[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 3 (Thursday, January 8, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H125-H140]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SAVE AMERICAN WORKERS ACT OF 2015
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 19,
I call up the bill (H.R. 30) 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 in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 30
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
2015''.
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:
[[Page H126]]
``(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.
SEC. 3. BUDGETARY EFFECTS.
The budgetary effects of this Act shall not be entered on
either PAYGO scorecard maintained pursuant to section 4(d) of
the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoder). Pursuant to House Resolution 19,
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Levin) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
General Leave
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks on H.R. 30, the Save American Workers Act of 2015.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, the first firm step on the ladder of opportunity is a
full-time job, and for too many Americans, this first step is moving
out of reach thanks to ObamaCare. Right now, the law says that every
large employer must give health insurance to its full-time employees.
Here is the catch: it defines full time as 30 hours or more.
So guess what is happening--businesses are cutting workers' hours.
They are keeping them below 30 hours to avoid the penalty. It is
commonly known as the ObamaCare 29ers. And what is more, community
colleges are laying off their professors and they are cutting their
hours, so they have to cut their class offerings as well. In other
words, the law is making it much harder to learn new skills and to find
a better paying job. I can't think of a worse way to support working
families: taking opportunities away from them, cutting paychecks,
cutting hours.
Who are the people who are most at risk with this 30-hour rule? Well,
by and large, it is young people in low-paying jobs--probably their
first jobs. One study said that over half of them have, at most, a high
school degree.
{time} 1415
These are the people who are just getting started in life, who need
those extra hours, who want to move up the ladder of economic
opportunity. ObamaCare is holding these people down. That is why we are
here today.
This bill changes the law's definition of full time to 40 hours a
week. That is the way most people define full time. That is the way it
has been done for decades in other parts of law. That way, businesses
will no longer fear letting their employees work a full workweek. That
way, people can get the experience they need. That way, we can get
people working again and build a healthy economy.
Mr. Speaker, it is really clear. There are so many parts of this law
that are holding back the country, that are raising health care costs,
that are putting us further behind and deeper in the hole on fiscal
responsibility. But this rule is costing people jobs; this rule is
knocking people out of full-time work. It is no wonder that CBO is
telling us the equivalent of over 2 million people will not work
because of this law.
I urge adoption of this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Republicans say that with this bill they are trying to help or, as
they put it, save workers. But their legislation will lead to many
times more workers becoming part time, losing millions of hours of
work.
The Republicans constantly talk about the threat of increased budget
deficits, but their bill would increase the deficit by over $50
billion. The Republicans like to say they care about the taxes people
pay, but this bill would substantially shift responsibility for paying
for health insurance from employers to taxpayers.
These are indisputable facts based on yesterday's analysis from the
nonpartisan CBO and Joint Committee on Taxation. This chart helps to
illustrate what this is really all about. Today, 7 percent, more or
less, of workers work between 30 and 34 hours, while close to half work
40 hours. As you can see, the number working 40 hours overshadows
dramatically those who are working less. This is the key point. So if
you shift the basis of employer responsibility for health care to begin
at 40 hours instead of 30 hours, the result will be a dramatic increase
in the number of workers whose hours of employment will be reduced to
less than 40 hours per week. You will be creating hundreds and hundreds
and hundreds of thousands of 39ers.
CBO and Joint Task conclude, therefore, that 1 million workers will
lose their employer-based health insurance, with half of them shifting
to insurance through the health exchanges or through Medicaid--by the
way, with some taxpayer support--and the other half--listen to this--
losing health insurance coverage completely.
So when you take off the label of this Republican bill and look at
the contents in the package, this is a bad deal, highlighting the need
for a truth in labeling requirement for this Congress. When you go
beyond the benign Republican rhetoric, this is a bad deal for American
workers and the middle class and taxpayers. That has led even a
conservative like Yuval Levin to say that today's bill ``is worse than
doing nothing.''
This bill is brought up today without any committee consideration or
discussion with Democrats--the minority leader is here, the minority
whip--not a single minute of discussion. Unfortunately, contrary to the
rhetoric we heard yesterday--again, from the majority--about the need
to look for common ground, on this issue the Republican approach is
scorched earth.
I urge a strong negative vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds simply
to say that the gentleman's criticism basically makes our point. The
average workweek is 34.6 hours. So if you go to 30 hours, you are
cutting people's hours. If you go to 39, you are not. We don't want to
cut people's hours. We don't want people to work less. We want people
to work more.
With that, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Young), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the
author of this legislation.
Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I would like to elaborate on the
chairman's retort to what we just heard about criticisms pertaining to
this law.
Number one, this law is inherently unfair. Trying to finance health
insurance for some Americans by cutting hours and wages for other
Americans is just, frankly, not what we should be doing as a country.
The Save American Workers Act would actually save most workers from a
potentially massive loss in hours and wages, and I will walk the
gentleman through that momentarily. It will also cause fewer workers to
be directly impacted by this employer mandate.
Very briefly, let us start with saving most workers from a
potentially massive cut in hours. Under current law, if you work
between 40 to, say, 45 hours and your employer happens to not offer you
employer-sponsored health insurance, you are in the minority. An
employer is incentivized to offer these typically higher-wage, higher-
skilled workers employer-sponsored health insurance, and that is why so
many do. It is part of our normal functioning labor market.
So if one were to be moved hypothetically from 40 hours down to 29
hours, they would lose roughly $270 a week or $14,000 a year, according
to the American Action Forum.
Under the Save American Workers Act, these 40- to 45-hour workweek
individuals would no longer be at risk of such a massive cut in their
wages or their hours.
[[Page H127]]
Let's take someone working 30 to 35 hours, just above that new full-
time employment threshold in ObamaCare. They tend to be lower-wage
hourly workers, according to the Hoover Institution, and let's assume
they had no employer-sponsored health insurance. There are 9.8 million
Americans who fall into this category. They are vulnerable to a cut in
their hours and wages.
Were one to move from 35 hours a week down to 29, they would lose on
average $148 per week, or $7,694 a year--again, according to the
American Action Forum.
Under the Save American Workers Act, these individuals, 30 to 35
hours a week, would no longer lose any hours or wages, just reinforcing
the point that the good chairman made.
Well, this is why I introduced the Save American Workers Act. Let's
restore the 40-hour workweek that so many people worked so hard to put
in place, that has long been understood to be the gold standard of the
workweek in this country.
Over the past few years, I have witnessed a strange phenomenon in our
country. In Indiana, we have seen local school corporations announce
they will limit the hours of substitute teachers, classroom assistants,
cafeteria workers, custodians. We have seen retailers limit the hours
of their cashiers. The list goes on and on, from hotels to
manufacturers to colleges and universities.
I guarantee that every Member of this body back in their district has
heard similar stories. This is happening because of the new 30-hour
definition of full-time employment.
Now, there is no good reason to do this, other than, perhaps, to
arbitrarily set this new definition of full-time employment to fund the
massive cost of this national health care bill. It has ignored decades
of practice in the labor market reality of our 40-hour workweek. It has
distorted that market.
As a result, the Hoover Institution estimates that as many as 2.6
million American workers are at risk for lost hours.
Now, it is not just the lost hours that should concern us. Again, it
is the lost wages. An employee losing 10 hours a week is also losing an
entire week's paycheck each month. An employee going from 35 to 29
hours is seeing a 17 percent pay cut, courtesy of ObamaCare.
The people most affected by this provision are the people who can
least afford it--89 percent of them do not have college degrees, 63
percent of them are women. Perhaps, ironically, it sounds a lot like
the people ObamaCare was supposed to help.
CBO analysis indicates that it comes at the expense of up to $105
billion in cash wages. Now, I defy anyone to say that it is fair to
expand coverage to a half-million people--that number from the CBO--on
the backs of 2.5 million people who can't afford it. How fundamentally
inefficient is the health care system that potentially requires the
loss of over $200,000 in cash wages for each person it insures.
I authored H.R. 30, the Save American Workers Act, to help these
hardworking Americans. And I introduced this bill jointly with the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), who happens to be a Democrat.
He, too, realizes that ObamaCare is littered with serious unintended
consequences that need to be addressed.
In the Senate, we have seen a similar version of this bill introduced
in a bipartisan manner.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield the gentleman an additional 15
seconds.
Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Now, this isn't a Republican or a Democrat
issue; this is a serious solution to a very real problem facing
American workers.
I urge all my colleagues to support the Save American Workers Act.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
To say this restores the 40-hour week is pure sophistry. What it does
is undermine it for hundreds of thousands of workers in this country.
That is the basis of the Joint Tax Committee report. It is pure
sophistry to say otherwise.
I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer),
our distinguished whip.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Save American workers. Make sure they don't lose purchasing power.
Let's make sure that those at the bottom end of the employment spectrum
are saved. That is the message.
I presume the minimum wage bill will be on the floor next week.
Perhaps you are going to want to extend unemployment insurance next
week. Perhaps you are going to really want to do something that will
save the workers and give them the purchasing power they had in 1968.
The chairman said it well: We go from creating 29ers to 39ers. This
bill will allow you to work 10 more hours without health care. Isn't
that wonderful? I am sure every American worker is saying: Thank God
the Republicans are going to have me work 10 more hours before I can
get health insurance. Aren't you generous?
The American worker needs help, not to be misled by a rhetoric which
pretends to do something for them but leaves them stuck, not just for 5
years, but for 10, 15, 20 years, as those at the top of the ring get
better and better off--and we are among most of those 10 percent.
Mr. Speaker, we are now in the first days of the new Congress, with
an opportunity to turn the page and write a new chapter of
bipartisanship and cooperation. We are not doing it today.
It is unfortunate that the Republican majority has instead chosen to
replay the highlight reel from the last Congress by bringing back to
the floor a piece of partisan legislation that would undermine the
Affordable Care Act and cause approximately 1 million Americans to lose
their employer-sponsored insurance coverage. Not something that Mr.
Young says may happen or is extrapolated to happen, but there is no
doubt that this would happen--1 million people.
Well, so what? This bill is a solution without a problem.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
{time} 1430
Mr. HOYER. As of this time, without being timed, I really miss my
magic minute; I want to tell you that, Mr. Speaker.
Since the Affordable Care Act became law, 10.8 million new jobs have
been created in the private sector, and it has not led to a shift to
part-time work. That is what the statistics tell us.
You want to save the worker, but under your economic policies in the
last decade, we had the worst loss of jobs in this country in my
lifetime. In fact, part-time workers, as a share of all workers in our
economy, have fallen--have fallen--have decreased, are less since the
enactment of the health care reform bill.
Unfortunately, this bill's sponsors have chosen to ignore these facts
because they don't support their argument. Their legislation would
allow employers to deny health care reach to those working even as
many, as I have said, as 39 hours.
That means the slightest reduction in hours could be used to deny
employees the coverage they ought to be earning through their work, so
the rest of us do not have to pay their bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. As a result, up to half a million Americans would become
uninsured, and this bill would increase the deficit by $53 billion.
There is not enough time to really explain all the nuances of the
adverse consequences of this bill. I ask my colleagues: let's have a
decent and honest debate, let's have an honest debate and honest
discussion so that, yes, Mr. Young, we can protect those workers that
we all should be able to protect, and then I will expect that to be
accompanied with a minimum wage bill and the unemployment insurance
extension.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, let me inquire about the
distribution of time, the time remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 22 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Michigan has 22\1/4\ minutes remaining.
