Save American Workers Act of 2014

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, now we get to the real bill. If the Republicans can't repeal the Affordable Care Act, they're going to try and rot it from the inside.

For the last few days, my Republican colleagues have been spinning this vote as a great populist effort to help the middle class. They explain that, even with these repeals, we can keep all the things we like, covering our kids till age 26, prescription drug help, banning the denial of coverage for those with preexisting conditions.

And legally, they aren't wrong. They're not lying. They're just confusing the people. These laws will still be in place; but realistically, in the real world in which we live, it will be hard to cover your kids and subsidize drugs if the insurance industry no longer exists in this country.

Without the healthy consumers the mandate guarantees, only the sickest and the costliest will be left, and prices will skyrocket.

We have a letter from the Congressional Budget Office that says that if we delay this, you can expect that the prices of insurance will go up and fewer people will be covered.

The reason you don't see any fur flying is because the insurance industry knows this isn't going anywhere. This is just a lot of political theater.

In Washington, we tried this. In 1993, the Democrats put in universal coverage and guaranteed issue. Everybody had a mandate, and you were going to get it. The insurance companies couldn't do otherwise. Two years later, the Republicans repealed the guaranteed mandate, leaving the insurance industry covering the sickest in the State of Washington. Within 3 years, there were no individual policies sold in the State of Washington.

We have run this game once in Washington State, and you are coming out here today and running it again. It's been tried in other States. You cannot have universal coverage without a mandate. You cannot have insurance reform that guarantees everybody insurance.

Now, this isn't prophecy on my part. This has happened. A lot of what you hear about around here is that people

are talking, well, gee, we got these terrible insurance rates going up.

They're not going up in Washington in our exchange. They're not going up in Oregon in the exchange. They're not going up in California in the exchange. Today, New York reports they're not going up in New York.

Anybody who stands out here and says insurance rates are out of sight simply is misleading the people.

We ought to vote ``no'' on this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

U.S. Congress,

Congressional Budget Office,

Washington, DC, July 16, 2013.

Hon. Dave Camp,

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee

on Taxation (JCT) have begun a review of H.R. 2668, the

Fairness for American Families Act, but we have not yet

completed a cost estimate for the bill. On a preliminary

basis, however, we expect that enacting H.R. 2668 would have

the effect of reducing the deficit in 2014 and over the 2014-

2023 period. That initial conclusion is based on our prior

work on proposals to repeal the individual mandate

established in the Affordable Care Act.

The legislation would delay for one year the requirement

that nearly every resident of the United States have health

insurance coverage by January 1, 2014. The bill also would

shift by one year the schedule of penalties for people who do

not comply with the mandate.

CBO and JCT expect that, during the period of delayed

phase-in of the penalty for failing to comply with the

mandate, health insurance premiums for individually purchased

coverage would be higher under H.R. 2668 than they are

projected to be under current law. In addition, the number of

people with health insurance coverage would be reduced

relative to current law.

I hope you find this preliminary information useful; if you

wish further details, we will be pleased to provide them.

Sincerely,

Douglas W. Elmendorf.

Enclosure.

Mr. Speaker, I will insert for the Record the report on the Ninth Indiana District and the people who will benefit from that bill when it goes into effect on the first of October.

Benefits of the Health Care Reform Law in the 9th Congressional

District of Indiana

Committees on Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Education and

the Workforce, Democratic Staff Report, July 2013

The landmark Affordable Care Act (ACA) began delivering

important new benefits and protections to tens of millions of

American families almost immediately after it was signed into

law by President Obama. But the largest benefits of the law

will become available to consumers on October 1, 2013, when

health insurance marketplaces open in all 50 states. These

marketplaces will offer individuals, families, and small

businesses an efficient, transparent, one-stop shop to

compare health insurance policies, receive financial

assistance, and sign up for high-quality, affordable, and

secure insurance coverage.

This fact sheet summarizes new data on the significant

benefits of the health care reform law in Rep. Young's

district. It also provides the first picture of the impacts

of the law in districts redrawn or newly created following

the 2010 Census. As a result of the law:

8,300 young adults in the district now have health

insurance through their parents' plan.

More than 9,300 seniors in the district received

prescription drug discounts worth $13.7 million, an average

discount of $680 per person in 2011, $720 in 2012, and $700

thus far in 2013.

110,000 seniors in the district are now eligible for

Medicare preventive services without paying any co-pays,

coinsurance, or deductible.

213,000 individuals in the district--including 45,000

children and 86,000 women--now have health insurance that

covers preventive services without any co-pays, coinsurance,

or deductible.

135,000 individuals in the district are saving money due to

ACA provisions that prevent insurance companies from spending

more than 20% of their premiums on profits and administrative

overhead. Because of these protections, over 33,800 consumers

in the district received approximately $4.4 million in

insurance company rebates in 2012 and 2011--an average rebate

of $157 per family in 2012 and $99 per family in 2011.

Up to 40,000 children in the district with preexisting

health conditions can no longer be denied coverage by health

insurers.

255,000 individuals in the district now have insurance that

cannot place lifetime limits on their coverage and will not

face annual limits on coverage starting in 2014.

Up to 91,000 individuals in the district who lack health

insurance will have access to quality, affordable coverage

without fear of discrimination or higher rates because of a

preexisting health condition. In addition, the 35,000

individuals who currently purchase private health insurance

on the individual or small group market will have access to

more secure, higher quality coverage and many will be

eligible for financial assistance.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).

Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the report on the Third Congressional District of Minnesota and the people who will benefit from this act.

Benefits of the Health Care Reform Law in the 3rd Congressional

District of Minnesota

Committees on Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Education and

the Workforce, Democratic Staff Report, July 2013

The landmark Affordable Care Act (ACA) began delivering

important new benefits and protections to tens of millions of

American families almost immediately after it was signed into

law by President Obama. But the largest benefits of the law

will become available to consumers on October 1, 2013, when

health insurance marketplaces open in all 50 states. These

marketplaces will offer individuals, families, and small

businesses an efficient, transparent, one-stop-shop to

compare health insurance policies, receive financial

assistance, and sign up for high-quality, affordable, and

secure insurance coverage.

This fact sheet summarizes new data on the significant

benefits of the health care reform law in Rep. Paulsen's

district. It also provides the first picture of the impacts

of the law in districts redrawn or newly created following

the 2010 Census. As a result of the law:

3,300 young adults in the district now have health

insurance through their parents' plan.

More than 8,800 seniors in the district received

prescription drug discounts worth $12.2 million, an average

discount of $620 per person in 2011, $680 in 2012, and $1,070

thus far in 2013.

108,000 seniors in the district are now eligible for

Medicare preventive services without paying any co-pays,

coinsurance, or deductible.

220,000 individuals in the district--including 54,000

children and 87,000 women--now have health insurance that

covers preventive services without any co-pays, coinsurance,

or deductible.

150,000 individuals in the district are saving money due to

ACA provisions that prevent insurance companies from spending

more than 20% of their premiums on profits and administrative

overhead. Because of these protections, over 16,600 consumers

in the district received approximately $1.4 million in

insurance company rebates in 2012 and 2011--an average rebate

of $303 per family in 2012 and $160 per family in 2011.

Up to 40,000 children in the district with preexisting

health conditions can no longer be denied coverage by health

insurers.

282,000 individuals in the district now have insurance that

cannot place lifetime limits on their coverage and will not

face annual limits on coverage starting in 2014.

53,000 individuals in the district who lack health

insurance will have access to quality, affordable coverage

without fear of discrimination or higher rates because of a

preexisting health condition. In addition, the 42,000

individuals who currently purchase private health insurance

on the individual or small group market will have access to

more secure, higher quality coverage and many will be

eligible for financial assistance.

I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). He's been here for a number of years, always fighting for health care, and he is living proof that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. He's here today fighting for health care, just like he did the first day he got here.

(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, according to a report on the First Congressional District of Tennessee, 5,800 young adults have insurance on their parents' plan, 13,000 seniors receive prescription drug benefit reductions, and 168,000 seniors are now eligible for preventive care that's free. And on and on it goes.

Benefits of the Health Care Reform Law in the 1st Congressional

District of Tennessee

committees on energy and commerce, ways and means, and education and

the workforce, democratic staff report, july 2013

The landmark Affordable Care Act (ACA) began delivering

important new benefits and

protections to tens of millions of American families almost

immediately after it was signed into law by President Obama.

But the largest benefits of the law will become available to

consumers on October 1, 2013, when health insurance

marketplaces open in all 50 states. These marketplaces will

offer individuals, families, and small businesses an

efficient, transparent one-stop shop to compare health

insurance policies, receive financial assistance, and sign up

for high-quality, affordable, and secure insurance coverage.

This fact sheet summarizes new data on the significant

benefits of the health care reform law in Rep. Roe's

district. It also provides the first picture of the impacts

of the law in districts redrawn or newly created following

the 2010 Census. As a result of the law:

5,800 young adults in the district now have health

insurance through their parents' plan.

More than 13,100 seniors in the district received

prescription drug discounts worth $16.9 million, an average

discount of $580 per person in 2011, $630 in 2012, and $680

thus far in 2013.

168,000 seniors in the district are now eligible for

Medicare preventive services without paying any co-pays,

coinsurance, or deductible.

177,000 individuals in the district--including 34,000

children and 75,000 women--now have health insurance that

covers preventive services without any co-pays, coinsurance,

or deductible.

