choose 30 hours a week? We chose 30 hours a week, Mr.
Speaker, because in surveying the private sector employment field, we
found that 29 hours was perceived to be the litmus test for 29 hours or
less being part time; so we picked 30 hours, which was more than the
average in the private sector.
Now, we have a bill that is the 52nd vote to repeal the Affordable
Care Act, this obsession with undermining the access to affordable,
quality health care by the American people.
This bill changes the definition of full-time employee in a way that
would make approximately 1 million Americans lose their employer-
sponsored coverage.
Do we care? Do 1 million Americans make a difference to us? Do 1
million Americans not having the availability of the assurance that
they and their families have health coverage, does that matter to us?
Or are they all part of the 47 percent who aren't going to vote for
some of us anyway--the proposition is--so why worry about them?
In addition, it would increase the number of uninsured by as many as
half a million people, and it would increase the deficit by $74
billion. A million people lose their employer-sponsored care, half a
million people would continue to be uninsured, and $74 billion is the
loss in revenue.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stewart). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. RANGEL. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, this is because the legislation provides an
incentive for some employers to redefine work hours, so that more
employees would be categorized as part-time.
In other words, you work in the United States of America 39 hours,
and you are part-time.
Under this bill, more than five times as many workers would be put at
risk of having their employers just slightly reduce their hours to
avoid providing them with health insurance.
That would be a change that subverts the goals of the Affordable Care
Act, and it is not going to help grow our economy either; but more
importantly, it subverts the quality of life, the confidence, the
assurance, if you will, of millions of Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the defeat of this legislation. I urge us to
confirm the fact that we believe Americans in the richest country on
the face of the Earth ought to have access to affordable, quality
health care and that everybody would participate in that objective.
Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this bill, the
Affordable Care Act that the President calls ObamaCare, clearly would
not insure every American in the country.
Dropping somebody from 39 hours down to 29 hours is effectively a
loss of 10 hours of work per week. Over the course of a month, that is
the loss of an entire week's work of wages.
For the life of me, I can't understand why the very same individuals
who embraced all of the three dozen or so administrative changes to
this law without hesitation will not work together in a bipartisan
fashion because this is a bipartisan bill to restore the hours and
income of those who need it most during the worst economy since the
Great Depression.
With that, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Lance), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mr. LANCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Young for his superb
management of this bill and for his expertise in this area.
I rise today in support of H.R. 2575, the Save American Workers Act,
which would change the health care law's definition of full-time
employee from 30 hours per week to the traditional 40 hours per week.
That is 8 hours a day, times 5 days in the workweek, 40 hours, the
traditional
[[Page H2831]]
workweek, empowering hardworking middle class men and women to earn
additional wages otherwise denied to them under the health care law.
Not long ago, I spoke to a constituent from Basking Ridge, New
Jersey, the congressional district I have the honor of representing,
whose son works at a grocery store.
This young man was told he could only work 29 hours a week. Despite
the company wanting him to work more and pay him more, it could not
permit employees to exceed the health care law's arbitrary definition
of full-time status. This young man from Basking Ridge must work less
and earn less because of the health care law.
Too many Americans are experiencing significantly reduced wages and
hours worked because of the law. H.R. 2575 will protect existing jobs
by removing some of the uncertainty facing employers and employees and
help America's job creators put people back to work.
I urge passage of H.R. 2575.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman
from New York for his leadership and years of service and his
understanding of this issue.
I heard his debate on the floor of the House, which would drive many
of us as Members of Congress to come and join you because of the
literalness and the straightforwardness of your argument.
Frankly, I think that is the challenge we have this afternoon,
wondering how many Americans even understand what we are doing because
it is a numbers game. I have heard the stories of my colleagues, and I
am absolutely empathetic, and I am sympathetic.
All of us have young people working, single parents working, husband
and wife working. Maybe there are two working in a grocery store.
I think the problem with this legislation is that we are giving a
pass to businesses who, in actuality, we are providing them with an
opportunity to provide enhanced benefits to their hardworking workers.