[[Page H128]]
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from
Kansas (Ms. Jenkins), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways
and Means.
Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding, wish the
chair happy birthday, and I would like to honor the Congressman from
Indiana, Congressman Young, for his leadership on this important issue.
This effort to change the employer mandate definition of a full-time
employee as one who only works 30 hours a week to 40 hours a week is a
priority for folks all across the country, and it is appropriate that
the House is taking action on H.R. 30 on this, only the third day of
the 114th Congress.
I have heard from employees and employers alike about the negative
consequences of the employer mandate penalty. The most complicating
factor that I hear about is the definition of a full-time employee as
someone who works only 30 hours or fewer per week.
This rule, which is not based in reality, and goes against every
traditional measure of a full-time workweek, results in fewer jobs,
reduced hours, and less opportunity for millions of working-class
Americans. It effectively is a regressive tax on the folks who can
least afford to have their hours cut.
The sticks that are used in the President's health care law to force
employees into health care plans are hurting employees and employers,
and unfortunately, the result is reduced hours and opportunity for
hardworking Americans trying to support their families.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, would the Chair say again how much time is
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 22\1/4\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 21 minutes
remaining.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes at the most to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I associate myself with the remarks of
the minority whip. He gave you all the facts and figures.
Let me tell you what this is really about. This is the 54th time that
the Republicans have come out here to end the Affordable Care Act. This
one is an assault on the employer mandate. You cannot have a bill
without an employer mandate.
Now, we had to pick a time. Lots of employers in this country right
now without any Federal law are giving insurance to their people down
to 30 hours. So we said, ``All right, let's make that full time.'' What
the business community said they were supporting, they really weren't
supporting, and they are in here to get rid of it.
This bill is the blueprint for business to shift all their employees
on to the government, very simply. Close the building at 4 p.m. Now,
everybody has only worked 39 hours, right? Go home.
Now, the office doesn't have to offer them any health insurance under
the law. They have to go over to the exchange, get involved in
Medicaid, get involved in the exchanges and getting subsidies and all
of that, which you are going to pay for. You are going to pay for that
by letting the employers get out from under paying it and shifting it
on to the Federal Government. That is what this is all about.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Ryan for his generous step toward a
single-payer system. When the American people find out that their
business can now take their insurance away if they don't work 40 hours,
they are going to say to themselves, ``Well, then I am in this Federal
Government thing. Why isn't everybody in that?''
You are heading down the road of a single-payer system because if you
don't have a mandate for employers to cover their workers, you are
simply saying, ``Well, the employers don't have to care anymore.'' Who
is going to care? Well, the Republicans certainly aren't going to care.
You all know that without being told.
Ultimately, politically, this is going to come to bite you because
what you are doing is excluding and telling big business, ``You don't
have to follow an employer mandate.''
It is a bad bill. Vote ``No.''
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), a member of the Committee on
Ways and Means.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, it has been demonstrated many times over
that ObamaCare is a broken law. For example, under the law, full-time
employment is classified at 30 hours a week, requiring these businesses
to provide insurance to these employees.
Now, what is the consequence? This creates an incentive to limit
hours. This will disproportionately affect 2.3 million low-income
workers. It puts our economy in danger of creating a class of part-time
employees where having two or three jobs is the norm. That is just
unacceptable. That is not the answer for America.
Even major unions like the Teamsters say this law will destroy the
very health and well-being of working families. That is not the promise
of America. That is not the America we all aspire to. We should be
encouraging businesses to hire more, to offer more pay, not to limit
growth and employment. That is not the answer.
Today, the House is taking action to save the American worker by
lifting this threshold to a more realistic 40 hours a week.
I could tell you real-life experience. Having talked to companies,
they are going to be pushing more and more of these workers into part-
time employment. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to
talk to businesses in their districts and understand what is really
happening as a consequence.
That is why we should pass this legislation. I encourage all Members
to please support this bill.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Lewis), another distinguished member of our committee.
Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend of many years for
yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, here we go again, down the same unnecessary road. This
bill is a deliberate and systematic attempt to undermine the Affordable
Care Act. We are supposed to be here to help people and not to hurt
people. So what is this all about?
This bill, call it what you may, would roll back protection for
Americans who work at or near 40 hours a week. Before the Affordable
Care Act, it was easy to discriminate against the sick, the elderly,
and those who had lost their jobs through no fault of their own, but
those days are over. We have come too far. We made too much progress to
go back, and we will not go back.
I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no,'' so we can go forward and
continue to provide comprehensive health care for all of our citizens.
This is the right thing to do. It is the responsible thing to do. It is
the fair thing to do.
Just vote ``no.'' Just say ``no.''
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen), a member of the Committee on Ways and
Means.
Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, in 1938, it was Franklin Roosevelt who signed the Fair
Labor Standards Act, establishing full-time work as 40 hours, so for
more than 70 years, that has been the accepted definition for
government, for corporations, for small business; but in 2010, the
President's health care law threw 70 years of precedent completely out
the window.
This new 30-hour rule is forcing companies to scale back hours, with
more part-time jobs and less full-time jobs, so now, many employees
that were working full time--good full-time jobs--have seen their
paychecks cut up to 25 percent.
One study recently found that regulations in the President's new
health care law, like the 30-hour rule, are reducing small business
wages to workers every year by $22 billion and that employment in small
businesses has been reduced by 350,000 jobs.
Mr. Speaker, Americans want more full-time opportunities, and they
should get to choose to pursue those opportunities, not have their
employers force to reduce them to part-time work. America's workers
deserve better.
Mr. Speaker, I insert in the Record a letter from The Associated
General
[[Page H129]]
Contractors of America supporting this legislation by Mr. Young.
The Associated
General Contractors of America,
Arlington, VA, January 7, 2015.
Re support H.R 30, The Saving American Workers Act of 2015.
Hon. Todd Young,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Young: On behalf of the Associated
General Contractors of America (AGC), I am writing in support
of the Saving American Workers Act of 2015, H.R. 30. The bill
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 prior delay of the reporting and enforcement
provisions of the ACA, the law continues to be an
administrative burden for employers. 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. 30 and provide some relief
for construction employers across the country.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey D. Shoaf,
Senior Executive Director,
Government Affairs.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), another active member of our committee.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, America's middle class is facing a
crisis. Despite the fact that productivity has soared and profits have
increased, these gains are not flowing to the vast majority of
Americans.
In 81 percent of America's counties, median income today is lower
than it was 15 years ago. After adjusting for inflation, today's
average hourly wage has the same purchasing power as it did in 1979,
this despite the fact that American workers are producing far more.
Productivity has increased 74 percent since 1973.
There is a reason why the wealth is concentrated at the top. There
are a myriad of tiny little changes that have a cumulative effect on
the vast majority of American workers. Refusing to raise the minimum
wage, attacking the right to unionize, special tax benefits for a few,
and today's legislation are all examples.
No doubt changing the definition of 40 hours for purposes of the
Affordable Care Act will benefit a few businesses, but there are far
more employees who work 40 hours a week or more than who work 30 to 40
hours, and as has been pointed out by the conservatives at the National
Review and The Weekly Standard, it is easier to drop employees to 39
hours a week than to 29 hours a week. This meaning this proposal is
going to reduce far more hours of work and wages for whom it matters
the most.
Wages aren't the only benefit at stake. As has been pointed out,
according to the CBO, a million workers will lose health insurance
through their employer, half of whom will lose it altogether. The other
half will be shifted to the government through Medicaid, increasing
spending by more than $50 billion over the next decade.
Mr. Speaker, this would be one of the myriad of policies that further
disadvantages America's middle class. This is another step by my
Republican friends to deny more people the benefits of that work, widen
the divide, and disadvantage not only families today but far into the
future.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), the distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Ryan for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 30. It was noted not
long ago that the President's health care law will ``destroy the
foundation of the 40-hour workweek that is the backbone of the American
middle class.''
Those aren't my words, of course, Mr. Speaker. Instead, those are the
words expressed by leaders of some of the Nation's largest labor
unions, including the president of the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters. Echoing these concerns, members of the AFL-CIO endorsed a
resolution that warned ObamaCare will lead to a ``new underclass of
less-than-30-hour workers.''
We have all seen the headlines in recent years, headlines describing
how employers are left with practically no choice but to cut workers'
hours in order to avoid the health care law's punitive employer
mandate. Put simply, the law punishes employers who provide workers
with full-time jobs.
{time} 1445
A small business owner and constituent of mine from Savage,
Minnesota, wrote earlier this week that the President's health care law
is ``wreaking havoc on the American workplace.'' No doubt many
Americans agree.
Unfortunately, the law is wreaking havoc in schools as well.
According to a recent report, Louisiana school administrators are being
forced to cut staff hours and hire more part-time teachers to avoid
Federal penalties. Schools in New Jersey and elsewhere are facing
similar tough choices. One superintendent described the costs
associated with the health care law's mandates as ``an unbelievable
drain on school systems.''
Don't America's teachers and students deserve better?
Mr. Speaker, let's tell our Nation's school leaders that we won't sit
idly by while ObamaCare makes it more difficult to provide students the
quality education they deserve. Let's tell our small business owners
that we want to help make it easier, not harder, to create full-time
jobs. Let's tell the country's union leaders that we share your
concerns and are prepared to do something about it. And finally, let's
tell workers that we won't let a flawed law deny them the wages that
they need to provide for their families.
I urge my colleagues to stand with the American people by supporting
this commonsense, bipartisan legislation.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), another distinguished member of our committee.
Mr. KIND. I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, let me make sure I have got this straight. We have got a
bill before us today, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget
Office, that will increase our budget deficit by $53 billion because
there are no offsets or pay-fors in this legislation; it will reduce
the number of people receiving employment-based health care coverage by
about 1 million workers; it will increase the number of people in
Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program, the health insurance
exchanges, by more than 500,000 people; and it will increase the number
of uninsured in our country by another 500,000 people--all at the same
time when, again, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found in
a recent analysis: ``There is no compelling evidence that part-time
employment has increased as a result of the Affordable Care Act.''
What's not to like?
Happy New Year, American workers.
My good friend from Wisconsin recently said during the debate that he
can't find a worse way to hurt working families. Well, you did with
this legislation, and I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on it.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from California (Mr. McCarthy), the distinguished House majority
leader.
Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, we all know that the employer mandate has resulted in
lost wages and jobs in America. That point is just not debatable
anymore. Numerous studies have said so and the Congressional Budget
Office. Businesses are now reacting to ObamaCare's perverse incentive
and scaling down.
But the impact of this mandate isn't on paper; it is in the people
across this country in each and every district who feel the pain of
ObamaCare. In my district, Kern County, firefighters, Department of
Mental Health, probation facilities have been forced to reduce hours of
extra-help employees, and that is just in county government.
But you know who the employer mandate hurts most of all? Women,
[[Page H130]]
small business owners, low-income and unskilled workers. But we have an
opportunity today to do something about it, passing Representative Todd
Young's Save the American Workers Act.