168,000 individuals in the district are saving money due to

ACA provisions that prevent insurance companies from spending

more than 20% of their premiums on profits and administrative

overhead. Because of these protections, over 26,000 consumers

in the district received approximately $3.7 million in

insurance company rebates in 2012 and 2011--an average rebate

of $69 per family in 2012 and $201 per family in 2011.

Up to 36,000 children in the district with preexisting

health conditions can no longer be denied coverage by health

insurers.

190,000 individuals in the district now have insurance that

cannot place lifetime limits on their coverage and will not

face annual limits on coverage starting in 2014.

Up to 103,000 individuals in the district who lack health

insurance will have access to quality, affordable coverage

without fear of discrimination or higher rates because of a

preexisting health condition. In addition, the 28,000

individuals who currently purchase private health insurance

on the individual or small group market will have access to

more secure, higher quality coverage and many will be

eligible for financial assistance.

I yield 1 minute to the leader of the Democratic Party, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert letters from consumer groups opposing the bill--Easter Seals, American Diabetes Association, American Heart Association, and others.

I also would like to enter into the Record the report on the Fifth Congressional District of Virginia and those who will benefit from the Affordable Care Act.

Benefits of the Health Care Reform Law in the 5th Congressional

District of Virginia

committees on energy and commerce, ways and means, and education and

the workforce, democratic staff Report, july 2013

The landmark Affordable Care Act (ACA) began delivering

important new benefits and protections to tens of millions of

American families almost immediately after it was signed into

law by President Obama. But the largest benefits of the law

will become available to consumers on October 1, 2013, when

health insurance marketplaces open in all 50 states. These

marketplaces will offer individuals, families, and small

businesses an efficient, transparent one-stop shop to compare

health insurance policies, receive financial assistance, and

sign up for high-quality, affordable, and secure insurance

coverage.

This fact sheet summarizes new data on the significant

benefits of the health care reform law in Rep. Hurt's

district. It also provides the first picture of the impacts

of the law in districts redrawn or newly created following

the 2010 Census. As a result of the law:

5,900 young adults in the district now have health

insurance through their parents' plan.

More than 11,400 seniors in the district received

prescription drug discounts worth $15.6 million, an average

discount of $590 per person in 2011, $720 in 2012, and $800

thus far in 2013.

165,000 seniors in the district are now eligible for

Medicare preventive services without paying any co-pays,

coinsurance, or deductible.

201,000 individuals in the district--including 37,000

children and 87,000 women--now have health insurance that

covers preventive services without any co-pays, coinsurance,

or deductible.

188,000 individuals in the district are saving money due to

ACA provisions that prevent insurance companies from spending

more than 20% of their premiums on profits and administrative

overhead. Because of these protections, over 57,300 consumers

in the district received approximately $4.6 million in

insurance company rebates in 2011 and 2012--an average rebate

of $115 per family in 2011 and $88 per family in 2012.

Up to 37,000 children in the district with preexisting

health conditions can no longer be denied coverage by health

insurers.

235,000 individuals in the district now have insurance that

cannot place lifetime limits on their coverage and will not

face annual limits on coverage starting in 2014.

Up to 91,000 individuals in the district who lack health

insurance will have access to quality, affordable coverage

without fear of discrimination or higher rates because of a

preexisting health condition. In addition, the 51,000

individuals who currently purchase private health insurance

on the individual or small group market will have access to

more secure, higher quality coverage and many will be

eligible for financial assistance.

I now yield 5 minutes to the minority whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to report on the Seventh Congressional District of Virginia, where the promises have been kept:

4,500 young adults have health insurance on their parents' plan;

10,000 seniors have received help with their drug costs;

112,000 seniors are now eligible for preventive care at no cost;

288,000 people in the Seventh District now have insurance that does not have lifetime limits.

The promises have been kept in the Seventh District.

Benefits of the Health Care Reform Law in the 7th Congressional

District of Virginia

committees on energy and commerce, ways and means, and education and

the workforce, democratic staff report, july 2013

The landmark Affordable Care Act (ACA) began delivering

important new benefits and protections to tens of millions of

American families almost immediately after it was signed into

law by President Obama. But the largest benefits of the law

will become available to consumers on October 1, 2013, when

health insurance marketplaces open in all 50 states. These

marketplaces will offer individuals, families, and small

businesses an efficient, transparent one-stop shop to compare

health insurance policies, receive financial assistance, and

sign up for high-quality, affordable, and secure insurance

coverage.

This fact sheet summarizes new data on the significant

benefits of the health care reform law in Rep. Cantor's

district. It also provides the first picture of the impacts

of the law in districts redrawn or newly created following

the 2010 Census. As a result of the law:

4,500 young adults in the district now have health

insurance through their parents' plan.

More than 10,000 seniors in the district received

prescription drug discounts worth $13.6 million, an average

discount of $580 per person in 2011, $730 in 2012, and $800

thus far in 2013.

112,000 seniors in the district are now eligible for

Medicare preventive services without paying any co-pays,

coinsurance, or deductible.

236,000 individuals in the district--including 56,000

children and 95,000 women--now have health insurance that

covers preventive services without any co-pays, coinsurance,

or deductible.

222,000 individuals in the district are saving money due to

ACA provisions that prevent insurance companies from spending

more than 20% of their premiums on profits and administrative

overhead. Because of these protections, over 67,300 consumers

in the district received approximately $5.4 million in

insurance company rebates in 2011 and 2012--an average rebate

of $115 per family in 2011 and $88 per family in 2012.

Up to 43,000 children in the district with preexisting

health conditions can no longer be denied coverage by health

insurers.

288,000 individuals in the district now have insurance that

cannot place lifetime limits on their coverage and will not

face annual limits on coverage starting in 2014.

Up to 74,000 individuals in the district who lack health

insurance will have access to quality, affordable coverage

without fear of discrimination or higher rates because of a

preexisting health condition. In addition, the 42,000

individuals who currently purchase private health insurance

on the individual or small group market will have access to

more secure, higher quality coverage and many will be

eligible for financial assistance.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds so that I can inform the body of the effect on the Fifth Congressional District of the State of Washington:

7,000 adults, young adults, are on their parents' plan;

5,600 seniors have had benefits around their drug costs;

89,000 who have lacked health insurance now have it.

All of this is because of the Affordable Care Act.

Benefits of the Health Care Reform Law in the 5th Congressional

District of Washington

Committees on Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Education and

the Workforce, Democratic Staff Report, July 2013

The landmark Affordable Care Act (ACA) began delivering

important new benefits and protections to tens of millions of

American families almost immediately after it was signed into

law by President Obama. But the largest benefits of the law

will become available to consumers on October 1, 2013, when

health insurance marketplaces open in all 50 states. These

marketplaces will offer individuals, families, and small

businesses an efficient, transparent one-stop shop to compare

health insurance policies, receive financial assistance, and

sign up for high-quality, affordable, and secure insurance

coverage.

This fact sheet summarizes new data on the significant

benefits of the health care reform law in Rep. McMorris

Rodgers's district. It also provides the first picture of the

impacts of the law in districts redrawn or newly created

following the 2010 Census. As a result of the law:

7,900 young adults in the district now have health

insurance through their parents' plan.

More than 5,600 seniors in the district received

prescription drug discounts worth $7.5 million, an average

discount of $620 per person in 2011, $660 in 2012, and $1,070

thus far in 2013.

113,000 seniors in the district are now eligible for

Medicare preventive services without paying any co-pays,

coinsurance, or deductible.

180,000 individuals in the district--including 36,000

children and 75,000 women--now have health insurance that

covers preventive services without any co-pays, coinsurance,

or deductible.

167,000 individuals in the district are saving money due to

ACA provisions that prevent insurance companies from spending

more than 20% of their premiums on profits and administrative

overhead. Because of these protections, over 700 consumers in

the district received approximately $100,000 in insurance

company rebates in 2012 and 2011--an average rebate of $512

per family in 2012 and $185 per family in 2011.

Up to 36,000 children in the district with preexisting

health conditions can no longer be denied coverage by health

insurers.

203,000 individuals in the district now have insurance that

cannot place lifetime limits on their coverage and will not

face annual limits on coverage starting in 2014.

89,000 individuals in the district who lack health

insurance will have access to quality, affordable coverage

without fear of discrimination or higher rates because of a

preexisting health condition. In addition, the 45,000

individuals who currently purchase private health insurance

on the individual or small group market will have access to

more

secure, higher quality coverage and many will be eligible for

financial assistance.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the Record a report on the effects of the Affordable Care Act on the Tenth District of Michigan.

Benefits of the Health Care Reform Law in the 10th Congressional

District of Michigan

Committees on Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Education and

the Workforce, Democratic Staff Report, July 2013

The landmark Affordable Care Act (ACA) began delivering

important new benefits and protections to tens of millions of

American families almost immediately after it was signed into

law by President Obama. But the largest benefits of the law

will become available to consumers on October 1, 2013, when

health insurance marketplaces open in all 50 states. These

marketplaces will offer individuals, families, and small

businesses an efficient, transparent, one-stop shop to

compare health insurance policies, receive financial

assistance, and sign up for high-quality, affordable, and

secure insurance coverage.

This fact sheet summarizes new data on the significant

benefits of the health care reform law in Rep. Miller's

district. It also provides the first picture of the impacts

of the law in districts redrawn or newly created following

the 2010 Census. As a result of the law:

4,900 young adults in the district now have health

insurance through their parents' plan.

More than 8,900 seniors in the district received

prescription drug discounts worth $11.8 million, an average

discount of $610 per person in 2011, $780 in 2012, and $630

thus far in 2013.

