[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 1]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 315-316]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        ORGANIZATIONS OPPOSED TO

                                H.R. 30

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. SANDER M. LEVIN

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 8, 2015

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following letters.
                                                  January 7, 2015.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the three million members 
     of the National Education Association, and the students they 
     serve, we urge you to vote NO on the Save American Workers 
     Act of 2015 (H.R. 30), scheduled for a floor vote this week. 
     Votes associated with this issue may be included in NEA's 
     Report Card for the 114th Congress.
       We oppose the bill because we believe it would create a 
     disincentive for employers to provide health care coverage, 
     negatively impacting employer-sponsored health insurance and 
     harming families, children and educators who need coverage.
       We believe that the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) shared 
     responsibility for employers, sometimes referred to as the 
     employer penalty, supports the overall goal of expanding 
     quality, affordable coverage to all Americans.
       We are concerned that this bill's changes to the ACA's 
     definition of what constitutes full-time employment from ``on 
     average at least 30 hours of service per week'' monthly to an 
     average of 40 hours per week monthly would adversely affect 
     overall employer-sponsored health coverage. That change would 
     make a shift towards part-time employment much more likely. 
     Employers could respond by cutting employees' hours to under 
     an average of 40 per week to avoid possible shared 
     responsibility penalties and could eliminate coverage for 
     these employees without fear of penalties.
       The result of a cut in employee hours would be 
     substantially less employer-sponsored health coverage--and as 
     a result, a potentially large increase in federal spending 
     for the premium tax credits that many low- and moderate-
     income people will receive under health reform to help them 
     buy coverage through a health insurance marketplace 
     (exchange). Employers and employees would also face a complex 
     new administrative burden as they tried to determine which 
     employees paid on a salaried basis fell above or below the 
     40-hour mark; salaried school employees' exact hours of 
     service are generally not counted the same way as hourly 
     employees' hours, but tallying their in-school and out-of-
     school hours would suddenly become issues of concern to 
     employers interested in avoiding penalties.
       Additionally if employment-based coverage is reduced, an 
     even greater number of low-income individuals and their 
     families in the 23 states that have failed to expand Medicaid 
     would be unable to afford to buy health coverage. In those 
     states, childless adults whose incomes fall below 100 percent 
     of the federal poverty line would not only be denied access 
     to Medicaid coverage, but they would be ineligible for 
     premium tax credits and cost-sharing reductions through a 
     health insurance marketplace. Moving the full-time definition 
     from 30 hours to 40 hours, as this bill does, would only 
     expand the number of people hurt by this coverage gap.
       We believe H.R. 30 misses the mark by substituting ``40 
     hours'' for ``30 hours'' because it would do nothing to stop 
     employers' misuse of the ACA's employer penalty provisions as 
     a justification for cutting employees' hours of service and 
     health coverage. Experience with this portion of the ACA 
     shows that one of the biggest implementation challenges in 
     the education sector consists of making sure that employers 
     and other health plan sponsors fully understand the law's 
     provisions related to shared responsibility for employers. 
     For years, we have engaged with the Department of the 
     Treasury and Internal Revenue Service to ensure that 
     regulations on shared responsibility for employers work 
     consistently well in the education sector, and believe 
     regulators have taken important steps in this direction.
       The changes contemplated in this bill, however, would 
     simply shift the hours-related context in which these common 
     errors take place:
       Mistakenly believing that the only way to avoid employer 
     penalties is to cut employees' hours to under 30 a week or to 
     under six hours a day. In fact, school calendars include so 
     many unpaid days during the school year--for spring break, 
     winter break, federal holidays, and other such times--that 
     hourly employees can normally work more than 6 hours a day 
     without ever being considered a full-time employee.
       Misunderstanding how and when to use proposed regulations 
     related to an optional hours-counting method called the look-
     back measurement method. It's unfortunate that some school 
     employers wrongly blame the look-back measurement method for 
     limiting their hours-counting options when regulations 
     recognize four different ways that employers can calculate 
     whether an employee is a full-timer or not.
       Overestimating the potential cost of complying with the 
     law's provisions on shared responsibility for employers. 
     Regulations include many ways that employers can minimize or 
     even avoid penalties, but some employers fail to factor these 
     options into their analyses, so they exaggerate and often 
     incorrectly state the potential for penalties.
       Failing to incorporate into their decision-making the 
     statutory and regulatory provisions that ensure that this 
     part of the ACA establishes the possibility of a penalty on 
     large employers rather than an ``employer mandate.'' Just 
     like before the ACA became law, there is no federal law that 
     requires employers to offer coverage to employees. Many large 
     employers will not face penalties at all, or will face 
     smaller penalties than they initially thought.
       These and other ACA-implementation errors can lead to 
     exaggerated responses that hurt students, workers, and 
     families alike. Unfortunately, H.R. 30 would just shift the 
     hours-related focal point for such errors.
       Employers who take the time to understand the law and 
     regulations as they currently stand can develop common sense, 
     constructive, and consensual approaches to properly 
     implementing the law. Again, we urge you to vote NO on Save 
     American Workers Act of 2015.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Mary Kusler,
     Director of Government Relations.
                                  ____


         Save Health Care for Working Families--Oppose H.R. 30

       The Communications Workers of America (CWA) opposes H.R. 
     30, the Save American Workers Act and urge you to vote 
     against it. We believe the Act will make middle-class workers 
     worse off by decreasing access to employer-sponsored health 
     insurance.
       Recent analysis by the Congressional Budget Office and the 
     Joint Committee on Taxation confirms our expectations. CBO 
     and JCT estimate that the number of people who currently 
     receive employment-based health care coverage will be reduced 
     by 1 million as a result of this bill. An estimated 500,000 
     to 1 million workers and their dependents will be pushed by 
     employers onto Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance 
     Program (CHIP), or subsidized coverage through the health 
     insurance exchanges. Up to 500,000 will be left without 
     coverage at all.
       By pushing workers and their dependents from employer-
     sponsored plans to federal health programs, this Act will 
     increase the federal budget deficit. The CBO estimates an 
     increase to the budget deficit of $53.2 billion over ten 
     years as a result in the change in definition of full-time 
     hours as proposed in the Act. That includes $21.4 billion in 
     new spending for exchange subsidies and outlays for Medicaid 
     and CHIP.
       The CBO and JCT assume that employers will increase wages 
     in exchange for eliminating health coverage, but our 
     experience at the bargaining table contradicts this theory. 
     In this continually weak labor market, employers have sought 
     every opportunity to cut benefits and block wage increases. 
     The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities

[[Page 316]]

     found that changing the full-time hour definition to 40-hours 
     would make 44% of US workers vulnerable to a reduction in 
     hours. We believe these workers would not receive a 
     commensurate increase in wages.
       We believe Congress should help American workers and their 
     families improve their standard of living. H.R. 30 will 
     undermine that goal by reducing paid work hours and cutting 
     health coverage.
       The Communications Workers of America urges you to vote no 
     on H.R. 30.

                          ____________________