This bill is common sense. It is bipartisan. But the President has
already threatened to veto it. The American people don't want that.
They want to see solutions, not obstruction.
So, Mr. President, you say you care about those who have fallen on
hard times. Show it; sign this bill.
You say you care about the youth of this country struggling with the
debt and unable to find jobs. Show it; sign this bill.
You care about the low-income workers, about working women and small
businesses. Show it, and sign this bill. Actions speak louder than
words.
The employer mandate and ObamaCare as a whole are hurting the job
market and are hurting America. Only a full repeal of this law will
solve the problem. But this bill helps, and the President should sign
it.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), another active member of our committee.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to the Save
American Workers Act. Look, we will not recognize the fact that in 1960
to 2013, this is the lowest increase in health care costs in the last
50, 60 years.
They don't want to admit it. You can't admit one positive thing about
the ACA. But I want you to tell the people who you throw off health
care insurance, I want them, through the Speaker, to tell them that no
longer are you going to be covered if you have preconditions. You do
it.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is nothing more than a tool for large
employers to avoid providing their employees with health insurance,
despite the fact they can afford to do so.
Now, look, this is not a perfect piece of legislation. We have never
passed a perfect piece of legislation. Only God is perfect.
The bill will reduce the number of people receiving insurance through
their employers. Simple fact. Been codified. Increase the number of
people getting insurance through the Affordable Care Act. Put more
burden on the Treasury and increase the number of people who will end
up with no insurance.
Studies have shown that raising the threshold to 40 hours would
nearly triple the number of workers at risk of having their hours just
slightly reduced by firms looking to avoid requirements to provide
their employees with health insurance.
My Republican colleagues love to extol the virtues of fiscal
responsibility, so it is good to know that those concerns can be so
easily cast aside for bills like this that not only add to the deficit,
but also achieve their noble goal of resulting in more Americans going
without health insurance.
Through the Speaker, I would like to give the manager 30 days to
change his thoughts that were extended this week in the newspaper when
he said that this bill will give more people more full-time work. Show
us. Show us, please.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to stand here in support
of the Save American Workers Act, legislation that helps my
constituents in Michigan who are struggling under the President's
health care law, regardless of the sophistry from the other side.
While Michigan has been hard-hit over the past few years for many
reasons, the negative effects of the President's health care law have
only amplified our struggles by eroding full-time work opportunities
for hourly workers.
As chairman of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, I am deeply
committed to safeguarding workers and businesses from ObamaCare's
damaging consequences. Restoring the traditional 40-hour workweek is an
important reform that will protect employees and provide certainty for
employers.
We need effective solutions that focus on getting people back to work
rather than forcing people from their jobs, like Janet from Jackson,
Michigan, who called my office in tears last September.
This 56-year-old single mother of three had just been told that
morning by her employer that her home health care job was being moved
from 36 hours to 28 hours because of the new requirements under
ObamaCare. She asked: How am I going to pay my mortgage and insurance
with only 28 hours?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield the gentleman an additional 15
seconds.
Mr. WALBERG. Let's give Janet the opportunity to save her 36 hours,
have it back, by passing the Save American Workers Act. Like Janet,
everyone should have the chance to work, to succeed and prosper and be
in control of their own health care issues.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis), another distinguished member of our
committee.
Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong
opposition to H.R. 30, the so-labeled Save American Workers Act, which
I call the ``Sabotage the Affordable Health Care Act,'' and that is
because the bill before us will help to do just that--sabotage
affordable health care for millions of Americans.
It would make it easier for employers to not participate in providing
health care assistance to their employees. It would drive low- and
moderate-income workers back to the emergency rooms of public hospitals
and clinics.
The CBO has said that passage of this measure would raise the deficit
by $53 billion over a 10-year period and put a million people in
government-sponsored health insurance, Medicaid, CHIP, and the
exchanges. It would promote episodic care and take us back to
yesteryears in health care delivery.
The Affordable Care Act is already working--and working well. On a
daily basis, it is taking people off the uninsured rolls.
H.R. 30 is a step backwards. It is not good for workers; it is not
good for health care delivery; and it is not good for America.
I would urge a ``no'' vote for H.R. 30.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Alabama (Mr. Byrne).
Mr. BYRNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your leadership on
this very important issue.
Mr. Speaker, I support this bill. In fact, just this morning I was
reading your op-ed from USA Today in which you make a great point. This
law cannot be fixed. It is beyond repair. No quick legislative fix can
fix this law and make it work for the countless American families who
have already been negatively impacted, including people in my district.
Last November, the American people spoke loud and clear. They want to
see bold legislative action that pushes back against the failed
policies of this President.
I support this bill, but I want to do more, and we must do more. I
look forward to working with the chairman and leadership of this House
to move forward with the full repeal of this law.
Mr. Speaker, I will insert into the Record the position statement
favoring this bill from the National Federation of Independent
Business, the voice of small business of America.
National Federation of
Independent Business,
Washington, DC, January 6, 2015.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the National Federation
of Independent Business (NFIB), the nation's leading small
business advocacy organization, I am writing in support of
H.R. 30, the Save American Workers Act of 2015. H.R. 30 will
be considered an NFIB Key Vote for the 114th Congress.
This legislation would replace the new 30-hour per week
full-time or full-time equivalent (FTE) employee definition
created by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
(ACA) with a 40-hour per week definition. The ACA defines
full-time employee for the purpose of the employer mandate as
an employee who works an average of 30-hours per week (130-
hours per month). The employer mandate is a requirement that
businesses with 100 or more full-time or FTE employees offer
qualified, ``affordable'' health insurance to 70 percent of
full-time employees or pay costly penalties beginning in
2015. In 2016, businesses with 50 or more full-time or FTE
employees must offer qualified, ``affordable'' health
insurance to 95 percent of full-time employees and their
dependents or pay costly penalties.
In early 2013, NFIB testified before the House Committee on
Small Business that the new definition is ``one of the most
dangerous parts in the law.'' The ACA marks the first time
that ``full-time'' is expressly defined in federal law. Prior
to the ACA's enactment, the determination was left up to the
employer.\1\ Similarly, the Fair Labor
[[Page H131]]
Standards Act has long dictated that overtime pay starts
after 40-hours per week.\2\ Thus, employers and employees
have long understood ``full-time'' to be equivalent to 40-
hours per week.
The 30-hour full-time definition is already resulting in
less opportunities, fewer hours and lower incomes for
employees. Small businesses are already being forced to
shrink their workforce below and restricting workforce growth
above the 50 FTE employee threshold in preparation for the
costly mandate.
H.R. 30 would provide some immediate relief for small-
business owners and employees. The bill would reduce taxes on
employers by tens of billions of dollars. For employees, the
bill would prevent decreases in take home pay.
NFIB supports H.R. 30 and will consider it an NFIB Key Vote
for the 114th Congress. We look forward to working with you
to protect small business as the 114th Congress moves
forward.
Sincerely,
Amanda Austin,
Vice President,
Public Policy.
endnotes
1 http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/workhours/full-time.htm
2 http://www.dol.gov/whd/overtime_payt
.htm
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, could I ask you for the available time now on
both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 11\3/4\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 13\1/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Curbelo).
Mr. CURBELO of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the
Save American Workers Act of 2015 and would like to thank the gentleman
from Indiana for reintroducing this important legislation.
I have only been a Member of Congress for 2 days now, but passing
bills to help American workers and those who employ them, especially so
early in the year, is exactly what our constituents sent us to
Washington to accomplish.
The purpose of this legislation is simple: to increase the threshold
of classifying a full-time worker under the Affordable Care Act from 30
hours to 40 hours a week.
Back in my south Florida district, I constantly hear from families
who are frustrated by the burdens of the Affordable Care Act. The 30-
hour workweek provision has limited the incomes of many Americans and
their potential to grow in their jobs.
Defining 40 hours as a full workweek will provide relief to many
families who are unfairly getting caught in these growth-crushing
regulations. Working Americans want to get ahead and work as many hours
as possible to provide for their families. The 30-hour workweek is
limiting their ability to do so.
So, again, I want to reiterate my support for this bill. I look
forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
find common ground where we can make changes in the Affordable Care Act
that will benefit our neighbors back home.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure to yield 2\1/2\ minutes
to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the ranking member of
the Energy and Commerce Committee.
{time} 1500
Mr. PALLONE. I thank my colleague from Michigan.
Mr. Speaker, I was happy to see not the last speaker but the previous
Republican speaker--I think he was the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Byrne)--actually say that he wanted to repeal the Affordable Care Act
because that is what this is all about.
I guess I could take some happiness in the fact that we are not
having an outright repeal of the Affordable Care Act on the floor
today, but I know that this effort is really about repealing the bill.
It is a piece-by-piece approach, where the Republicans want to
basically tear down what--in my opinion, and when I go home my
constituents say--is an excellent program.
More and more people are signing up for the Affordable Care Act. More
and more people are getting insurance at an affordable price with
subsidies and the expansion of Medicaid. The Republicans know that they
can't repeal it outright, so now, they are trying to do it piece by
piece.
There is no kidding ourselves as to what this bill will do. It is
going to increase the deficit, adding $53 billion to our debt. It is
going to increase the number of uninsured. It will shift more people
onto public programs, and it will cause workers who are currently
receiving employer-sponsored health coverage to lose that coverage.
My Republican colleagues claim this bill is necessary to protect
jobs, but the fact of the matter is that the Affordable Care Act has
strengthened the job market. Our economy and workforce are stronger now
than before the law was passed.
Basically, what is happening here is if you are a large employer with
more than 50 full-time workers--in other words, 96 percent of employers
are unaffected by the law--for those 4 percent of larger employers who
have the means, the law says they need to do right by their full-time
workers and offer them health insurance.
The Republicans don't think businesses owe their employees anything
at all. They think that bigger businesses should have the right to deny
their workers health insurance. Even though the ACA says that that is
what they should do--give them health insurance--they say, ``No, they
shouldn't have to do that.''
The bill the Republicans have presented today would say that big
businesses could deny health coverage to someone working 39 hours a
week, 52 weeks a year. That is not a part-time worker. Their employers
should provide them with health coverage. That is all that we are
asking.
Giving big businesses a green light to drop coverage for their
workers is not the way to move the country forward. Workers have the
right to decent health care, and businesses should help them get it.
That is the fair thing. That is the right thing.
This bill simply takes us in the wrong direction. I keep hearing from
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle as to how terrible the
Affordable Care Act is. The fact of the matter is it is working and it
is working for working people.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), a member of the Ways and
Means Committee.
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. I thank the chairman.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 30.
I am amazed as to how many times we let politics interfere with
policy. I want to tell you who you are really hurting. You are not
hurting the Republican Party by your remarks. What you are doing is
hurting the American people by your remarks.
This is America's Congress. It is not a Republican Congress, and it
is not a Democrat Congress. It is America's Congress. Who have you hurt
the most with this policy? Women. Lower-income people and lower middle-
income people have suffered greatly.
How do I know that? It is because I am actually in the job market. I
have actually hired people. I know the dignity of labor, and I know the
harm that is being done by this care act that is totally unaffordable
and uncaring.
It is unbelievable that we would come to the floor of this House and
somehow make the other political party look bad and turn our backs on
the people who sent us. It is not working, gentlemen. We don't have to
dismantle it. It is falling apart on its own.