130,000 seniors in the district are now eligible for

Medicare preventive services without paying any co-pays,

coinsurance, or deductible.

210,000 individuals in the district--including 47,000

children and 86,000 women--now have health insurance that

covers preventive services without any co-pays, coinsurance,

or deductible.

177,000 individuals in the district are saving money due to

ACA provisions that prevent insurance companies from spending

more than 20% of their premiums on profits and administrative

overhead. Because of these protections, over 17,100 consumers

in the district received approximately $2.5 million in

insurance company rebates in 2012 and 2011--an average rebate

of $138 per family in 2012 and $214 per family in 2011.

Up to 41,000 children in the district with preexisting

health conditions can no longer be denied coverage by health

insurers.

243,000 individuals in the district now have insurance that

cannot place lifetime limits on their overage and will not

face annual limits on coverage starting in 2014.

Up to 73,000 individuals in the district who lack health

insurance will have access to quality, affordable coverage

without fear of discrimination or higher rates because of a

preexisting health condition: In addition, the 39,000

individuals who currently purchase private health insurance

on the individual or small group market will have access to

more secure, higher quality coverage and many will be

eligible for financial assistance.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman who helped write this bill 4 years ago and is here today to defend it, the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield myself 30 seconds.

There are 8,300 young adults who are still getting insurance on their parents' plans; more than 8,500 seniors are receiving prescription drug discounts; 86,000 seniors are now receiving preventative care without having to pay for it under the Medicare program; 195,000 now have health insurance that covers preventative care with no co-pays and insurance; and on and on and on it goes.

I enter into the Record the health care reform law as it affects the 11th Congressional District of Georgia.

Benefits of the Health Care Reform Law in the 11th Congressional

District of Georgia

committees on energy and commerce, ways and means, and education and

the workforce, democratic staff report, july 2013

The landmark Affordable Care Act (ACA) began delivering

important new benefits and protections to tens of millions of

American families almost immediately after it was signed into

law by President Obama. But the largest benefits of the law

will become available to consumers on October 1, 2013, when

health insurance marketplaces open in all 50 states. These

marketplaces will offer individuals, families, and small

businesses an efficient, transparent one-stop shop to compare

health insurance policies, receive financial assistance, and

sign up for high-quality, affordable, and secure insurance

coverage.

This fact sheet summarizes new data on the significant

benefits of the health care reform law in Rep. Gingrey's

district. It also provides the first picture of the impacts

of the law in districts redrawn or newly created following

the 2010 Census. As a result of the law:

8,300 young adults in the district now have health

insurance through their parents' plan.

More than 8,800 seniors in the district received

prescription drug discounts worth $12.6 million, an average

discount of $620 per person in 2011, $760 in 2012, and $900

thus far in 2013.

86,000 seniors in the district are now eligible for

Medicare preventive services without paying any co-pays,

coinsurance, or deductible.

195,000 individuals in the district--including 47,000

children and 78,000 women--now have health insurance that

covers preventive services without any co-pays, coinsurance,

or deductible.

169,000 individuals in the district are saving money due to

ACA provisions that prevent insurance companies from spending

more than 20% of their premiums on profits and administrative

overhead. Because of these protections, over 19,900 consumers

in the district received approximately $2.8 million in

insurance company rebates in 2012 and 2011--an average rebate

of $82 per family in 2012 and $134 per family in 2011.

Up to 43,000 children in the district with preexisting

health conditions can no longer be denied coverage by health

insurers.

248,000 individuals in the district now have insurance that

cannot place lifetime limits on their coverage and will not

face annual limits on coverage starting in 2014.

Up to 129,000 individuals in the district who lack health

insurance will have access to quality, affordable coverage

without fear of discrimination or higher rates because of a

preexisting health condition. In addition, the 45,000

individuals who currently purchase private health insurance

on the individual or small group market will have access to

more secure, higher quality coverage and many will be

eligible for financial assistance.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I enter into the Record the effect of the Affordable Care Act on the Sixth Congressional District of Tennessee.

Benefits of the Health Care Reform Law in the 6th Congressional

District of Tennessee

committees on energy and commerce, ways and means, and education and

the workforce, democratic staff report, July 2013

The landmark Affordable Care Act (ACA) began delivering

important new benefits and protections to tens of millions of

American families almost immediately after it was signed into

law by President Obama. But the largest benefits of the law

will become available to consumers on October 1, 2013, when

health insurance marketplaces open in all 50 states. These

marketplaces will offer individuals, families, and small

businesses an efficient, transparent one-stop shop to compare

health insurance policies, receive financial assistance, and

sign up for high-quality, affordable, and secure insurance

coverage.

This fact sheet summarizes new data on the significant

benefits of the health care reform law in Rep. Black's

district. It also provides the first picture of the impacts

of the law in districts redrawn or newly created following

the 2010 Census. As a result of the law:

5,600 young adults in the district now have health

insurance through their parents' plan.

More than 9,800 seniors in the district received

prescription drug discounts worth $12.7 million, an average

discount of $590 per person in 2011, $640 in 2012, and $690

thus far in 2013.

134,000 seniors in the district are now eligible for

Medicare preventive services without paying any co-pays,

coinsurance, or deductible.

184,000 individuals in the district--including 40,000

children and 74,000 women--now have health insurance that

covers preventive services without any co-pays, coinsurance,

or deductible.

188,000 individuals in the district are saving money due to

ACA provisions that prevent insurance companies from spending

more than 20% of their premiums on profits and administrative

overhead. Because of these protections, over 26,900 consumers

in the district received approximately $3.9 million in

insurance company rebates in 2012 and 2011--an average rebate

of $69 per family in 2012 and $201 per family in 2011.

Up to 40,000 children in the district with preexisting

health conditions can no longer be denied coverage by health

insurers.

217,000 individuals in the district now have insurance that

cannot place lifetime limits on their coverage and will not

face annual limits on coverage starting in 2014.

Up to 101,000 individuals in the district who lack health

insurance will have access to quality, affordable coverage

without fear of discrimination or higher rates because of a

preexisting health condition. In addition, the 37,000

individuals who currently purchase private health insurance

on the individual or small group market will have access to

more secure, higher quality coverage and many will be

eligible for financial assistance.

I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I inquire as to whether the gentleman from Georgia is prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I have in my hand here a letter signed by 30 economists from Harvard, Yale, MIT, Stanford, Rice, the University of Chicago, and everybody else, all of whom say we need a mandate. If this mandate were taken out of the law, the Affordable Care Act would be dead. What they say is that the individual mandate does not specify what care people receive; it simply requires people to pay a reasonable amount for any care that they may ultimately receive.

No less a conservative than Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee for President, noted when signing the Massachusetts equivalent of the individual mandate:

Some of my Libertarian friends balk at what looks like an

individual mandate. But remember, someone has to pay for the

health care that must, by law, be provided: either the

individual pays or the taxpayers pay.

Everyone in this body spends $1,000 a year beyond their own health care costs paying for the uninsured in this country. People walk into the emergency room and they get taken care of because the hospital cannot refuse them and the doctor cannot refuse them, and so they're taken care of and then it's passed on to you and me.

The individual mandate says everybody should pay according to their ability.

Going on, Mr. Romney said:

A free ride on the government is not libertarianism.

Everywhere they've tried this without subsidies and mandates, it has failed. They say in the five States that have tried comprehensive insurance market reform without an individual mandate, healthy people choose to stay out of insurance, sick people took it up, and the premiums go up. That's exactly what the CBO says.

So what you are saying, by repealing the individual mandate, is you want to drive up the costs on the people who now have insurance. That's a very strange political position to be taking.

I must say, I listened to all these people who don't like the individual mandate and all this stuff. If you spend 2 years ranting about the Affordable Care Act and you run a campaign and spend hundreds of millions of dollars and rant against the Affordable Care Act, it's not surprising that people may be a little confused.

When I was in medical school in 1963, the American Medical Association spent 3 or 4 years ranting against Medicare; and when the people went out to enroll people for Medicare, they got the door slammed in their face. Old people said, I'm not going to have that kind of government health care in my house. Well, let me tell you something. If you tried to take Medicare out now, you would find you have taken on a really ugly junkyard dog. You're not going to take out Medicare in this country now.

You can confuse people for a while, but as they see and as I reported on everybody's district, it is already affecting kids who didn't have insurance because of a preexisting condition; it's affecting kids who didn't have insurance from their job and are now on their parents' insurance; it took away lifetime limits on care; it took away all the things that people worry about when they want health care security. They now have it, and you're saying let's take the individual mandate out and have the whole house come down, because that's what these economists have said.

I enter this letter into the Record, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Why We Need the Individual Mandate

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA)

requires people to buy health insurance when they can afford

to do so. This ``individual mandate'' is essential to address

two features of current health insurance markets: the fact

that millions of people cannot afford health insurance

coverage, and the fact that insurance companies frequently

charge high or unaffordable premiums to people who need

insurance most--those suffering from costly illness or

injury.

This mandate is one of three pillars that together support

ACA's private market approach. The first pillar is insurance

market reform--ending the ability of insurance companies to

discriminate against sick or injured people with high medical

costs. Subsidies to help Americans of modest means gain

access to affordable health coverage provide the second

pillar. The individual mandate provides the third pillar. It

requires people to obtain insurance so long as that coverage

is affordable. The mandate expresses a basic obligation of

citizenship as well as an economic reality. Without the

mandate, some people will choose to gamble or to free-ride,

undermining the fairness and financial stability of the

health insurance system.