{time} 1530
This is a threshold question. The Affordable Care Act defined a full-
time job as 30 hours. So it means that if you have 50 employees that
are at 30 hours or above, you provide them with health insurance. But
let me remind you, it is the Affordable Care Act. That means that these
individuals, if you don't provide them, you have the opportunity to get
into a pool or you can find insurance that fits that level of 50
workers. This does not apply if you have one worker; it doesn't apply
if you have two workers. It is a threshold.
So what my friends are telling me is that, if you can afford 50
workers, you are dead broke. Then you have to take that 50th worker and
drive him or her into the ground and leave them crawling out of your
business at 29\1/2\ or 28 simply because you don't want to do the right
thing. That is why this bill is so baffling.
In the Rules Committee, I offered two amendments to try to make it
better to indicate that commuting time would be included as part of
your 40 hours, or that we should delay this bill until we fully
appreciate and understand the overall impact of whether or not it, in
fact, undermines hardworking Americans who are in hardworking
businesses. We are just passing this bill and have no clue as to
whether or not this is going to be something that undermines businesses
that have 50 employees.
Now, this is the backdrop of what they are doing. I even offered the
point, Mr. Rangel, of why not a tax incentive so that these businesses
with 50 employees can keep the 50 employees at 30 hours and get a
benefit for providing them with health insurance; and when I say that,
one that is pointed to the fact that you have 50 employees and you are
willing to give insurance. As it is now, we know that the individual
employees will get tax relief.
But 7 million people have enrolled, Mr. Speaker. The fact that we had
a record-breaking access to the Affordable Care Act, or interest, this
bill seems to be the complete wrong direction to go. It is wrongheaded.
I would ask my colleagues to vote against the bill that destroys the
working people of America and puts them on their knees to work less
hours.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2575, the so-called
``Save American Workers Act of 2014.''
This bill represents the 52nd time that House Republicans have tried
to scuttle or impede the Affordable Care Act and deny Americans the
security that comes from having access to affordable, high-quality
health care.
Their record to date is 0-51.
The Affordable Care Act, which has been passed by both the House and
Senate, signed by President, upheld by the Supreme Court, and ratified
by the voters in the 2012 presidential election, is here to stay.
It is long past time that House Republicans abandon their quixotic
quest to derail a law that is bring so much peace of mind to millions
of Americans and will reduce the deficit by $1 trillion.
The Affordable Care Act is working. For example, in my State of
Texas:
1. 5,198,000 individuals on private insurance have gained coverage
for at least one free preventive health care service such as a
mammogram, birth control, or an immunization in 2011 and 2012. In the
first eleven months of 2013 alone, an additional 1,683,800 people with
Medicare have received at least one preventive service at no out of
pocket cost.
2. The up to 10,695,000 individuals with pre-existing conditions such
as asthma, cancer, or diabetes--including up to 1,632,000 children--
will no longer have to worry about being denied coverage or charged
higher prices because of their health status or history.
3. Approximately 5,189,000 Texans have gained expanded mental health
and substance use disorder benefits and/or federal parity protections.
4. 4,889,000 uninsured Texans will have new health insurance options
through Medicaid or private health plans in the Marketplace.
5. As a result of new policies that make sure premium dollars work
for the consumer, not just the insurer, in the past year insurance
companies have sent rebates averaging $95 per family to approximately
726,200 consumers.
6. In the first ten months of 2013, 233,100 seniors and people with
disabilities have saved on average $866 on prescription medications as
the health care law closes Medicare's so-called ``donut hole.''
7. 357,000 young adults have gained health insurance because they can
now stay on their parents' health plans until age 26.
8. Individuals no longer have to worry about having their health
benefits cut off after they reach a lifetime limit on benefits, and
since in January, 7,536,000 Texans will no longer have had to worry
about annual limits, either.
9. Health centers have received $293,038,000 to provide primary care,
establish new sites, and renovate existing centers to expand access to
quality health care. Texas has approximately 400 health center sites,
which served about 1,079,000 individuals in 2012.
I oppose this bill because its effect would be to deny employer
provided health insurance to hard working employees who work more than
30 hours but less than 40 hours per week.
If this bill were to become law in its current form, the health
security of 10.2 percent of the workforce, or approximately 19.8
million workers, would be placed at risk.