In fact, it is so bad that the President won't even enforce the full
law until after an election. Please tell me politics didn't have
anything to do with that. Let's do what is right for the American
people for a change and quit trying to posture on some kind of a
political stance that is just based on fantasy.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott), who is now the ranking member on Education and
the Workforce.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the gentlemen from the other side of the aisle have
already voted over 50 times to roll back the Affordable Care Act. This
is one more attempt.
More than 150 million Americans get their health coverage through
their jobs or through a family member's job. As for the Affordable Care
Act, when
[[Page H132]]
we passed it, at that time, 96 percent of all businesses with over 50
employees provided health insurance for their full-time employees.
So that we wouldn't dismantle the President's system--rather, that we
would build on it--we established a mandate. Those employers--those
businesses--with over 50 employees would be mandated to provide
insurance for their full-time employees. Ninety-six percent were
already doing it without a mandate, and those with under 50 employees
weren't subject to the mandate.
This bill would change the ACA's definition of ``full-time employee''
for somebody who works 30 hours a week to 40 hours a week. That puts a
lot of Americans at risk of having their hours cut to just under the
40-hour threshold, so that a few employers--just a few, as 96 percent
were already doing it--can escape their responsibility of providing the
insurance.
They are less likely to suffer a job loss today because most people
work a 40-hour week. Cutting below 30 is very unlikely because people
would start quitting. Ninety-six percent were already being provided
their insurance.
Now, if you are working from 9 to 5, with an hour off for lunch,
suddenly, you are no longer a full-time employee. That is only 35
hours. If the employer sends everybody home at 4 on Fridays, that is 39
hours. You are no longer a full-time employee.
As a result, many people--those currently working between 30 and 40
and those who will have their hours cut--will suddenly be part-time
employees, not entitled to employer-provided health insurance.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, that is about a million
people who will lose their employer-based health coverage.
Mr. Speaker, this is just another attack on the health security of
American families. It is an attack that families do not want, but it
will help that handful of businesses that just wants to deny
hardworking employees their health insurance.
I want to put one thing on the record. We have had more consecutive
months of 200,000-plus job growth than anytime in recent history, so
the job-killing aspect of it can't be doing too badly--a lot more than
there were under the previous administration.
We ought to be building on the ACA, not diminishing it. We ought to
be working to strengthen it, including fully expanding Medicaid to all
50 States. We can do better. This hurts families.
It might help a few businesses that want to deny hardworking
Americans their health coverage that has been mandated, although 96
percent of businesses already were doing it.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, let me inquire as to the time
distributions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Byrne). The gentleman from Wisconsin has
11\1/4\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Michigan has 6\1/4\
minutes remaining.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Tennessee, Dr. Roe.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Save
American Workers Act. I am pleased that the first vote we are going to
do is a bipartisan bill of the 114th Congress.
Everywhere I go, I hear concerns about the lack of jobs and the need
for job creation. Tennessee's unemployment rate is far too high at 6.8
percent. We have got to do everything we possibly can to encourage
employers not only to create jobs but to maintain the jobs they
currently offer.
Employers are already struggling to make their budgets work in an
uncertain economy, and we know that these employers will have to
respond one of two ways, either by cutting hours or by hiring fewer
workers. It is already happening. Public school systems in my State and
community colleges across the country are cutting hours or are reducing
class sizes taught.
I have spent my entire adult life as a physician, taking care of
people from all walks of life. I want every American, including those
with preexisting conditions, to have access to affordable medical care.
That is why I have worked in Congress to develop patient-centered
solutions that help people afford health care, like the American Health
Care Reform Act. In the meantime, we must do what we can to protect the
American people from the unintended consequences of the Affordable Care
Act.
That is why I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I have 13 minutes remaining, and
the gentleman has 11 minutes remaining. Is that where we are right now?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 10\1/4\
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Michigan has 6\1/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1\1/2\
minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Holding), a new
member of the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. HOLDING. Mr. Speaker, we have already seen the disastrous effects
of the President's health care law, from the increased premiums and
deductibles to workers' hours being reduced.
While the President refuses to make commonsense changes to this
health care law that is destroying opportunities for work in this
country, my colleagues and I in Congress have been committed to taking
action.
I am happy to be a cosponsor of the bill before us, and I look
forward to restoring the ability for working students, single parents,
single mothers, women, and other Americans desiring to log more hours
to do just that, to work more hours.
Mr. Speaker, hard work is a cherished value in North Carolina. Let's
pass the Save American Workers Act today to protect workers' hours and
their wages.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Costello).
Mr. COSTELLO of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Speaker, restoring the 40-hour workweek is an important reform
that will provide relief and certainty for employers in my district,
and it will help protect their hardworking employees.
The ACA's unprecedented modification from 40 to 30 hours has forced
many jobs creators to scale back business growth, to force them to cut
employee hours, and/or to reduce the take-home wages of hardworking
Americans.
Mr. Speaker, let's focus on what this legislation is designed to do
and who it is designed to help. Those making under $30,000 a year,
disproportionately women and young Americans, who need the hours and
jobs the most, are the ones most at risk of having their hours and
wages cut under existing law.
Small businesses and restaurants in my district, such as Victory
Brewing Company in Downingtown, Pennsylvania, have suffered. For
example, Victory has faced difficult decisions about employee hours and
has been plagued with chronic underemployment just to make ends meet.
I am proud to cosponsor the Save American Workers Act. This will help
so many businesses not just in southeastern Pennsylvania, but across
the Nation.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes
to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam), a senior member of the
Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the chairman.
Mr. Speaker, there is an opportunity here for us to do a good thing,
and that is to take a law that was well-intentioned but poorly executed
and fix it and make some improvements. There has been all kinds of
discussion over the past couple of months--highly-charged political
discussion, really, on both sides, that makes false claims about
different people's motives.
I will tell you the motive of the sponsor of this bill, Mr. Young
from Indiana, is to do this: to lift a burden off of people who find
themselves not served by a law that they were told was going to serve
them.
They were told: ``Oh, this is going to be great. There is going to be
no adverse effect on your job opportunities. In fact, it is all going
to be terrific. Just sign up for it.''
As it turns out, Mr. Young recognized that that wasn't working out
for
[[Page H133]]
people who were at the lower end of the economic spectrum, Mr. Speaker,
so he decided to do something about it. He decided to introduce this
bill.
What it does is simply lifts a burden. It says we are not going to
create a downward pressure on jobs. Instead, we are going to create an
environment in which jobs are more buoyant, and they are more abundant,
and there is more of them.
Enough with the false claims and the straw man argument that this is
somehow insidious and is taking something away. No, no, no. This isn't
taking away. This is adding, and this is empowering, and this is life-
giving, and we ought to support it.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to
the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), a distinguished member of
Energy and Commerce.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, this bill purports to solve a problem that
does not exist.
The Republicans keep claiming that this provision of the Affordable
Care Act is affecting workers' hours, but despite these claims and
despite a lot of anecdotal evidence that I have heard from the business
community, the labor and employment experts have detected no such
impact.
In fact, our economy has created 10.8 million new jobs since the
passage of the Affordable Care Act. Almost 10 million of those jobs are
full-time jobs.
What this proposal would actually do is put more workers into the
kind of jeopardy that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say
they are trying to prevent.
Only 7 percent of Americans work in jobs that place them close to the
current 30-hour-a-week threshold. Far more Americans--about 44 percent
of them--actually work 40 hours a week, so even slight changes to their
work schedules are going to deny them access to the health insurance
that they so desperately need.
I have been sitting here. I am really touched by the concern that my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have for women and for young
people, people who really are at the lower end of the employment
spectrum and who the Republicans say are going to be harmed by this.
Let me tell you, for the 4 percent of the large corporations that are
subject to these provisions of the Affordable Care Act--people who have
50 employees or more--here is the way it is going to work for the young
people and for the women.
{time} 1515
These people are going to be people working for large corporations,
making just barely above minimum wage. If they work 40 hours a week,
they get insurance.
Under this proposal, all their employer has to do is cut 1 hour a
week out of that--39 hours a week--and suddenly they lose their health
insurance. And that is what is going to put those people at risk. Those
women in clerical jobs, women with little kids, those young people in
their twenties coming into the job market, trying to do the right thing
and have health insurance, now they are going to have to pay for that
insurance out of their own pockets, and for no reason.
The consequences of this misguided proposal don't stop there. The
Congressional Budget Office estimates that H.R. 30 would raise the
deficit by $53 billion in the next decade while also keeping a million
American workers from getting health insurance through their jobs.
I actually agree with my friend from Illinois (Mr. Roskam). I think
the intentions behind this bill are good intentions. But I think the
effect of this bill is going to be to deny insurance for a whole lot of
Americans who are at risk--women and young people, exactly the people
we should be giving insurance to.
Vote ``no.''
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
There are a couple of points I would like to make. I have been
listening to this debate. I think what is happening here is that it is
the fantasy land of ObamaCare.
The proponents of the ObamaCare law, on the other side of the aisle,
speaker after speaker are coming to the well with this fantasy of what
ObamaCare ought to be, what they think it is. It is this mythical idea
in their minds, which was all the rhetoric that was used to sell the
law in the first place on all these good things it is going to do. The
problem is: reality. Look at what is actually happening in the real
world.
This is the problem with ObamaCare, when the myth of ObamaCare
clashes with the reality of what is going on in America. People are
losing their hours. People are getting jobs cut back. It is not big
corporations; it is small businesses.
Look, I talked to a retailer in the First Congressional District of
Wisconsin who was telling me--tears coming down her face--of how she
had to cut back hours, about how she had to take all of her full-time
employees at her retail business and knock them down to part time. Why?
Because her competitors are doing the same thing.
This is happening throughout America. The last speaker basically
proved the point by saying, if you go to 40, they will go down to 39.
Well, 39 is a lot better than 29. And guess what? The majority of
Americans are at 34 hours. Going to 40 puts them above that; going to
30 puts them below that, putting people out of work.
The fantasy land of ObamaCare, the fatal conceit of the central
planning behind this law is that, in reality, it just doesn't work.
Let's give people relief.
At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Indiana (Mrs.
Walorski).
Mrs. WALORSKI. I thank the chairman.
Mr. Speaker, I, too, am pleased to stand here today to support the
Save American Workers Act.
I also want to thank my colleague and fellow Hoosier, Representative
Todd Young, for sponsoring this bill.
This bipartisan legislation would restore the traditional 40-hour
workweek and help employers and employees. Right now, the Affordable
Care Act defines full-time employees as those who work 30 hours or more
a week, not the standard, more traditional 40 hours.
My district is the RV capital of the world. Businesses are ripe for
growth. Expansion is on the horizon. They are afraid to hire and be
forced to lay off if this 30-hour definition is not changed.
Our businesses, like the School City of Mishawaka that educates kids,
need permanent relief from the burdensome and costly requirements of
ObamaCare.
The Save American Workers Act will create jobs in my State and in my
district for Hoosiers.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce a letter of support from the
Precision Machined Products Association, which employs many machinists
in my district--real jobs for real people.
Precision Machined
Products Association,
January 6, 2015.