Few of the uninsured could personally finance medical

treatment for a serious illness or injury. Moreover, this

country embraces the fundamental principal that everyone

should have to minimally decent medical treatment when

needed, without regard to ability to pay. Federal legislation

and the custom and practice of health care providers embody

this principle. A healthy individual's decision to forego

affordable insurance coverage thus imposes real costs on

others, while raising premiums on many people with serious

medical needs who require the most help.

The individual mandate does not specify what care people

receive. It simply requires people to pay a reasonable amount

for any care they may ultimately receive. No less a

conservative than Mitt Romney noted, when signing

Massachusetts' equivalent of the individual mandate: ``Some

of my libertarian friends balk at what looks like an

individual mandate. But remember, someone has to pay for the

health care that must, by law, be provided: Either the

individual pays or the taxpayers pay. A free ride on the

government is not libertarian.''

The ACA's individual mandate is based on Massachusetts's

successful 2006 reforms. That landmark effort covered about

two-thirds of the formerly uninsured, while reducing premiums

for individual purchasers by about 50% relative to national

trends--with strong public support.

In contrast, insurance reform without subsidies and

mandates has consistently failed. In the five states that

have tried comprehensive insurance market reform without an

individual mandate, healthy people chose to stay out of

insurance, sick people took it up, and premiums increased.

Only broad participation in insurance markets can end the

cycle of insecure coverage and high costs.

The Obama Administration's recent decision to delay ACA's

requirement that large- and medium-sized employers sponsor

coverage for their employees or pay a penalty is independent

of the individual mandate. The employer assessment is

designed to bolster the ACA's financing and to ensure equity

between large firms who do and do not provide insurance. This

assessment will have only a very small impact on employers,

since 97% of firms with more than 50 employees already offer

insurance. The individual mandate stands in stark contrast,

as nearly one in five non-elderly Americans is currently

uninsured.

Delaying the employer assessment has almost no effect on

the implementation of the ACA. The only important effect will

be to raise one fewer year of revenue from this

component of the law. In contrast, delaying the individual

mandate would cut at the core of the vision of private-market

based insurance market reform.

Requests to delay the individual mandate are really

requests to gut the Affordable Care Act. Millions of

Americans face immediate health care needs and financial

challenges addressed by health reform. They cannot wait.

Signers

Henry Aaron, Senior Fellow and Bruce and Virginia

MacLaury Chair in Economic Studies, Brookings

Institution; Kenneth J. Arrow, Professor Emeritus,

Stanford University; Susan Athey, Professor of

Economics, Stanford Graduate School of Business; Linda

J. Blumberg, Senior Fellow, Health Policy Center, The

Urban Institute; Len Burman, Director, Tax Policy

Center, Urban Institute; Amitabh Chandra, Professor of

Public Policy, Harvard University; Philip J. Cook, ITT/

Terry Sanford Professor of Public Policy, Duke

University; David Cutler, Otto Eckstein Professor of

Applied Economics, Harvard University; Claudia Goldin,

Henry Lee Professor of Economics, Harvard University;

Jonathan Gruber, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts

Institute of Technology; Vivian Ho, Baker Institute

Chair in Health Economics, Rice University; John

Holahan, Institute Fellow, Urban Institute; Jill

Horwitz, Professor of Law, University of California at

Los Angeles; Genevieve M. Kenney Co-Director and Senior

Fellow Health Policy Center, Urban Institute, Frank

Levy, Lecturer, Department of Health Care Policy,

Harvard Medical School; Peter H. Lindert, Distinguished

Research Professor of Economics, University of

California at Davis; Eric S. Maskin, Adams University

Professor, Harvard University; Alan C. Monheit, Ph.D.,

Professor of Health Economics, Rutgers University

School of Public Health; Richard Murname, Juliana W.

and William Foss Thompson Professor of Education and

Society, Harvard Graduate School of Education; Joseph

Newhouse, John D. MacArthur Professor of Health Policy

and Management, Harvard Medical School; Harold Pollack,

Helen Ross Professor of Social Service Administration,

University of Chicago; Matthew Rabin, Edward G. and

Nancy S. Jordan Professor of Economics, University of

California at Berkeley; James B. Rebitzer, Professor of

Management, Economics, and Public Policy and Everett V.

Lord Distinguished Faculty Scholar, Boston University

School of Management; Meredith Rosenthal, Professor of

Health Economics and Policy, Harvard School of Public

Health; Christopher Ruhm, Professor of Public Policy

and Economics, University of Virginia; Jonathan

Skinner, James O. Freedman Presidential Professor of

Economics, Professor of Community and Family Medicine,

Dartmouth College; Katherine Swartz, Professor, Harvard

School of Public Health; Paul N. Van de Water, Senior

Fellow, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; Kenneth

E. Warner, Avedis Donabedian Distinguished University

Professor of Public Health, Dept. of Health Management

& Policy, University of Michigan School of Public

Health; Stephen Zuckerman, Co-Director and Senior

Fellow, Heath Policy Center, The Urban Instituted;

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, as the Senate continues to push for a 25 percent increase in the Federal minimum wage, they continue to ignore that millions of hourly workers face as much as a 25 percent pay cut as a result of ObamaCare. Because of the 30 hours is full time provision buried in the employer mandate, many employees face the prospect of being limited in their work hours. When they are not allowed to work more than 29 hours, they simply aren't able to generate the income they need to support themselves and their families.

It is worth noting that an employee who sees his hours cut from 39 to 29 is losing 10 hours a week, which, over the course of a month, is an entire week's worth of wages. The employees we are talking about are the people who most depend on getting every hour and every bit of wages that they can. We are talking about custodians, cafeteria workers, and substitute teachers at your child's school. We are talking about the waitresses and busboys at your favorite restaurant, about the cashier who rings you out at the grocery store, and about the guys on the assembly line who help make your car. In my district, we are also talking about adjunct professors at places like Ivy Tech Community College and Indiana University.

These are all Americans who want to work, but they are dealing with the unintended consequences--and I do believe they are unintended--of this health care law, ObamaCare. Some of these provisions are limiting their hours and pay, and this needs to be fixed. So I introduced the Save American Workers Act because I want to help these hardworking Hoosiers and other Americans who are just trying to make ends meet. By simply repealing this provision and restoring the traditional 40-hour workweek, we can help make an America that works.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill. I commend my colleagues on the other side who have already signed on as cosponsors.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it is worth noting this bill would decrease by $63 billion the amount of taxes on our employers during the worst economy, some will say, since the Great Depression. It will cause our wage earners around the country to realize an additional $75 billion in wage income.

I take the fiscal condition of this country very seriously. I find it very hard to believe, though, that anyone--a Member of this body--would desire to pass a national health care law that is paid for on the backs of our hourly workers, those who can least afford to absorb lower wages, fewer hours, and perhaps losing their job altogether.

I think that is essentially the argument I hear from the other side when I hear the $75 billion figure put forward.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Buchanan), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I know my good colleague spoke with a great deal of sincerity and earnestness when he talked about pay-fors.

It is worth noting, once again, that the attempt to pay for this Affordable Care Act--ObamaCare, as it is popularly known--on the backs of our hourly workers strikes me as unconscionable and something that none of us ought to be contemplating, which is why this is a bipartisan effort.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the distinguished majority whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the House majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to also indicate the fact that I, too, have read the Congressional Budget Office's estimate of this legislation. They indicate that $75 billion in wages will be lost as a result of the Affordable Care Act if something like the Save American Workers Act isn't implemented.

So, effectively, I hear some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle making the case that we ought to be funding the Affordable Care Act essentially on the backs of these hourly workers, and I don't think that is a position anyone wants to find themselves in.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon).

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe what I just heard. I heard that individual cases ought not be cited, that that is somehow off limits.

Mr. Speaker, one of my colleagues just cited the example of his son, lost his insurance despite the promises of this bill during campaign season. He lost his doctor. He saw his insurance premiums and copays go up. These are real lives we are talking about. These are real hours and real wages that we are trying to remedy. This is a real 40-hour workweek that people depend upon.

Then to cite the Statement of Administration Policy as somehow being more authoritative than these personal examples I find, frankly, a bit off-putting.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), the chairman of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe), a member of the Education and Workforce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge that to get a bill this far in the legislative process requires the work of a lot of people: my own staff within my office, the committee staff, and my fellow colleagues who are willing to provide a consultative role, constructive advice, and a very strong leadership role.

So, with that, I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, Tim Walberg, who helped us introduce this bill. He is a member of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

We have six speakers on this side.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to include in the Record a letter of support for the Save American Workers Act, the bipartisan bill, by the National Restaurant Association.

Mr. Speaker, I also now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), a member of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

National Restaurant Association,

Washington, DC, April 1, 2014.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the National Restaurant

Association, the leading trade association representing the

restaurant and foodservice industry, I write to urge you to

vote YES in favor of H.R. 2575, the ``Save American Workers

Act,'' when it is considered on the House floor this week.

The National Restaurant Association may consider any votes

on, or related to, such legislation in our annual ``How They

Voted'' legislative scorecard.

H.R. 2575 would reinstate the historic definition of full-

time as working 40 hours per week. The law's definition of

full-time set at 30 hours could have lasting impacts on the

labor market, far beyond the Affordable Care Act, with the

unintended consequence of potentially limiting hours for

workers who do not intend to rely on their employer for their

insurance needs.