I offered two amendments to H.R. 2575 that would prevent this
travesty but regrettably neither was made in order by the Rules
Committee.
Jackson Lee Amendment #1 would have improved this bad bill by
amending the bill's 40-hour work week definition to include the
employee's average commuting time in the computation of hours worked
for purposes of determining ``full-time employment.''
Commuting time has become a major issue for those who work hourly
wage jobs because their workday is much longer.
According to the Bureau of the Census nearly 8.1 percent of American
workers commute 60 minutes or longer.
In 2011, almost 600,000 full-time workers had ``mega-commutes'' of at
least 90 minutes and travel 50 miles or more from their homes. The
daily average one-way travel to work for employees nationally is 25.5
minutes, and 1 out of 4 workers cross county lines to reach their jobs.
Jackson Lee Amendment #2 would have amended the bill by delaying the
effective date of the bill until the first month after there has been
two consecutive quarters in which the national unemployment rate is
below 5 percent, which would indicate the Nation has reached a full
employment economy.
Our Nation has taken a momentous step in creating a mindset that
health insurance is a personal responsibility with the enactment of
[[Page H2832]]
the Affordable Care Act. The law did not automatically enroll all
citizens into the program because it was specifically designed to be an
opt-in process.
This week all over the Nation, over 4 millions of Americans took the
first step toward taking control of their lives by purchasing their
first personal or family health insurance policy.
Over the course of the sign-up process for the Affordable Care Act
tens of thousands of visitors each day shopped the website and over 7.1
million people were added to private insurance roles as customers or
have enrolled into Medicaid.
Despite problems with the initial rollout of the online health
insurance registration process, people were patient and persistent
about getting coverage for themselves and their families.
I have held many events in my District to inform and connect people
with Navigators and Community Health Centers to support the message
that it was time to get health insurance for yourself and your family.
Why with 60 legislative days remaining in the Second Session of the
113th Congress before the end of the 2014 fiscal year, we are still
seeing attempts to end the Affordable Care Act is a mystery to the
American public who are voting with their own healthcare dollars for
Obamacare.
H.R. 2575 proposes to amend the Internal Revenue Code by redefining a
full-time employee for purposes of providing health insurance to only
those workers who work a 40-hour work week.
Mr. Speaker, few hourly workers in low-wage jobs work a 40-hour work
week. These employees often rely on government assistance, which
amounts to a hidden tax break to employers.
Low wageworkers often rely upon public housing assistance, SNAP, WIC,
or Medicaid to make ends meet.
Health insurance should not be used as a status symbol, but a basic
right for people who live in the world's most prosperous nation.
I know that many predicted that the Affordable Care Act would cause
havoc on the Nation's health care system, but it is not the ACA that is
causing havoc--it is a small vocal minority within the majority party
that is causing headaches and heartaches to doctors and their patients.
I ask that my colleagues to join me in protecting workers by voting
down this rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the record a letter
of support for the Save American Workers Act from the National Grocers
Association on behalf of their members and on behalf of their workers,
and I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).
National Grocers Association,
Arlington, VA, March 31, 2014.
Hon. John Boehner,
Speaker, Washington, DC.
Hon. Eric Cantor,
Majority Leader, Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Democratic Leader, Washington, DC.
Hon. Steny Hoyer,
Democratic Whip, Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Boehner, Leader Pelosi, Leader Cantor, and
Representative Hoyer: The National Grocers Association (NGA)
supports H.R. 2575, the Save American Workers Act (SAW), a
bill introduced by Representative Todd Young (R-IN) and
championed by Representative Dan Lipinski (D-IL). The bill
has broad support in the House, with 210 bipartisan co-
sponsors. NGA strongly encourages the House to pass the bill
with bipartisan support during the vote scheduled for the
week of March 31. We commend Majority Leader Cantor for
bringing H.R. 2575 to the Floor for what will hopefully be an
overwhelming vote in support of the bill.