Hon. Todd Young,
Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Young: On behalf of the Precision
Machined Products Association (PMPA), our members and the
roughly 100,000 employees nationwide in our industry, thank
you for your introduction of H.R. 30, the Saving American
Workers Act, and your continued efforts to address the issues
facing businesses manufacturing in America.
Like many other manufacturers and small businesses across
the country, we are concerned about the potential negative
impacts caused by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act's 30-hour threshold for full-time employee
classification.
Manufacturing businesses, especially companies with fewer
than 500 employees, already face significant disadvantages
when competing with foreign manufacturers in the global
market and this ``30-hour rule'' is counter-productive to the
goal of expanding access to affordable healthcare for
employees of small businesses. Rather than providing
additional employees with healthcare, the 30-hour rule will
force employers to cut their part-time employees' hours in
order to prevent their healthcare costs from skyrocketing.
Your leadership and efforts to repeal the 30-hour rule and
standardize the definition of a ``full-time'' employee to 40
hours per week would save manufacturers like us from having
to reduce their employees' hours and, rather, would allow
them to invest in more employees and grow their businesses.
At such a crucial time in our nation's economic recovery, the
Affordable Care Act's incentive for businesses to cut their
employees' hours to avoid the ``full-time'' classification
and dramatic increases in healthcare costs will be damaging
to small businesses and to the employees' it purports to
help.
[[Page H134]]
Thank you for your consideration and your leadership on
this issue on behalf of the metalworking industry.
Sincerely,
Miles Free,
Co-interim Executive Director,
PMPA.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Lipinski).
Mr. LIPINSKI. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I will first enter into the Record a letter from the
Illinois Restaurant Association in support of the Save American Workers
Act.
Illinois Restaurant Association,
Chicago, IL, January 7, 2015.
Hon. Dan Lipinski,
Congressman, Illinois 3rd Congressional District, Rayburn
House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Lipinski: I am writing you on behalf of
the Illinois Restaurant Association to express my full
support of your efforts to restore the traditional definition
of full-time employee to 40 hours per week with your
sponsorship of H.R. 30, the Save American Workers Act of
2015. This legislation will encourage a business environment
where employers in the restaurant and hospitality can focus
on creating more jobs, expanding their businesses, and
contributing to a robust economy.
The restaurant and hospitality industry is the largest
private sector employer in the state of Illinois, employing
over 517,000 people. As President & CEO of the Illinois
Restaurant Association, I represent over 25,000 restaurants
operating in the state who have expressed the urgent need to
redefine the full-time work week definition of 30-hour-per-
week.
Because of the Affordable Care Act's arbitrary 30-hour-per-
week definition of a full-time employee, restaurants are
being forced to restructure their workforce by reducing their
employees' hours. Employees are losing the mobility and
flexibility in their schedules they normally would enjoy when
working at a restaurant. Opportunities are decreasing for
young and inexperienced workers to gain entry-level
employment and advance into a fulfilling career in the
restaurant and hospitality industry.
The implications of this issue cannot be overstated.
Nationally, restaurants employ over 13.5 million people, and
our industry is a major driver of the economic recovery. If
Congress does not act to address this issue, thousands of
jobs will be lost and businesses will suffer. I encourage you
and your colleagues in Congress to pass the Save American
Workers Act of 2015, a piece of common sense legislation that
will protect jobs and strengthen the American economy.
Sincerely,
Sam Toia,
President & CEO,
Illinois Restaurant Association.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Save American
Workers Act, which I join the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young) in
introducing again this year.
I have not supported and I do not support the repeal of the ACA, but
some commonsense changes need to be made. The administration has
already acknowledged difficulties in implementing the employer mandate
by instituting delays and substantial administrative changes.
One problem is that the ACA defines full-time work as 30 hours a
week, causing small businesses, local governments, and schools to cut
the hours of workers and limit workers' scheduling flexibility. The CBO
has confirmed that shifting to a 40-hour full-time definition--
Americans' common understanding of full-time work--would lead to some
workers seeing an increase in their take-home pay.
Even the President's former senior adviser, David Axelrod, has
suggested that the President consider this change. So let's do right by
America's part-time workers, family businesses, local governments, and
schools. Let's pass this bill and fix this broken part of the ACA.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
Mr. PERRY. I thank the chairman.
Mr. Speaker, I also am proud to cosponsor this bill and thank the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young) for his hard work on it.
I think it is fascinating that we hear from my colleagues from the
other side that they are so interested in how much money the Federal
Government would lose--the Federal Government. I wonder who they came
here to work for. Are they interested in how many dollars their
hardworking taxpayers are losing by the implementation of this ill-
founded law?
I just got off of the phone with one of my employers in the district
who has about 500 employees. It is a good, hardworking, family-run
business, and he tells me, the number one issue that he is dealing with
is poring over spreadsheets day in and day out, trying to figure out
how he can put one employee in a place where that employee wants to
work in his business because that employee might want more hours
because he wants to make his own or her own choice about health care or
how much money he or she has. Maybe that employee is retired, their
husband or wife is retired, and they just need the extra hours, want
the extra hours, but he can't provide them.
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to me that some folks on the other
side said, just help us fix it. Yet when we try to fix it, they say,
no, it is fine; it is perfect the way it is.
Mr. Speaker, central planning did not work in the USSR. It does not
work in Cuba. And I wish you would quit trying to place it in the
United States.
Mr. LEVIN. How much time do I have, Mr. Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 2\1/4\
minutes remaining.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, you know, there has been some discussion here. The
gentleman from Illinois said there isn't anything being taken away.
That is simply not true. The basis for the Joint Tax and CBO estimate
is that there will be the loss of hours for hundreds of thousands of
people. And as a result, 1 million people will no longer be enrolled in
employment-based coverage, and of those, 500,000 will have no
insurance. So that statement is not correct.
And, if I might say so, when the chairman said the House will take up
a bill to define full time as 40 hours per week so more people can work
full time, the basis of the CBO estimate is that fewer people will be
working 40 hours or more. That is the basis for their conclusions.
So let me just, if I might, emphasize what has been said by a
conservative, Yuval Levin--not related:
Putting the cutoff for the employer mandate at 40 hours
would likely put far, far more people at risk of having their
hours cut than leaving it at 30 hours. That would make for a
worse effect on workers and on the economy.
That is just a fact.
The ACA has eliminated discrimination in terms of preexisting
conditions. It has dramatically reduced the uninsured rate--now 12.9
percent, the lowest since that began to be tracked. It has increased
Medicare benefits, and it has held health care cost growth to record
lows.
If you don't like the ACA despite all of these achievements, continue
to try to repeal it. But don't punish people who are working 40 hours
or more with this bill. That is what this does. And it leaves 500,000
with no insurance whatsoever. This is worse than a terrible bill.
And I will now enter into the Record letters of opposition from the
Consumers Union, the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, SEIU, and the Teamsters.
Consumers Union,
January 6, 2015.
Hon. Sander M. Levin,
House of Representatives, Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Consumers Union urges you to oppose changing the Affordable
Care Act's (ACA) definition of full time work from a 30-hour
per week threshold to 40 hours. The Affordable Care Act's
current 30-hour threshold for classification as full-time
employee for purposes of the employer ``mandate'' in the ACA
discourages employers from easily circumventing penalties
that incentivize employers to provide health insurance
coverage to their workers. Raising the full-time threshold to
40 hours per week would reduce access to employer-provided
insurance coverage.
Under the ACA, employers with at least 50 full-time
equivalent employees who do not provide health insurance to
their full-time workers must pay a penalty. This makes it
fairer for employers who do provide insurance and have to
figure that into their costs. More importantly, it helps
reduce the cost of providing care to the uninsured that would
otherwise be picked up by public programs, such as Medicaid,
and, hence, ultimately passed on to taxpayers. In fact, the
Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation
estimate that changing the threshold to 40 hours would
increase budget deficits by $25.4 billion over the 2015-2019
period and by $73.7 billion over the 2015-2024 period.
Currently the ACA penalty is applied to employers who do
not offer insurance to full-time employees defined as those
who work at least 30 hours a week. Raising the threshold to
40 hours per week would make it much easier for employers to
avoid covering millions of Americans who work between 30 and
[[Page H135]]
40 hours a week by cutting their hours slightly. Thus,
raising the threshold to 40 hours will jeopardizes access to
employer coverage for many people who get their insurance
through an employer.
Consumers Union strongly supports retaining the current 30-
hour threshold and urges you to oppose efforts to increase
it.
Sincerely,
De Ann Friedholm,
Director of Health Care Reform.
____
American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial
Organizations,
Washington, DC, January 6, 2015.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the AFL-CIO, I urge you
to vote against the misnamed Save American Workers Act. This
bill will result in lost work hours for 6.5 million workers,
and it will cause many to lose their employment-based
insurance coverage, resulting in higher costs for government-
subsidized health coverage.
When the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Joint
Committee on Taxation (JCT) scored this legislation in July
2014, they found it would increase budget deficits by $45.7
billion due to a decrease in employer penalty collections and
an increase in government-funded health coverage. CBO and JCT
found that reductions in employment-based coverage would
increase spending for marketplace premium subsidies by $12.7
billion and for Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance
Program coverage by $6.9 billion.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) extends coverage to the
uninsured by allocating responsibility for the costs among
individuals, employers, and government. Under this shared
responsibility framework, employers with 50 or more full-time
equivalent employees must pay their fair share by offering
health care coverage to employees who work 30 or more hours a
week or paying a penalty if these workers access exchange
subsidies instead. To ensure the success of the ACA, an
employer responsibility requirement is needed to preserve
current levels of employer-based coverage. However, the 30-
hour ``cliff' created by the law has motivated some employers
to reduce workers' hours to avoid providing coverage. This
has been a particular problem for workers employed at
retailers, restaurants, public schools, and institutions of
higher learning.
Proponents of the Save American Workers Act claim they want
to help part-time workers by moving the threshold for
employer penalties from 30 to 40 hours. But raising the
threshold will only move the cliff and actually increase
employers' incentive to reduce workers' hours. According to
experts at the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and
Education, moving the threshold to 40 hours will result in
lost work hours for 6.5 million workers. That is nearly three
times the number that are vulnerable to employers cutting
their hours under the current threshold (2.3 million). The
researchers also found that the policy would essentially
eliminate the employer responsibility requirement, since
employers' costs in moving workers from 40 to 39 hours per
week are negligible compared to the costs of offering
coverage or paying the employer responsibility penalty.
Congress should strengthen the employer shared
responsibility requirement and eliminate the hours cliff, not
simply move it. The employer responsibility requirement
should be strengthened by lowering the threshold, requiring
employers to provide coverage for workers who work 20 hours a
week or more or risk a penalty, and by applying a pro rata
penalty if workers with fewer than 20 hours are not offered
coverage. This is the only way to protect groups of workers
that will lose wages under the existing incentive to reduce
hours.
____
American Federation of State,
County and Municipal Employees,
Washington, DC, January 7, 2015.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.6 million members
of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees (AFSCME), I am writing to express our strong
opposition to the Save American Workers Act (H.R. 30),
scheduled for a vote in the House on Thursday. Rather than
building upon the employer-based system, the bill would
undermine it. Despite claims that the bill would restore the
40-hour work week, it would put millions of workers at risk
of a reduction in hours below the 40-hour threshold.