One reason so many Americans are drawn to restaurant and

foodservice industry jobs is the flexibility to build a work

schedule or change hours to suit their personal needs.

Generally, most restaurant operators have classified

positions as salaried and hourly, not full- or part-time.

Previously, hourly workers were able to take on extra shifts

as available and as they chose to work. However, under this

law, there is now a bright line as to who is considered full-

time and who is considered part-time. As a result, the

flexibility so many enjoy and seek out in working for the

industry may become harder to find.

In its analysis of the legislation, the Congressional

Budget Office (CBO) acknowledged employers' commitment to

offering coverage to employees and projects that only a small

percentage of employers would either reassign or reduce hours

of employees who work more than 40 hours per week. More than

156 million people would continue to be covered by employer-

sponsored plans, underscoring the CBO' s conclusion that

``most of the affected employers would continue to offer

coverage because most employers construct compensation

packages to attract the best available workers at the lowest

possible cost.''

Aligning the law's definition of full-time employee status

with current levels used by restaurant and foodservice

operators would help avoid any unnecessary disruptions to

employees' wages and hours, and would provide significant

relief to employers. The National Restaurant Association

supports H.R. 2575 and encourages you to vote YES when it is

considered on the House floor.

Sincerely,

Scott DeFife,

Executive Vice President,

Policy and Government Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a letter of support from the International Franchise Association for this bill, and I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon), a member of the Education and Workforce Committee.

International

Franchise Association,

Washington, DC, February 3, 2013.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the International

Franchise Association, I write today to urge you to support

H.R. 2575, the Save American Workers Act, sponsored by Rep.

Todd Young (R-IN). This legislation will change the

definition of a full-time employee in the Affordable Care Act

(ACA) to 40

hours, the definition that employers have traditionally used

to manage their workforce, and will help small businesses

better adjust to the ACA's employer mandate.

For decades, employers have used the 40-hour work week as a

standard for workforce management. The ACA's provision

requiring employers to provide coverage to full-time

employees, and defining full-time as 30-hours, will cause

many employers to simply manage their part-time employees to

fewer hours. Data from a recent Public Opinion Strategies

survey commissioned by the IFA and the U.S. Chamber of

Commerce shows that 31 percent of franchises and 12 percent

of non-franchised businesses have already reduced worker

hours to lower costs, a full year before the employer mandate

is set to take effect. Not only has the employer mandate

discouraged job creation and business expansion, it has also

damaged existing jobs by including a misguided statutory

requirement that discarded more than a half-century of

established labor policy.

The employer mandate will hurt American workers in many

ways, but one of the most devastating effects of the mandate

is that fewer workers will be offered health insurance, and

employees will be less able to afford their own coverage when

working fewer hours. Allowing employers to manage their

workers to the traditional 40-hour work week will give

employees more flexibility and eliminate the need to revamp

longstanding employer personnel policies.

IFA urges you to support the Save American Workers Act.

This is a common-sense effort to a problem we know is only

going to get worse. The passing of this bill would provide

much-needed relief and flexibility for employers and

employees by avoiding the worst effects of the employer

mandate.

While this measure will not make the Affordable Care Act

completely workable for the 825,000 franchise locations

nationwide or the 9 million workers they employ, it will help

both employers and workers better absorb the impact of the

employer mandate.

Sincerely,

Stephen J. Caldeira,

President & Chief Executive Officer,

International Franchise Association.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this bill, the Affordable Care Act that the President calls ObamaCare, clearly would not insure every American in the country.

Dropping somebody from 39 hours down to 29 hours is effectively a loss of 10 hours of work per week. Over the course of a month, that is the loss of an entire week's work of wages.

For the life of me, I can't understand why the very same individuals who embraced all of the three dozen or so administrative changes to this law without hesitation will not work together in a bipartisan fashion because this is a bipartisan bill to restore the hours and income of those who need it most during the worst economy since the Great Depression.

With that, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I submit for the record a letter of support for the Save American Workers Act from the National Grocers Association on behalf of their members and on behalf of their workers, and I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).

National Grocers Association,

Arlington, VA, March 31, 2014.

Hon. John Boehner,

Speaker, Washington, DC.

Hon. Eric Cantor,

Majority Leader, Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Democratic Leader, Washington, DC.

Hon. Steny Hoyer,

Democratic Whip, Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Boehner, Leader Pelosi, Leader Cantor, and

Representative Hoyer: The National Grocers Association (NGA)

supports H.R. 2575, the Save American Workers Act (SAW), a

bill introduced by Representative Todd Young (R-IN) and

championed by Representative Dan Lipinski (D-IL). The bill

has broad support in the House, with 210 bipartisan co-

sponsors. NGA strongly encourages the House to pass the bill

with bipartisan support during the vote scheduled for the

week of March 31. We commend Majority Leader Cantor for

bringing H.R. 2575 to the Floor for what will hopefully be an

overwhelming vote in support of the bill.

H.R. 2575 addresses one of the most problematic provisions

of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) by amending the definition

of a full-time employee, which the ACA currently defines as

those averaging 30 hours a week. Left unchanged, this

provision will have far reaching consequences on the

independent supermarket industry. Simply put, 30 hours is not

full-time and requiring employers to meet this new definition

is one of the most significant challenges of the law,

jeopardizing coverage for our true full-time workforce. The

SAW Act seeks to amend this problematic provision by defining

a full-time employee as those averaging 40 hours a week and

treating full-time equivalents as full-time employees for the

purposes of determining whether an employer is an applicable

large employer. This is a win-win for both American employers

and our nation's workforce.

Independent grocers face complex challenges in implementing

the law all while operating on a profit margin of around 1

percent. They are committed to their workers, and 92% of

independent grocers already provide health benefits to full-

time employees. It is important that Congress work in a

bipartisan manner to provide employers with important reforms

such as the SAW Act before irreversible changes to the US job

market occur. Maintaining the full-time level many employers

use today is something both sides of the debate can agree

would be better for job preservation and employee coverage.

Reforms such as the SAW Act are vital to our businesses and

to our goal of providing quality benefits and available hours

to our employees. Independent retailers and wholesalers have

a significant economic impact across nearly every community

in America. Our industry is accountable for close to 1

percent of the nation's overall economy and is responsible

for generating over $131 billion in sales, 944,000 jobs, $30

billion in wages, and $27 billion in tax revenue. We are

proud that the communities we serve are also the

neighborhoods we live in.

Thank you for your support of this important issue. NGA

looks forward to continuing to work with Congress to address

this issue before the employer mandate is implemented in

2015. This is a critical issue for NGA and our member

companies, and we will be key voting this vote and including

it on our 2014 Legislative Scorecard. We remain appreciative

of the reforms Congress has already made to amend the ACA to

make the law workable for both employers and the American

workforce.

Sincerely,

Peter J. Larkin,

President and CEO.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).

Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record letters of support for the Save American Workers Act from The Associated General Contractors of America on behalf of their workers and their members, and also a letter by the National Franchisee Association on behalf of their members and workers, and I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman), my colleague.

The Associated General

Contractors of America,

Arlington, VA, February 3, 2014.

Re Support H.R. 2575, the Save American Workers Act of 2013

Hon. Dave Camp,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Camp: On behalf of the Associated General

Contractors of America (AGC), I am writing in support of H.R.

2575, the Save American Workers Act of 2013. This act would

repeal the 30-hour definition of ``full-time employment'' in

the Affordable Care Act (ACA) by replacing it with the more

traditional 40-hour definition.

The construction industry is typically project-based,

transitory and seasonal, which distinguishes it from other

professional industries with more predictable hours. As a

result, many construction employers rely on part-time,

seasonal and variable-hour employees. In addition, the

construction industry consists of many smaller employers with

limited human resource and administrative staff. These two

issues alone add layers of difficulty for a construction firm

that is required to use the complex formulas in the ACA to

determine whether or not it is considered a large employer

under the law.

Despite the one-year delay of the reporting and enforcement

provisions of the ACA, the law continues to add layers of

administrative burdens for employers, while other regulations

are yet to be issued. Replacing the definition of a full-time

employee to the more commonly accepted 40 hours per week

will, at the very least, reduce some of the complexity

associated with the ACA.

AGC hopes you will support H.R. 2575 and provide some

relief for construction employers across the country.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey D. Shoaf,

Senior Executive Director,

Government Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, the President proposes a 25 percent increase in the minimum wage. ObamaCare, however, is resulting in as much as a 25 percent decrease in the pay of millions of hourly workers. Because of the 30 hours is full time provision, too many Americans are not able to work the hours they need to support their families. By passing my bill, the Save American Workers Act, we can create an America that works simply by restoring the traditional 40- hour workweek.

I am joined this evening in this Special Order by my colleagues, Representatives Kelly of Pennsylvania and Barr of Kentucky, but so many people have helped bring this important issue to the attention of the American people at large, to rank and file Americans, who during this down economy are looking for as many hours as they can get and for as much take-home pay as they might receive.

Let me just kick this evening off by explaining in some level of detail what this 30-hour provision is because, frankly, for the uninitiated, it is a bit foreign for most of us to consider full-time employment to be a 30-hour workweek, but that is the case under the Affordable Care Act. In fact, the Affordable Care Act mandates employers provide ObamaCare-sanctioned health insurance to all of their employees should they employ 50 or more individuals who work 30 or more hours per week.