H.R. 2575 addresses one of the most problematic provisions
of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) by amending the definition
of a full-time employee, which the ACA currently defines as
those averaging 30 hours a week. Left unchanged, this
provision will have far reaching consequences on the
independent supermarket industry. Simply put, 30 hours is not
full-time and requiring employers to meet this new definition
is one of the most significant challenges of the law,
jeopardizing coverage for our true full-time workforce. The
SAW Act seeks to amend this problematic provision by defining
a full-time employee as those averaging 40 hours a week and
treating full-time equivalents as full-time employees for the
purposes of determining whether an employer is an applicable
large employer. This is a win-win for both American employers
and our nation's workforce.
Independent grocers face complex challenges in implementing
the law all while operating on a profit margin of around 1
percent. They are committed to their workers, and 92% of
independent grocers already provide health benefits to full-
time employees. It is important that Congress work in a
bipartisan manner to provide employers with important reforms
such as the SAW Act before irreversible changes to the US job
market occur. Maintaining the full-time level many employers
use today is something both sides of the debate can agree
would be better for job preservation and employee coverage.
Reforms such as the SAW Act are vital to our businesses and
to our goal of providing quality benefits and available hours
to our employees. Independent retailers and wholesalers have
a significant economic impact across nearly every community
in America. Our industry is accountable for close to 1
percent of the nation's overall economy and is responsible
for generating over $131 billion in sales, 944,000 jobs, $30
billion in wages, and $27 billion in tax revenue. We are
proud that the communities we serve are also the
neighborhoods we live in.
Thank you for your support of this important issue. NGA
looks forward to continuing to work with Congress to address
this issue before the employer mandate is implemented in
2015. This is a critical issue for NGA and our member
companies, and we will be key voting this vote and including
it on our 2014 Legislative Scorecard. We remain appreciative
of the reforms Congress has already made to amend the ACA to
make the law workable for both employers and the American
workforce.
Sincerely,
Peter J. Larkin,
President and CEO.
Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, workers in western Pennsylvania and across
the Nation are seeing their hours cut and wages reduced due to the
employer mandate in President Obama's health care law. This mandate
hurts our friends and neighbors who are working to provide for their
families.
Last July, a mom working in the food service industry in Beaver
County, Pennsylvania, told me about how her hours had been cut nearly
in half because of the employer mandate. Sadly, her story is not unique
or an isolated incident.
Brian in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, called the office to let me
know that his daughter would have her hours cut at a bridal shop. She
is yet another victim of this 30-hour workweek rule.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median hourly wage
for someone working in sales in Pennsylvania was $12.18 in 2013. Losing
10 hours a week will cost that worker almost $6,000 annually.
Many small business owners want to add jobs and increase wages but
cannot afford to because of the employer mandate. As Brandon from
Ellwood City said: ``Small companies like ours try to do the right
thing for us. They probably won't be hiring someone who can really use
a job.''
Washington should be working to grow the economy and add jobs, not
making it harder for employees to earn more and get ahead or for
employers to hire more people. The Save American Workers Act will
restore the traditional 40-hour workweek and help those who want the
opportunity to work more hours and see their wages rise.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand in
solidarity with these workers and support this legislation.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Mr. Young on his
outstanding leadership in managing this bill, which is going to remove
one of the most misguided and confusing provisions of the President's
Affordable Care Act.
Everyone outside Washington knows that full time means 40 hours. Only
Federal bureaucrats would try to redefine a commonly understood fact
that is critical to millions of workers and employers nationwide.
The redefinition of full time to 30 hours under the health care law
is not only confusing to hardworking Americans, it is confusing to the
very government who changed the definition in the first place. Just
last week, Mr. Speaker, news reports showed that on different forms of
the Federal agencies and in different offices, full-time work was being
described as 40 hours by some agencies, 30 hours by other departments,
and 35 hours by still others.
By moving the goalposts on what is actually constituting full-time
employment, this administration fundamentally changed the workplace for
hourly workers, increasing the risk of lost hours and smaller paychecks
for real people, for real workers, for real Americans who are losers
under this law called ObamaCare.
The bipartisan Save American Workers Act, of which I am proud to
cosponsor, is going to restore that 40-hour
[[Page H2833]]
workweek. I am proud to cosponsor it and urge my colleagues to support
its passage.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record letters of
support for the Save American Workers Act from The Associated General
Contractors of America on behalf of their workers and their members,
and also a letter by the National Franchisee Association on behalf of
their members and workers, and I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman), my colleague.