Under the Affordable Can Act, large and mid-size employers
are required to provide coverage to employees who work 30 or
more hours per week. Employers who do not provide coverage
must pay a penalty when a full-time worker obtains a tax
credit through a health insurance exchange. H.R. 30 would
raise the threshold, from 30 to 40 hours, at which point
employers are required to either offer coverage or pay a
penalty. According to an analysis by researchers at the UC
Berkley Center for Labor Research and Education, moving the
threshold from 30 to 40 hours would result in lost work hours
for 6.5 million workers, nearly three times the number
vulnerable to losing their hours under the current 30-hour
threshold (2.3 million).
In addition to causing a loss of work, H.R. 30 would cause
a loss of employer-sponsored health coverage and increase the
federal deficit. In a report issued today, the Congressional
Budget Office estimates that one million people would lose
employer-sponsored health coverage under this bill. While
some would remain uninsured, the CBO estimates that at least
500,000 would obtain coverage through Medicaid, the
Children's Health Insurance Program or health insurance
exchanges. Coupled with the loss of penalty revenue, this
increased spending would increase the federal deficit by
$53.2 billion over 10 years.
H.R. 30 would effectively eliminate the employer
responsibility requirements of the Affordable Care Act (ACA),
shifting costs onto workers and to taxpayers. Rather than
weakening the employer-based health care system, AFSCME
encourages Congress to strengthen it by asking employers to
do more of their share, not less.
Sincerely,
Scott Frey,
Director of Federal Government Affairs.
____
Service Employees
International Union,
Washington, DC, January 7, 2015.
Dear Representative: The Service Employees International
Union (SEIU) strongly opposes H.R. 30, the supposed Save
American Workers Act of 2015. Under current law, large
employers must provide health coverage to all full-time
employees, defined as those employees who work an average of
30 hours or more per week. H.R. 30 would increase the ``hours
threshold'' used to determine full-time employment for ACA
purposes from 30 to 40 hours--and, in so doing, hurt working
families by putting their benefits and wages at risk.
This bill would jeopardize more workers' full-time status,
allow businesses to shift the costs of healthcare to
taxpayers and the government, and reduce the availability of
employer-sponsored coverage overall. Contrary to proponents'
claims, raising the ACA's threshold for full-time work from
30 hours a week to 40 would make a shift towards part-time
employment much more likely--not less so. An independent
analysis conducted by the University of California Berkeley
Center for Labor Research and Education found that increasing
the threshold from 30 to 40 hours would result in nearly
three times as many workers, about 6.5 million in total,
being vulnerable to hour reductions than under current law.
This ill-conceived bill not only worsens the situation it
purports to solve, but will increase costs to the government.
As a result of about 1 million workers losing employer-
sponsored coverage, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
estimates that changing the hours threshold would increase
the deficit by $53.2 billion. This bill will allow more
businesses to evade their responsibility to provide health
insurance, forcing taxpayers and the government to make up
the difference.
Finally, while forcing workers from full-time to part-time
work is a serious issue, the Affordable Care Act is not the
cause. Recent research has shown that transitioning workers
to part-time follows historical trends that preceded the ACA
and that the transition from part-time back to full-time is
slow due to the ongoing recovery from the great recession.
We can work together to improve the law and find policies
that help protect working people while ensuring everyone has
access to quality, affordable healthcare. However, rather
than improving the law, H.R. 30, only serves to undermine the
ACA by making a complicated situation worse. For these
reasons, SEIU urges you to vote no on H.R. 30, and will
include this vote on our Legislative Scorecard, located at
www.seiu.org. If you have any questions, contact Ilene Stein,
Assistant Legislative Director.
Sincerely,
Mary Kay Henry,
International President.
____
International Brotherhood
of Teamsters,
Washington, DC, January 7, 2015.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: The International Brotherhood of
Teamsters opposes H.R. 30, the so-called ``Save American
Workers Act.'' We urge you to vote against H.R. 30 when it
comes to the House floor this week. This legislation will
cause millions of workers to lose work hours and it will
cause many employees to lose their employment-based health
insurance coverage.
The Affordable Care Act requires employers (with 50 or more
full-time equivalents) to either offer healthcare coverage to
employees who work more than 30 hours a week or to pay a
penalty if those workers get healthcare coverage via exchange
subsidies. H.R. 30 would raise that threshold (or ``cliff')
from 30 hours to 40 hours. However, the current 30 hour
threshold created by the law has motivated some employers to
reduce workers' hours to avoid providing coverage.
Proponents of the bill claim they want to help part-time
workers by moving the threshold for employer penalties.
However, raising the threshold will increase employers'
incentive to reduce workers hours. It will result in nearly
tripling (from 2.3 million to 6.5 million) the number of
workers vulnerable to having their hours cut, according to
experts at UC Berkley. Researchers have also found that the
cost to employers in moving workers from 40 hours (the
proposed threshold under H.R. 30) to 39 hours per week are
negligible compared to the costs of offering coverage or
paying the employer responsibility penalty. Thus, this policy
would essentially eliminate the employer responsibility
requirement.
Proponents of this legislation claim that they want to help
part-time workers. However, the bill would exacerbate the
problem it purports to solve. The ``Save American
[[Page H136]]
Workers Act'' will actually hurt millions of workers and the
U.S. economy. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters
urges you to vote no on H.R. 30.
Sincerely,
James P. Hoffa,
General President.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time I have
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 3\1/4\
minutes remaining.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young) for the closing on his
legislation.
Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you so much for this opportunity to try to
advance legislation to improve the Nation's health care law in a
bipartisan fashion.
You know, I don't understand the visceral resistance to trying to
lighten the load on our Nation's hourly workers. The wage earners, the
people who need it most--our cafeteria workers, our substitute
teachers, our people at retail centers all across the country--they are
the ones during this still-recovering, seemingly dormant recovery for
so many of my constituents, they are the ones who are demanding these
sorts of changes.
Much has been made of the evidence here. There is plenty of evidence
in every congressional district across the country that people are
hurting on account of this 30 hours is full time provision in the
Affordable Care Act. And this all comes before the employer mandate had
kicked in, and it has followed in the recent days since it officially
kicked in on January 1.
This was just implemented. It will be amazing to see the evidence
come in, should we not change the definition of full-time employment up
to 40 hours, once people figure out that they are going to be paying a
big old tax for not buying every single employee above that 30-hour
threshold government-sanctioned health insurance.
More evidence: there are over 300 groups that have associated
themselves with this legislation and ask that we pass it. Among those
groups is the More Time for Full Time coalition, which includes such
groups as the Indiana Chamber of Commerce, Indiana Grocery and
Convenience Store Association, Indiana Restaurant & Lodging
Association, the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the Michigan Grocers
Association, the Michigan Lodging and Tourism Association, the Michigan
Restaurant Association.
For more examples, I will enter this document into the Record.
More Time for Full Time,
January 6, 2015.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Senate Majority Leader,
Washington, DC.
Dear Leader McConnell: The More Time for Full-Time
Coalition (www.moretimefor
fulltime.org ) greatly appreciates your steadfast support for
restoring the traditional definition of full-time employee to
40 hours per week and urges you to move Senate consideration
of legislation to do so as early as possible in the 114th
Congress.
Many employees are being hurt by lost wages and hours
because the 30-hour-per-week definition in the Affordable
Care Act is forcing employers to restructure their workforce
by reducing their employees' hours to alleviate the burden of
compliance. Harmonizing the definition of full-time employee
in the ACA with the traditional 40-hour definition would
benefit both employees through more hours and income, and
employers now able to focus on growing their business and
creating jobs rather than restructuring their workforce.
In this is not addressed soon, our country will experience
significant workforce disruptions and individuals as well as
companies will lose valued workforce flexibility. We urge you
to work in a bipartisan way to restore the traditional
definition of full-time employment by changing the Affordable
Care Act's 30-hour-per-week definition.
Many Americans are drawn to part-time jobs with flexible
hours to suit their personal needs. Further, employers with
variable-hour workforces and flexible scheduling have been
appealing and critical for students, single parents, and
other individuals struggling to balance various obligations
and commitments. This critical flexibility will be lost if
employers are forced to abandon current practices in order to
avoid significant financial penalties.
Aligning the law's definition of full-time employee status
with current levels would help avoid any unnecessary
disruptions to employees' wages and hours, and would provide
significant relief.
Thank you for considering our concerns and for your
leadership in addressing a fundamental challenge employees
and businesses face in implementing this law.