We have all heard from employers about the adverse consequences-- unintended, I expect--created by this 30 hours is full time provision. The unintended consequence is chiefly that so many employers, especially those who are squeezed by tight profit margins or those who just wouldn't be financially viable entities, are moving their employees down below this 30-hour threshold. They are reducing the number of hours that their hourly employees can work so that they don't have to provide ObamaCare-sanctioned health insurance.

The employer mandate has been delayed by the administration twice, so it is clear that this is ill-considered policy. While the White House says the delays are to help employers, it should be even more apparent to those of us who visit with our constituents on an almost daily basis that it is the low- and middle-income worker who is being most adversely impacted by this employer mandate.

The real result of the 30-hour bill--let me be clear--is fewer jobs, reduced hours, reduced wages, less take-home pay for things like food and shelter and clothing for Americans who need it most. I can cite plenty of examples in my district in which this is having a very serious impact at this early stage of ObamaCare's implementation. I live in Bloomington, Indiana.

Indiana University is feeling the pinch of this and is reducing some hours of some of their hourly employees, from custodians to cafeteria workers and others, because they cannot remain a financially viable entity, as taxpayers expect it to be, should it have to comply with this employer mandate as it is currently constructed.

Ivy Tech Community College is also feeling the pinch. In fact, 4,500 of their adjunct professors are losing hours. This is resulting in reduced course offerings for many students, but more importantly for those adjunct professors, they need the wages, they need the hours. Should Ivy Tech decide to continue on with business as usual, they would be eating all sorts of compliance costs to try and measure the hours of their hourly employees and ensure that they are complying with the law. They have done the math. They have figured out that this 30 hours is full time provision amounts to a $12 million unfunded mandate, courtesy of Uncle Sam.

I have heard from 39 public school corporations in Indiana about the adverse consequences of this 30 hours is full time provision. In fact, they are suing the Federal Government, along with the State of Indiana, because of this provision, which they say will have catastrophic financial consequences on their operations, on their balance sheets.

From a practical perspective, the majority of employers who voluntarily provide coverage to their employees do so for their full- time employees, and they do so because they want to attract the absolute best talent they can within the labor market. This system has succeeded in providing coverage for nearly 160 million Americans. It is working. In fact, this is the largest source of health coverage in America, but the 30-hour rule radically disrupts this success and this model. Many people will lose their coverage, especially your lower- skilled workers, often your entry-level opportunities where younger workers get valuable work experience and start to work their way up the economic ladder. We need to protect the wages of Americans who depend on them the most. That is what this bipartisan effort, the Save American Workers Act, is all about.

I am proud to be joined in this effort by Representative Barr, who has shown some leadership on this issue, and by Representative Kelly, who was out front very early with respect to this issue. I look forward to engaging in some dialogue this evening and in turning over the mike to them to get their State level perspectives, but I think it is worth noting, because I do want to recognize them, the fair-minded Members among us who look for opportunities to work across the aisle.

Representative Lipinski, a Democrat from Illinois, has shown a lot of leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives with respect to this issue. There are a handful of other Democrat Members who have signed on to the Save American Workers Act. It is my fervent hope, not for my interest but for the interests of my constituents and for those like them around the country, that other Democrats will join the vast majority of Republican Members of Congress in supporting this bill.

With that, I would just invite the dialogue of Mr. Barr, my good colleague in his first term--but he seems far more experienced than that--to speak to the Save American Workers Act.

Reclaiming my time, I sometimes like to distill the narrative down to some numbers.

You just mentioned the movement down to 29 hours a week. Let's consider the Kentuckian or the Hoosier who is currently working 39 hours a week, and because of this provision, their employer is unable, under the current economic conditions, to offer them ObamaCare- sanctioned health insurance.

They are incentivized to move that hardworking hourly work down to 29 hours. That is a loss of 10 hours per week. Over the course of a month, that worker is losing an entire work week.

How is an hourly worker that has to pay for food and shelter and clothing and other basic expenditures supposed to take care of their family?

It is imminently unfair, and someone needs to stand up for our low- and middle-income workers. I think that is the essence of what this is all about.

If I could interject because I think you hit on a key point. This isn't ideological. This ought not be partisan at all. In fact, we have a number of Democratic cosponsors. I am gratified by their intellectual honesty, their courage, their support. They are doing the right thing here. They are looking out for their constituents.

We have all been asked to come here and get something done while people are feeling pain. This was certainly an unintended consequence, is my reading. I don't want to impugn the motives of those who hurriedly passed this Affordable Care Act. I don't think they intended this.

So we repeal the provision. We replace it with something that makes sense and restores wages for workers that need it most.

Thank you for not just your support, but your vocal support, engagement, leadership, and education of your colleagues and others who are important stakeholders with respect to this issue. Thank you so much for being with us here this evening.

I would like to pivot off of your discussion of this down economy. We are at a 35-year low in labor force participation. None of us is happy with the rate of job creation or business creation.

One of my constituents was sharing with me recently they saw a stat indicating that business creation and entrepreneurship are at a 15-year low. Clearly, we are experiencing the hardest of times.

The way to grow an economy, based on my economic background, is not to reduce the hours of workers and impose new compliance costs on our employers. Instead, we need to be removing obstacles to realizing the sorts of income that people need and opportunities to work your way up that economic ladder. Unfortunately, this goes in the opposite direction.

I am pleased today to be joined by my good colleague, Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania, who partnered with me in helping to draft this legislation. He has proven himself to be a fine leader in the Ways and Means Committee.

It makes absolutely no sense. For example, I have a school corporation in Washington County, Indiana, which I recently visited. I was visiting their superintendent and members of their school board.

I don't know their politics, but I certainly know that they care about children. They care about all the employees who work for them. They were absolutely distraught.

They said: Congressman, I don't know what we're going to do with respect to this 30 hours is full time provision. When we think about our substitute teachers, we are actually contemplating having to reduce the number of hours in the middle of classes because we don't have a large enough pool of substitute teachers available to draw on.

We can literally have somebody substituting for half of a class. In order to fall under the 30 hours is full time provision in the Affordable Care Act, these folks are having to leave early.

The students are unattended. They are not being educated. Parents are certainly upset. It is imposing undue costs upon the school corporation in order to track the hours of their employees.

This is the sort of Rube Goldberg sort of contraption that only could be conceived of in Washington, D.C.

I cannot make sense of why anyone would oppose trying to change this provision, as we have done in this bill. Some have speculated that it is a matter of saving face. You pass a big bill; you pass it quickly.

It perhaps was most ill-advised in any sort of fundamental change to the bill. Any sort of repeal of a major provision within the bill and a replacement with something that works better undermines the credibility not only of the bill itself, but of those who supported it originally.

I would like to think better of my colleagues than that. I think there has to be something else at work here, but I don't know how to explain to that superintendent and those concerned school board members in Washington County, Indiana, why others won't sign on to this.

Thank you for your leadership on this important issue.

This is not a political issue. There is an old saying that good policy is good politics. Those who are driven primarily by political considerations--and I think there are, frankly, few that are primarily driven by those--they need to be on the right side of history. They need to be adopting a more optimal policy with respect to how we treat our low- and middle-income workers, so I would invite their support.

Please understand, even in this sometimes shrill, divided Congress, even in this sometimes divided Nation, there are still things we can agree upon. There are commonsensical solutions that we can adopt. There are problems that we can solve.

Repealing the first ever definition of ``full time'' in full law at 30 hours and moving it up to 40 hours, the traditional full-time workweek standard, just makes common sense. It is going to restore wages for millions of workers. $75 billion in foregone wages will be realized if we pass the Save American Workers Act.

Now, there has been quite a bit of talk about wages in this town and beyond in recent weeks, the minimum wage, in particular. I didn't come here to talk specifically about the minimum wage, but let me just illustrate the impact of this 40-hour provision. Let's consider the worker who works at the Federal minimum wage, which few actually do, but $7.25 an hour. So many States have a higher minimum wage. So many people get multiple jobs and, you know, gosh, my heart goes out to them. I appreciate their work ethic. But as a proportion of our economy, most people are not working at the $7.25 rate.

But let's suppose someone is and they work 40 hours a week. That is $290 in take-home pay per week. Now, if we were to raise the minimum wage as the President suggests to $10.20 but this person got dropped down to 29 hours a week, guess what they would be making? Roughly $290 a week. The same thing.

So, for those who see this as a sort of an issue that is somehow partisan but care deeply about the issue of the minimum wage, which I think can create distortions in the economy and kill jobs and so forth--that is a separate debate that I suspect we will have--but those who care deeply about this ought to be on board with this 40 hours is full time legislation, the Save American Workers Act, so I would invite their bipartisan support.

I note that we have just about every Republican who has signed on to this bill. We have a handful of courageous Democrats, and I commend their participation. I think we have some others with us this evening who are supportive of this legislation, prepared to speak to their constituents' experiences and their thoughts about the adverse consequences of a 30-hour definition of ``full time'' in the United States of America.

I am joined by my colleague from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford), who is a very thoughtful and articulate member of the Budget Committee and cares deeply about his State. I yield to the gentleman.

So would it be accurate to say that, in part, it is our lower-income to middle-income workers, through reduced hours, who are paying for the Affordable Care Act, which is wildly unpopular nationally?

You mentioned a very compelling story, incidentally, and I think all of us hear these stories, Republican, Democrat, Independent. It matters not. I suspect we all hear them around our district. You mentioned the President's Statement of Administration Policy which came out today, April Fools' Day. I had to wonder whether it might have been an April Fools' joke. It, in part, reads: Rather than attempting, once again, to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which the House has tried to do over 50 times, it is time for Congress to stop fighting old political battles and join the President in an agenda focused on providing greater economic opportunity. And then it goes on and on.