The Associated General
Contractors of America,
Arlington, VA, February 3, 2014.
Re Support H.R. 2575, the Save American Workers Act of 2013
Hon. Dave Camp,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Camp: On behalf of the Associated General
Contractors of America (AGC), I am writing in support of H.R.
2575, the Save American Workers Act of 2013. This act would
repeal the 30-hour definition of ``full-time employment'' in
the Affordable Care Act (ACA) by replacing it with the more
traditional 40-hour definition.
The construction industry is typically project-based,
transitory and seasonal, which distinguishes it from other
professional industries with more predictable hours. As a
result, many construction employers rely on part-time,
seasonal and variable-hour employees. In addition, the
construction industry consists of many smaller employers with
limited human resource and administrative staff. These two
issues alone add layers of difficulty for a construction firm
that is required to use the complex formulas in the ACA to
determine whether or not it is considered a large employer
under the law.
Despite the one-year delay of the reporting and enforcement
provisions of the ACA, the law continues to add layers of
administrative burdens for employers, while other regulations
are yet to be issued. Replacing the definition of a full-time
employee to the more commonly accepted 40 hours per week
will, at the very least, reduce some of the complexity
associated with the ACA.
AGC hopes you will support H.R. 2575 and provide some
relief for construction employers across the country.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey D. Shoaf,
Senior Executive Director,
Government Affairs.
____
National Franchise Association, Inc.,
Kennesaw, GA, February 3, 2014.
Hon. Dave Camp,
House Committee on Ways and Means.
Dear Chairman Camp: On behalf of thousands of BURGER KING
franchisees across the country, we would like to express our
strong support for H.R. 2575, the Save American Workers Act
of 2013, scheduled for mark-up in the Ways and Means
Committee tomorrow.
The National Franchisee Association (NFA) represents
independent BURGER KING restaurant entrepreneurs in the
United States who operate more than 5,300 franchised
restaurants and employ almost 200,000 individuals across the
nation. The NFA works side by side with member franchisee
regional organizations, system suppliers, business partners
and Burger King Corporation to promote economic growth and
prosperity.
The NFA strongly supports the Save American Workers Act,
which amends ``full-time'' employment as defined in the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (``ACA'') to
working forty hours per week. The current 30-hour definition
neither reflects current workplace standards nor the desire
for flexible hours for both employers and employees in the
Quick Service Restaurant (QSR) industry. By defining ``full-
time'' as working 30 hours per week, our members may be
forced to reduce hours, limit the number of full-time
positions available and enforce rigid scheduling standards
for their employees.
On behalf of thousands of small business owners, the NFA
thanks you and the Ways and Means Committee for the
opportunity to share our views. We look forward to working
with you and the other members of this Committee to help
small business owners create more jobs and grow their
businesses.
Sincerely,
Peter J. Cotter,
Chair, NFA Government Relations Committee.
Misty Chally,
VP, Legislative Affairs.
Mr. STUTZMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Young for his hard
work.
ObamaCare is waging a war on work. ObamaCare's 30-hour rule gives
employers an awful choice: cut hours or pay new taxes.
Fort Wayne Community Schools, our State's largest school district,
announced last year that they would cut 610 part-time workers after
estimating a $10 million cost of compliance with ObamaCare.
My constituent, Todd Hollman, the Vice President of Pizza Hut and KFC
of Fort Wayne, writes this:
Due to ACA, our company has been forced to reduce the
number of part-time employees or face even greater penalties
than we already will. Even by reducing the number of newly
defined full-time employees, we will still incur nearly a $1
million penalty in 2015.
While the Obama administration has delayed the employer mandate,
businesses are still bracing themselves for ObamaCare's inevitable
impact. Hoosiers don't need a part-time economy. We deserve a full-
throttled recovery. It is time to repeal ObamaCare's 30-hour definition
of full employment.
I thank my friend and colleague, Mr. Young, for his leadership on
this issue, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2575. It is the
right thing to do.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further
consideration of H.R. 2575 is postponed.
____________________