Sincerely,
National Associations: American Hotel & Lodging
Association, American Rental Association, Asian American
Hotel Owners Association, Associated Builders and
Contractors, College & University Professional Association
for Human Resources, International Franchise Association,
National Association of Convenience Stores, National
Association of Manufacturers, National Association of Theatre
Owners, National Association of Truck Stop Operators,
National Club Association, National Council of Chain
Restaurants, National Grocers Association, National
Restaurant Association, National Retail Federation, Society
for Human Resource Management, U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
State and Local Associations: Adirondack Regional Chamber
Commerce (NY), Alabama Grocers Association, Alabama
Restaurant & Hospitality Alliance, Alaska Chamber (AK),
Alaska Hotel & Lodging Association, Alaska Restaurant &
Hospitality Alliance, Albany-Colonie Regional Chamber (NY),
Alexander City Chamber of Commerce (AL), Ames Chamber of
Commerce (IA), Angel Fire Chamber of Commerce (NM), ARA of
Alabama, ARA of Arizona, ARA of Arkansas, ARA of California,
ARA of Colorado, ARA of Connecticut, ARA of Florida, ARA of
Georgia, ARA of Idaho, ARA of Illinois, ARA of Indiana, ARA
of Iowa, ARA of Kentucky, ARA of Louisiana, ARA of Maine, ARA
of Maryland, ARA of Massachusetts, ARA of Michigan, ARA of
Montana, ARA of Nebraska, ARA of New Jersey, ARA of New
York, ARA of North Carolina, ARA of Ohio, ARA of Oklahoma,
ARA of Oregon, ARA of Pennsylvania, ARA of Tennessee, ARA
of Vermont, ARA of Virginia;
ARA of Washington, ARA of Wisconsin, Arizona Food Marketing
Alliance, Arizona Lodging & Tourism Association, Arkansas
Grocers and Retail Merchants Association, Arkansas
Hospitality Association, Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce
(AK), Ashland Area Chamber of Commerce (OH), Associated
Industries of Massachusetts, Inc. (MA), Baltimore Washington
Corridor Chamber of Commerce (MD), Bangor Region Chamber of
Commerce (ME), Barrow County Chamber of Commerce (GA), Beaver
Dam Chamber of Commerce (WI), Boca Raton Chamber of Commerce
(FL), Brownsville Chamber of Commerce (TX), California
Grocers Association, California Hotel & Lodging Association,
California Restaurant Association, Campbell County Chamber of
Commerce (WY), Cape May County Chamber of Commerce (NJ);
Carolinas Food Industry Council, Catawba County Chamber of
Commerce (NC), Central Chamber of Commerce (LA), Central
Delaware Chamber of Commerce (DE), Chester County Chamber of
Business and Industry (PA), Clearwater Regional Chamber of
Commerce (FL), Cobb Chamber of Commerce (GA), Colorado Hotel
& Lodging Association, Colorado Restaurant Association,
Committee of 100 Louisiana (LA), Connecticut Food
Association, Connecticut Lodging Association, Corning Area
Chamber of Commerce (NY), Council Bluffs Area Chamber of
Commerce (IA), Dakota County Regional Chamber of Commerce
(MN), Delaware Restaurant Association, Delaware State Chamber
of Commerce (DE), Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce (CO), Des
Plaines Chamber of Commerce & Industry (IL), Dublin-Laurens
County Chamber of Commerce (GA);
Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce (VA), Florida Chamber of
Commerce (FL), Florida Restaurant & Lodging Association, Fox
Cities Chamber of Commerce (WI), Fresno Chamber of Commerce
(CA), Fullerton Chamber of Commerce (CA), Galesburg Area
Chamber of Commerce (IL), Garrett County Chamber of Commerce
(MD), Georgia Food Industry Association, Georgia Hotel &
Lodging Association, Georgia Restaurant Association, Glendale
Chamber of Commerce (AZ), Goshen Chamber of Commerce (IN),
Grand Junction Area Chamber of Commerce (CO), Grand Rapids
Area Chamber of Commerce (MI), Grapevine Chamber of Commerce
(TX), Greater Burlington Partnership (IA), Greater Durham
Chamber of Commerce (NC), Greater Flagstaff Chamber of
Commerce (AZ), Greater Green Bay Chamber (WI);
Greater Louisville, Inc. (KY), Greater North Dakota Chamber
of Commerce (ND), Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce (AZ),
Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce (RI), Greater
Shreveport Chamber of Commerce (LA), Greater Springfield
Chamber of Commerce (VA), Greater Topeka Chamber of Commerce
(KS), Greece Chamber of Commerce (NY), Hardy County Chamber
of Commerce (WV), Harford County Chamber (MD), Harlan County
Chamber of Commerce (KY), Harrisburg Regional Chamber & CREDC
(PA), Hawaii Lodging & Tourism Association, Hotel Association
of New York City, Inc., Hotel Association of Washington DC,
Hueneme Chamber of Commerce (CA), Idaho Lodging & Restaurant
Association, Idaho Retailers Association, Illinois Chamber of
Commerce (IL), Illinois Food Retailers Association;
Illinois Hotel & Lodging Association, Illinois Restaurant
Association, Indiana Chamber of Commerce (IN), Indiana
Grocery and Convenience Store Association, Indiana Restaurant
& Lodging Association, Iowa Chamber Alliance (IA), Iowa
Chamber Alliance
[[Page H137]]
(IA), Iowa Grocery Industry Association, Iowa Restaurant
Association, Irving Hispanic Chamber of Commerce (TX),
Jacksonville-Onslow Chamber of Commerce (NC), Jefferson
Chamber of Commerce (LA), Kansas Food Dealers Association,
Kansas Restaurant & Hospitality Association, Kentucky
Association of Convenience Stores, Kentucky Chamber of
Commerce (KY), Kentucky Grocers Association, Kentucky
Restaurant Association, Lemoore Chamber of Commerce (CA),
Licking County Chamber of Commerce (OH);
Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce (CA), Loudoun County
Chamber of Commerce (VA), Louisiana Association of Business
and Industry (LA), Louisiana Hotel & Lodging Association,
Louisiana Restaurant Association, Louisiana Retailers
Association, Lubbock Chamber of Commerce (TX), Maine
Innkeepers Association, Maine Restaurant Association, Maine
State Chamber of Commerce (ME), Marshall Area Chamber of
Commerce (MN), Maryland Chamber of Commerce (MD), Maryland
Hotel & Lodging Association, Maryland Retailers Association,
Massachusetts Food Association, Massachusetts Lodging
Association, Michigan Chamber of Commerce (MI), Michigan
Grocers Association, Michigan Lodging and Tourism
Association, Michigan Restaurant Association;
Mid-America Grocers Association, Mid-Atlantic Hispanic
Chamber of Commerce (MD), Minnesota Grocers Association,
Minnesota Lodging Association, Minnesota Rental Association,
Minnesota Restaurant Association, Miramar Pembroke Pines
Regional Chamber of Commerce (FL), Mississippi Hospitality
and Restaurant Association, Missouri Grocers Association,
Missouri Restaurant Association, Mobile (AL) Area Chamber
of Commerce, Monroe Chamber of Commerce (LA), Montana
Chamber of Commerce (MT), Montana Lodging & Hospitality
Association, Montana Manufacturing Council (MT),
Murphysboro Chamber of Commerce (IL), Myrtle Beach Area
Chamber of Commerce (SC), Nebraska Chamber of Commerce &
Industry (NE), Nebraska Grocery Industry Association,
Nebraska Hotel & Motel Association;
Nebraska Restaurant Association, Nevada Hotel & Lodging
Association, New Hampshire Equipment Rental Association, New
Hampshire Lodging & Restaurant Association, New Hampshire
Restaurant & Lodging Association, New Jersey Food Council,
New Jersey State Chamber of Commerce (NJ), New Mexico
Restaurant Association, New York Hospitality & Tourism
Association, New York State Food Merchants Association, New
York State Restaurant Association, Newberry County Chamber of
Commerce (SC), Nome Chamber of Commerce (AK), North Carolina
Chamber (NC), North Carolina Restaurant & Lodging
Association, North Carolina Retail Merchants Association,
North Country Chamber of Commerce (NY), North Dakota Grocers
Association, North Myrtle Beach Chamber of Commerce (SC),
North Shore Chamber of Commerce (MA);
Northern Kentucky Chamber of Commerce (KY), Ohio Chamber of
Commerce (OH), Ohio Grocers Association, Ohio Hotel & Lodging
Association, Ohio Restaurant Association, Oklahoma Grocers
Association, Oklahoma Hotel & Lodging Association, Oklahoma
Restaurant Association, Orange County Business Council (CA),
Oregon Restaurant & Lodging Association, Oshkosh Chamber of
Commerce (WI), Overland Park Chamber of Commerce (KS), Oxnard
Chamber of Commerce (CA), Ozark Empire Grocers Association,
Palm Desert Area Chamber of Commerce (CA), PennSuburban
Chamber of Greater Montgomery County (PA), Pennsylvania
Chamber of Business and Industry (PA), Pennsylvania Food
Merchants Association, Pennsylvania Restaurant & Lodging
Association, Portland Chamber of Commerce (TX);
Rathdrum Chamber of Commerce (ID), Rensselaer County
Regional Chamber of Commerce (NY), Retail Grocers of Greater
Kansas City, Rhode Island Hospitality Association, Rochester
Business Alliance (NY), Rocky Mountain Food Industry
Association (CO/WY), Rome Area Chamber of Commerce (NY),
Roseburg Area Chamber of Commerce (OR), Rowan County
Chamber of Commerce (NC), Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce
(UT), Santa Clara Chamber of Commerce & Convention--
Visitor's Bureau (CA), Santa Clarita Valley Chamber of
Commerce (CA), Schuylkill Chamber of Commerce (PA), Simi
Valley Chamber of Commerce (CA), South Baldwin Chamber of
Commerce (AL), South Carolina Restaurant & Lodging
Association, South Carolina Retail Association, South
Dakota Retailers Association Restaurant Division, South
Padre Island Chamber of Commerce (TX), Springfield Area
Chamber of Commerce (MO);
State Chamber of Oklahoma (OK), Tempe Chamber of Commerce
(AZ), Tennessee Grocers & Convenience Store Association,
Tennessee Hospitality Association, Texas Association of
Business (TX), Texas Food & Fuel Association, Texas Hotel &
Lodging Association, Texas Rental Association, Texas
Restaurant Association, Texas Retailers Association, The
Business Council of New York State, Inc. (NY), The Chamber of
Reno, Sparks, and Northern Nevada (NV), The Greater Cedar
Valley Alliance & Chamber (IA), The Greater Hartsville
Chamber of Commerce (SC), Thibodaux Chamber of Commerce (LA),
Tucson Metro Chamber (AZ), Upper Tampa Bay Chamber of
Commerce (FL), Utah Food Industry Association, Utah Hotel &
Lodging Association, Utah Retail Merchants Association;
Valley Industry & Commerce Association (CA), Vermont
Chamber of Commerce, Vermont Retail and Grocers Association,
Virginia Chamber of Commerce (VA), Virginia Hospitality &
Travel Association, Virginia Hospitality & Travel
Association, Virginia Retail Merchants Association,
Washington Food Industry Association, Washington Lodging
Association, West Chambers County Chamber of Commerce (TX),
West Virginia Chamber of Commerce (WV), West Virginia
Hospitality & Travel Association, West Virginia Oil Marketers
and Grocers Association, Western DuPage Chamber of Commerce
(IL), Wichita Metro Chamber of Commerce (KS), Wilsonville
Area Chamber of Commerce (OR), Wisconsin Grocers Association,
Wisconsin Hotel & Lodging Association, Wisconsin
Manufacturers and Commerce (WI), Wisconsin Restaurant
Association, Wyoming Lodging & Restaurant Association,
Wyoming Restaurant & Lodging Association, Yuba-Sutter Chamber
of Commerce (CA).
Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Why wait? We know we are headed off a cliff
here. This is a fiscally irresponsible provision within the Affordable
Care Act. Who would imagine that we would try to insure 500,000
additional new workers at the expense of up to $105 billion in cash
wages? It is unfair. We ought not try to finance health insurance for
some Americans at the cost of hours and wages for other Americans.
And finally, the Save American Workers Act will remedy these defects
in the current law, resulting in zero workers who work 40 or more hours
being put at risk of a possible massive cut in their hours and wages
down to 29 hours. And it will enable those who work 30 to 35 hours to
no longer be at risk of cuts in their much-needed hours and wages.
{time} 1530
For those reasons and so many others, I just encourage my colleagues
to have an open mind here and work with us for the good of the country
to improve our Nation's health care laws.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Ms. CLARKE of New York. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to oppose H.R. 30,
the highly irresponsible Save American Workers Act. This legislation
weakens employees' access to health insurance, threatens employer based
insurance coverage, and increases the budget deficit by 45.7 billion
dollars due in part to the resulting increase in the number of
uninsured.
I have always believed that access to quality healthcare is a right,
not a privilege! The Affordable Care Act's current 30-hours per week
threshold for classification as a full-time employee was designed to
discourage employers from circumventing penalties that support the
successful implementation of the law. Raising the threshold to 40 hours
per week would limit access to employer-provided insurance coverage,
and thereby impede a person's right to access healthcare.
Some businesses argue that the Affordable Care Act's classification
of a full-time employee adversely impacts a business' hiring and its
ability to offer other employee benefits. However, the facts just don't
bear this out.
According to the San Francisco Federal Reserve, when the Affordable
Care Act's provisions are fully implemented, the overall increase in
the incidence of part-time work is likely to be ``small, on the order
of a 1 to 2 percentage point increase or less.'' Other organizations'
analyses have also found little evidence that health reform has
increased part-time work. In fact, since President Obama took office,
the overall full-time employment rate has consistently increased, so
much so that the current U.S. unemployment rate is 5.8 percent.