Listen, this is not a repeal of the Affordable Care Act. This is a repeal of a provision that we recognize that a bipartisan group of United States Congressmen and many Senators recognize is flawed. So, I mean, it is an absolute red herring.

I cannot understand why the administration won't engage with us in a fair-minded, statesmanlike way to mitigate the pain so many Americans are feeling.

I would like to associate myself with those remarks pertaining to preferring to start over in an open, deliberative fashion. My belief would be that, if we started over with respect to health care reform, we could actually control costs, increase access, continue to incentivize innovation, and do all the other things that were purportedly the rationale behind this law.

We want to broaden coverage to those who don't have coverage, but the Affordable Care Act, so-called, does not even accomplish that. And so the administration, at least according to the Statement of Administration Policy put out today, welcomes ideas to improve the law. Well, this is an idea to improve the health care circumstances of so many Americans. We need to repeal this 30-hour provision within the law, so that is what the Save American Workers Act does.

Now, I noted that this created some perverse incentives, this 30-hour threshold. I heard a story from a constituent who will remain unnamed for obvious reasons, but they indicated they own some fast-food restaurants, and they are actually contemplating employing some of their workers at one fast-food restaurant under the 30-hour threshold and then making an arrangement with a nearby restaurant, whether they own it or someone else owns it, of a different name to finish out their workweek. So basically, to use a colloquial example, you take off the Subway shirt or the McDonald's shirt and then put on a Burger King shirt.

These are the sorts of perverse incentives created by ill-considered provisions in a very hastily passed and, frankly, partisan law.

I thank the gentleman.

I am going to close where I began. The President is proposing a 25 percent increase in the minimum wage, but ObamaCare is resulting in as much as a 25 percent decrease in the pay of millions of hourly workers. Because of the 30 hours is full time provision, too many Americans aren't able to work the number of hours they need, aren't able to get the take-home pay they need to support themselves and their families and to go after the dreams that they want to realize.

So by passing my bill, one which has bipartisan support and which has enjoyed great leadership by so many of

my colleagues, the Save American Workers Act, we can create an America that works simply by restoring the traditional 40-hour workweek.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 300, I call up the bill (H.R. 2668) to delay the application of the individual health insurance mandate, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 2668.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 2668, the Fairness for American Families Act. The administration says that they invited business to come in and explain how the cost and the complexity of ObamaCare was hurting business and hurting the economy, and they granted business relief appropriately.

Mr. Speaker, why hasn't the administration invited the American people into the halls of government?

Why hasn't the White House listened to the concerns of the American people about the cost and the complexity of ObamaCare for American families?

Have American families seen a $2,500 premium decrease as promised by the President?

No. In fact, premiums have gone up.

The American people don't understand this law any better than the employers, employers who can hire lawyers and consultants and health benefits experts. In fact, individuals who have no help understand this law even less than business; yet the administration granted relief only to business.

Mr. Speaker, it's clear: the President has now admitted it. His law, ObamaCare, is not ready. Deadlines have been missed. System testing is not complete. Income verification systems are not in place.

In the words of Senator Baucus, the train wreck is happening.

The law should be repealed, Mr. Speaker. President Obama disagrees with that, and that's unfortunate. But we all should be able to come together on the simple principle of fairness. If business gets a 1-year delay, the American people ought to get a 1-year delay. It's a simple principle.

If ObamaCare is behind schedule, the American people should not have to bear the burdens alone. They should get the same delay as business.

I urge my colleagues to come together today and to advance this very simple principle that this government will treat its citizens fairly and equally.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young), the author of the bill, recognizing his wisdom and his diligence in working on this issue and recognizing that fairness was absolutely vital on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind my friend that it's the President who has delayed the employer mandate in this arena. All we're looking for is fairness and equality for the American people.

I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a fellow physician colleague in the United States House, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe).

* * * The fact of the matter is that this bill, understanding that ObamaCare is a huge, destructive element in job destruction-- Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the gentleman's words be taken down.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my previous statement.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hurt).

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the majority leader of the United States House of Representatives, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to insert into the Record a letter of today from the National Federation of Independent Business.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the Record a letter dated July 15, 2013, from Matt Kibbe, the president and CEO of FreedomWorks in support of H.R. 2668.

FreedomWorks,

Washington, DC, July 15, 2013.

Key Vote YES on Delaying ObamaCare's Individual Mandate

As one of our millions of FreedomWorks members nationwide,

I urge you to contact your Representative and urge him or her

to vote YES on H.R. 2668, the Fairness for American Families

Act. Sponsored by Rep. Todd Young (R-IN), this bill--which

the House is expected to take up this week--would delay

ObamaCare's ``individual mandate.''

Beginning on January 1, 2014, ObamaCare will require most

U.S. citizens to purchase government-controlled health

insurance. This ``individual mandate'' is, by the

Administration's own admission, the ``linchpin'' of the

Washington takeover of health care. If the mandate were to go

away, the whole costly and intrusive scheme would unravel.

The individual mandate is a latter-day ``intolerable act.''

Despite the Supreme Court's erroneous 2012 ruling, Congress

lacks authority under the Constitution to impose such a

mandate on U.S. citizens. And even if it were constitutional,

the mandate is immoral because it violates individual

liberty, is not necessary to ``help the uninsured'' (there

are less coercive and less costly ways to do so), and is

terribly unfair, both in its effects and how it is being

implemented.

The unfairness of the mandate is this: its costly burden

falls most heavily on just one segment of the population:

young adults in their twenties and thirties. They are the

group most likely to be uninsured. Indeed, two-thirds of the

uninsured are in their twenties and thirties. ObamaCare

causes their insurance premiums to rise exponentially, in

some cases doubling or even tripling. These Americans are

uninsured because health insurance costs too much.

ObamaCare's mandate is unfair to them, because it forces them

to buy a product that is already too expensive, relative to

their needs.

But the law is also unfair to everyone, not just

millennials, in terms of how it is being implemented. The

Obama Administration recently made a unilateral (and illegal)

decision to cancel the ``employer mandate'' (which requires

employers with more than 50 employees to offer and heavily

subsidize health insurance to their workers). But it left the

individual mandate in place for the rest of us. The

Administration had already displayed rank unfairness by

granting more than 1,200 waivers from ObamaCare provisions to

its labor union allies and corporate cronies. It has now

given Big Business the ultimate waiver, a complete exemption

from the mandate, while making sure that Big Insurance gets

its own ``ultimate gift'' from Big Government: a compulsory

customer base. No wonder more than 70 percent of Americans

oppose the individual mandate, and just 12 percent support

it.

The only cure for the manifold ailments of ObamaCare is to

immediately defund or repeal it entirely, and to replace it

with patient-centered health care that will actually lower

costs and improve quality and access for all. Until then,

basic fairness demands that individuals be granted the same

favor as the Administration has given to businesses. The

individual mandate must be delayed for as long as possible.

H.R.2668 would delay the mandate for the same length of time

that the Administration claims to be ``delaying'' the

employer mandate: one year. That's a start.

I urge you to call your Representative and ask him or her

to vote YES on H.R. 2668, to delay ObamaCare's individual

mandate. We may count their vote as a KEY VOTE when

calculating the FreedomWorks Economic Freedom Scorecard for

2013. The Scorecard is used to determine eligibility for the

FreedomFighter Award, which recognizes members of Congress

with voting records that support economic freedom.

Sincerely,

Matt Kibbe,

President and CEO.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the chairwoman of the House Administration Committee, the gentlelady from the great State of Michigan, Candice Miller.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. Speaker, I insert in the Record a notice from the National Taxpayers Union, dated July 15, 2013, in support of both H.R. 2667 and H.R. 2668.

National Taxpayers Union,

Alexandria, VA, July 15, 2013.

National Taxpayers Union Vote Alert

NTU urges all Representatives to vote ``YES'' on H.R. 2667,

the ``Authority for Mandate Delay Act'' and H.R. 2668, the

``Fairness for American Families Act.'' These bills would

delay for one year the Affordable Care Act's health insurance

mandates for employers and individuals, respectively. While

the primary goal of Congress ought to be full repeal of the

Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. ``Obamacare''), in the meantime

it is imperative for legislators to recognize and address the

numerous problems associated with the law.

The Obama Administration acknowledged the detrimental

effects that the employer mandate will have on businesses,

workers, and the economy at large when it unilaterally

elected to delay this provision for one year. With the

legality of this move very much in question, the House of

Representatives is wisely moving to codify the change by

passing H.R. 2667. This would greatly assist--albeit only in

the short-term--the many businesses that are already cutting

employee hours or jobs as a result of the law.

At the same time that businesses are making difficult

staffing decisions, individuals are poised to be hit by

Obamacare's requirement to purchase health insurance. In

2014, the penalty for failing to do so is $285 per family or

1 percent of household income, whichever is greater. By 2016,

the penalty jumps to $2,085 per family or 2.5 percent of

household income, whichever is greater. As the Supreme Court

ruled last year, this penalty is a tax. For many families

continuing to struggle due to the weak economy, the burdens

from the individual mandate will become increasingly

difficult to bear. H.R. 2668 would delay the provision for a

year, which would provide much-needed, temporary relief to

these families.

Passage of H.R. 2667 and H.R. 2668 would help alleviate

some of the harmful effects that the Affordable Care Act will

impose on businesses and individuals. Enactment of these

bills would be an important step toward more significant

legislative goals, such as permanent repeal of both mandates

and the Affordable Care Act in its entirety.