The Republican majority is offering the American people a solution in
search of a problem. This bill does not save American jobs, nor does it
help the American worker. Rather, this bill relegates American workers
to the second class status of the ``uninsured'' and in doing so denies
them, what I believe, is their right to affordable, quality healthcare,
which is something that all Americans deserve.
Mr. SCHOCK. Mr. Speaker, nearly 160 million Americans receive health
insurance coverage from their employers. Before Obamacare, employers
were free to tailor their benefit plans to meet the needs of their
workers. Once Obamacare was enacted, however, employers with more than
50 full-time employees were required to offer government-mandated plans
to their employees or face steep tax penalties. In many cases, this
penalty could range from $2,000 to $3,000 per employee.
Obamacare mandated that a ``full-time employee'' is someone who is
employed an average of 30 hours per week. As the administration has
written new regulations to implement Obamacare's mandates, the costly
administrative complexities have forced many employers
[[Page H138]]
to shift more workers to part-time status. According to a 2013 study by
the University of California, Berkeley, as many as 2.3 million
workers--or roughly 2 percent of the American workforce--are
``vulnerable'' to lost employment and reduced wages due to Obamacare's
mandate. In Illinois, an employee earning the state's minimum wage of
$8.25 an hour stands to lose up to $330 a month if the definition of
full-time employment remains at 30 hours.
Additionally, Obamacare's 30-hour rule has caused great harm to
school districts, colleges and universities. As many as 225,000 workers
in the education sector are at risk of seeing their hours cut, hitting
bus drivers, teachers' aides and cafeteria workers the most. Meanwhile,
the rule creates a new burden for institutions of higher learning that
seek to hire adjunct faculty to meet the demands of their students'
course requirements. Not only will these additional burdens place
limits on the services that institutions of higher learning offer to
their students, but in many cases will cause the schools to
dramatically raise tuition.
Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 30, the so-
called Save American Workers Act. I continue to have high hopes for
bipartisanship and working across the aisle, but am very disappointed
that the Republican majority brought up another partisan bill to
undermine the Affordable Care Act, just when this landmark law is
finally delivering for Americans. In fact, we just saw real evidence of
the success of the law--the uninsured rate dropped to 12.9 percent in
the fourth quarter of 2014, down from 17.1 percent in 2013.
The Affordable Care Act is not perfect, but H.R. 30 is not the way to
fix it. While it might seem like common sense idea to raise the
threshold for ACA employer coverage to 40 hours a week from 30 hours a
week, this misguided legislation would give employers a greater
incentive to cut workers hours. Experts at UC Berkeley estimate that
this policy would result in 6.5 million workers being vulnerable to
cuts in their work hours. Furthermore, this legislation would increase
the deficit by $45.7 billion. We need to build off the successes of the
Affordable Care Act, not roll them back.
I hope the 114th Congress can come back soon to consider real reforms
to our health care system that increases access to care, reduces costs,
and decreases the deficit. H.R. 30 does none of those things, so I urge
my colleagues to join me in opposing it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 19, the previous question is ordered on
the bill.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. BECERRA. I am opposed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Becerra moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 30, to the
Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to report the
same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
At the end of the bill add the following:
SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS.
(a) In General.--The amendments made by section 2 shall not
take effect if they could be expected to result in any of the
following:
(1) Prohibition on loss of work hours or wages.--A
reduction in hours worked, and subsequent loss of wages, in
order to skirt requirements to help pay for employee health
care costs.
(2) Ensuring fiscal responsibility and a lower deficit.--
Any increase in the Federal deficit.
(b) Protecting Health Insurance for Veterans and Wounded
Warriors.--The amendments made by section 2 shall not apply
to veterans or their families.
(c) Being a Woman Must Not Be a Pre-existing Condition.--
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize an
employer to--
(1) eliminate, weaken, or reduce health coverage benefits
for current employees;
(2) increase premiums or out-of-pocket costs;
(3) deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions; or
(4) discriminate against women in health insurance
coverage, including by--
(A) charging women more for their health care than men;
(B) limiting coverage for pregnancy and post-natal care; or
(C) restricting coverage of preventive health services,
such as mammograms and contraception.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I reserve a
point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk continued to read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
California is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill,
H.R. 30. This amendment will not kill the bill or send it back to
committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final
passage, as amended.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, H.R. 30 is nothing more than a sucker
punch to the middle class. People who live off of their inheritance
aren't hurt by H.R. 30. People who live off of their investments aren't
hurt by H.R. 30. Even people who are destitute and need our help to
make it through the day aren't hurt by H.R. 30. The only people who are
hurt are workers who earn a paycheck. They are the losers under H.R.
30.
Now, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if you have been watching or
listening to this debate to say to yourself, I don't understand a thing
that went on. One said orange, one said apple. One said tomato, one
said tomato. One said it helps, one said it hurts.
That is what the debates are all about: Americans get to make
decisions. We start this new Congress having made decisions as American
voters, and you would think that we would then come to Congress as
representatives of the people to try to now move forward together. If
we can't agree it is an orange or an apple, let's figure out what we
can agree with.
Whom do we typically turn to to tell us what we should at least agree
with if we still think it is an apple or an orange? We typically turn
to the nonpartisan, neutral body that guides this Congress that is
named the Congressional Budget Office. The Congressional Budget Office
doesn't represent Democrats and it doesn't represent Republicans. It
represents the American people and is here to guide Congress, this
House, to make sure we are making decisions based on the facts.
What are the facts according to the Congressional Budget Office--not
Republicans, not Democrats? According to the Congressional Budget
Office, this bill would increase the taxpayers' burden by $53 billion
over the next decade because this bill is unpaid for. This bill would
result in 1 million Americans losing their employer-sponsored coverage.
That is not Democrats saying that or Republicans. That is the
Congressional Budget Office.
This bill would increase the number of people who obtain their
coverage by government-sponsored health care because they would have
lost their employer-sponsored health care. And that is why the American
taxpayer would have to foot the bill of close to $53 billion.
This bill would also, according to the Congressional Budget Office,
increase the number of Americans who end up with no health insurance up
to 500,000. That is not my number; that is CBO's. I think it is higher,
but CBO says 500,000. I will be guided by CBO.
CBO tells us as well that there are some five to six times as many
American workers who are at the 40-hour-a-week threshold than there are
Americans who work at about 30 hours. So when this bill says that now
the threshold will be 40 hours, any employer who decides to cut 1
hour--the time of this debate, 1 hour--from the paycheck of an American
worker has escaped responsibility to provide health insurance for all
those workers under their employ--1 hour. Six times more American
workers are working 40 hours a week than 30 hours a week. That is why
H.R. 30 costs the American taxpayer money. That is why it is bad for
Americans and their paychecks.
Now, Americans really don't care much about these debates. At the end
of the day, they want to know we are doing something and getting
something done. They want to know we are working together to solve some
problems. They want us to boost job growth. They want us to boost an
economy that works for all Americans, not just the privileged few. We
have some pretty good news for them over the last few years. Nearly 11
million new jobs, 57 consecutive months of job growth, the longest
streak in our country's history. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act
which is being debated today, 10 million more Americans today have
health insurance, and that means health security that they didn't have
before.
[[Page H139]]
The deficit has been cut by two-thirds, gas prices cut by half--good
news. So you are probably not surprised to learn a couple of other
things. During that same time, the economy has grown 12 percent,
corporate profits have grown 46 percent, and the stock market 92
percent. What is the missing element in all of that growth? Paychecks.
The paychecks of the average American worker have stagnated over that
time. Everybody else is doing well at the top, but the guys at the
middle, they are hurting.
What does H.R. 30 do? It sucker punches that same American worker who
has to earn a paycheck--not the guy who has an inheritance, not the guy
who has investments to live off of--the guy who lives off of a
paycheck.
My motion to recommit says stop that. We have our final chance to do
that. Vote for the motion to recommit. Vote against H.R. 30, and let's
work on behalf of Americans and their paychecks.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of the
point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The reservation is withdrawn.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I don't know what to say.
Paychecks. Guess what. It is happening across America today. Even
before the employer mandate kicked in, businesses across America are
cutting workers' hours down to 29. That doesn't help a paycheck.
So think about what is going on in America today and look at what has
already been happening, and this is before this costly employer mandate
even took place. It is happening in every congressional district. We
heard about cafeteria workers, firefighters, teachers, community
colleges, retailers, restaurateurs, all of them being forced to cut the
hours of their employees down to part-time work. If you want to help a
person's paycheck, give them the opportunity to have a full-time job.
That is what this does.
It is really kind of amazing. I hear a lot of talk about the CBO and
the Joint Committee on Taxation and the costs and the costs of this
bill. Here is the bulk of the costs. What we are saying is don't impose
these costly, punitive mandate taxes on hardworking taxpayers.
So by removing these mandate taxes, yes, I suppose it costs the
government some money. It puts that money back into the paychecks and
back into the pockets of the hardworking taxpayers who give us the
money in the first place. It says to businesses: Go ahead and hire, add
hours, and increase wages. That is the so-called cost of this
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, we want more people working. We want the people who are
in 30- to 40-hour jobs, hourly wages, high school educations, just
getting started in life, we want them to keep climbing that ladder of
life. This law puts a huge roadblock in front of people working. What
this motion to recommit does is it is just designed to kill the bill.
With respect to the veterans issue, we solved that yesterday with our
Hire More Heroes Act, which we passed in a big, bipartisan vote. So
make no mistake. This recommit is nothing more than a thinly veiled
attempt to simply kill this bill.
Look, if you want to impose this mandate, if you want to knock people
into part-time work, and if you love ObamaCare, then vote against the
bill. But if you want more jobs, if you want more hours, if you want
more people working, if you want more people having better
opportunities, and if you want to give some relief on these mandate
taxes, then vote for this bill.
This bill is the right way to go. And I have just got to tell you
that, at the end of the day, we haven't even seen the full force of
this punitive move because the employer mandate is just beginning to
kick in. All of these things have happened in anticipation of this new
mandate. We haven't even seen the worst of it yet. That is why we
should pass this now and prevent this from happening and getting worse
before this mandate kicks in.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 179,
nays 244, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 13]
YEAS--179
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle (PA)
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu (CA)
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle (PA)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu (CA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NAYS--244
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Delaney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emmer
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
[[Page H140]]
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOT VOTING--6
Duckworth
Gallego
Gosar
Gutierrez
O'Rourke
Whitfield
{time} 1607
Messrs. NEUGEBAUER, FRELINGHUYSEN, McHENRY, REED, WALKER, STUTZMAN,
Ms. STEFANIK, Messrs. PALAZZO and EMMER changed their vote from ``yea''
to ``nay.''
Messrs. BEYER, ISRAEL, CARNEY, GRIJALVA, ASHFORD, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD,
and Mr. SERRANO changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 252,
noes 172, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 14]
AYES--252
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Ashford
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bera
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Delaney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emmer
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Graham
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peters
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOES--172
Adams
Aguilar
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle (PA)
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu (CA)
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle (PA)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Garamendi
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu (CA)
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--5
Duckworth
Gallego
Gosar
O'Rourke
Whitfield
{time} 1616
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________