Rollcall votes on H.R. 2667 and H.R. 2668 will be included

in our annual rating of Congress and ``yes'' votes will be

considered the pro-taxpayer position.

If you have any questions, please contact NTU Federal

Affairs Manager Nan Swift.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schock), another member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, a fellow physician from the State of Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a gentlelady who, prior to coming to Congress, worked as a nurse and who is a pivotal member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlelady from Tennessee, Diane Black.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).

(Mr. ROTHFUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup), a gentleman who is engaged in the health profession.

As we have no more speakers, I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

There are a lot of folks who've come to the floor on the other side of the aisle to speak about this piece of legislation. Curiously, there aren't any individuals who came from those States that have actually passed legislation to implore Congress not to continue with the individual mandate--Alabama, Arizona, Missouri, Ohio, individuals from the other side of the aisle who didn't come down to the floor.

We get asked by folks on the other side about where's the jobs bill? Well, in addition to all the remarkable pieces of legislation on jobs that we have indeed passed and sent over to the Senate and it then gains dust over there, this is a jobs bill. I don't know if our friends on the other side haven't talked to their employers back home. Employers large and small, all of them say, Look, this is damaging job creation. We had one before the committee on Ways and Means that my friend from Washington and I sit on just last week who said he wasn't going to be able to expand his business. He couldn't, because of this bill. So this is a piece of jobs legislation.

We have a number of folks on the other side who say, Look, this is just about politics. Mr. Speaker, you talk about politics. You've got the President saying that he's going to delay the reporting requirements for the employer mandate for a year. And, by the way, that just happens to be after the 2014 election. You talk about politics.

Then you talk about delay. Some of my friends on the other side, they act as if this is something that we have indeed supported in the past. This is delay. This isn't repeal. In fact, we appreciate that the administration has awakened to the challenge of this piece of legislation.

They've recognized that it doesn't work for businesses and job creators because of the uncertainty and fewer jobs being created, so they have promoted a delay of 1 year for the employer mandate. But that uncertainty remains for those employers, and they're not going to be able to hire significant individuals.

And that uncertainty and that oppression of government-run health care isn't just for business. It's also true for individuals.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would say that I just encourage my friends to read the bill. This is the bill, H.R. 2668. It's very short and easily read. It simply changes the year requirements for the individual mandate from 1 year, 2014, to a year's delay in 2015. That's all it does. It simply equalizes the treatment for individuals as for businesses.

I know that many of them haven't read the bill. If they did, they would recognize that this bill has no change in it for preexisting illnesses or injuries and the rules thereon. It has no change for 26- year-olds being covered on their parents' health insurance. It has no change for lifetime limits. It has no change for the medical loss ratio provision. It has no change for gender equity. It has no change for out-of-pocket limits, and it has no change for anybody's insurance being taken away.

All this bill does, Mr. Speaker, is simply say that individuals ought to be treated fairly and equally, just like businesses, that we ought to delay the individual mandate for a year.

I call on my colleagues to support and vote for H.R. 2668, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 530 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 530 provides for consideration of a critical piece of legislation passed out of the Ways and Means Committee designed to address a critical flaw in the Affordable Care Act, which is causing workers to lose hours at their job and thus lose wages to help put food on their tables and feed their families and pay their utility bills to heat their homes in the winter and cool their homes in the summer.

H.R. 2575, the bipartisan Save American Workers Act of 2014, fixes this flaw by changing the newly created labor rule in the Affordable Care Act, which defines full-time work at 30 hours per week and places that definition back where the American public has always believed it to be, at 40 hours per week.

The rule before us today provides for 3 hours of debate. That is triple the standard hour of debate that most bills before this body receive. This is done in order to fully discuss this important labor issue affecting so many Americans.

To maintain this targeted focus--the exact kind of fix that the President claims he is interested in discussing with Republicans in order to make his law more workable--no amendments were made in order. This allows the House to fully debate this crucial issue without the possibility of unrelated issues being brought into the debate.

Indeed, this bill is so targeted, dealing with one single provision in the Affordable Care Act, that it does not repeal the Affordable Care Act--a charge I have no doubt we will hear several times over today-- but in fact simply changes a definition in the bill.

Moreover, during the markup of this legislation in the Ways and Means Committee, no amendments were offered by either the majority or the minority. As always, the minority is afforded the customary motion to recommit on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, as a result of the Affordable Care Act's requirement that businesses with 50 or more employees provide health insurance coverage to those employees working 30 or more hours a week, employers across the Nation--from schools to universities to municipalities to restaurants--are being forced to cut workers' hours or face unsustainable employment costs to their businesses and organizations.

As we are seeing--and indeed, as many on this side predicted prior to the controversial and contentious passage of the Affordable Care Act-- the bill fundamentally changed labor law in this country, creating a new standard called the 30-hour workweek, a standard 30-hour workweek, a shorter workweek than even imposed by the country of France.

As a result, workers' hours are being cut and productivity in this country, a country that has always prided itself on the work ethic of its citizens, will decrease over time. This is what an onerous government regulation can and will do--suppress innovation and disadvantage our businesses.

Many members of the Democratic Party have been outspoken in clamoring for an extension to long-term unemployment benefits, which would extend government assistance to unemployed Americans well beyond a year's worth of benefits; yet there is something that can be done today which will have the actual, practical effect of putting more money into people's pockets.

We have heard story after story, from every State in the Union, that employers are dropping workers from even 39 hours per week to 29 or fewer hours, potentially 10 work hours a week that workers won't see in their paychecks, which could mean hundreds or more dollars that men and women won't have to feed their families or pay their bills. Increasing workers' hours increases the money that people have in their disposable income.

The Affordable Care Act fundamentally changed labor law in this country, and the repercussions of this might not be felt for years to come. This is indeed the prototype of the dangerous, slippery slope.

What other labor laws will be reinterpreted to define full-time employment at 30 hours per week? Do people intend to impose overtime rules on employers who employ people for over 30 hours per week? It is yet another regulation which would only result in businesses cutting more hours.

What will the National Labor Relations Board reinterpret, knowing that the very fabric of labor law is based on a 30-hour workweek, instead of that previously established standard of 40 hours per week?

Prior to the passage of the Affordable Care Act, employers were already overwhelmingly providing health insurance to their employees working 40 hours a week.

Making the change contained in Mr. Young's legislation will cause the least amount of disruption in the labor market, and I would submit, with the economy as it is today, making the least disruptive change in the labor market would be desirable.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Affordable Care Act will reduce the total number of hours worked by about 1.5 percent to 2 percent during the period from 2017 to 2024. This is almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor.

Because of this, the Congressional Budget Office projects a decline in the number of workers of about 2 million in 2017, rising to about 2.5 million in 2024, all as a net result of the Affordable Care Act.

The latest Congressional Budget Office figures show that the Affordable Care Act will increase spending by almost $2 trillion-- double the estimate from 2010. The Joint Committee on Taxation states that taxpayers will be on the hook for another $1.1 trillion over the next decade.

Americans earning as little as $25,000 a year will pay more because of the law, even after accounting for the $1 trillion in premium cost- sharing subsidies.

Mr. Speaker, let's be clear about what is happening here today. This bill before us does not repeal the President's takeover of health care in this country. It does not undermine the Affordable Care Act.

It does not take health insurance from a single person in the country. It is a fix to a fatal flaw contained within the law, similar to the seven fixes that have passed both Houses of Congress and were signed into law by the President.

Does anyone miss the 1099 paperwork regulation, which was repealed early on after the passage of the Affordable Care Act? Does anyone legitimately miss the CLASS Act, which was repealed on the very last day of the last Congress?

I think not. Had I not reminded you of those two parts of the bill, I doubt you would remember them.

This is no different from those 37 unilateral fixes that the President and his Secretaries of Health and Human Services and Treasury have made on their own, with no input from either legislative body. It is a fix to stop legislation that will cause people to lose their work.

If all sides cannot agree to fix a provision within the Affordable Care Act that is preventing people from working, then it is simply empty rhetoric to claim that the President or the other body or this body is interested in any fixes at all.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds for a response.

Of course, the President did come out for a big photo op and press conference in the Rose Garden yesterday and talked about a number of 7 million. Discounted in that is the 6 million people who lost their health insurance in October, November, and December of last year who have now, thankfully, reclaimed insurance.

So, the actual numbers, we will see those posted later in the year; but isn't it interesting, the President can have a press conference, but they cannot provide our committee with the actual detail on those numbers, which we have been asking for for months.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), the chairman of the Rules Committee.

I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, a very important point of what we are doing here today-- look, when the junior Senator from my State stands up back home and says that he wants to repeal every syllable of ObamaCare, I will stand on my chair and cheer because I think that is the right approach.

But that is not what we are doing today. We are fixing a problem, as it exists in the body of the law, that is redefining full-time work as 30 hours per week. We are fundamentally reestablishing the relationship that occurs with America's working class.

Now, I would submit that in Politico magazine, on March 26, 2014, there was an opinion piece written, ``How to Fix the Affordable Care Act.'' And who was this opinion piece written by? Well, it was written by Members of the other body, Democratic Senators who had voted in favor of the passage of the Affordable Care Act in the first place. But they have proposals that they put forward in an opinion piece on how to fix the Affordable Care Act.

One of the things they say is, maybe we ought to allow selling across State lines. Maybe we ought to allow for a catastrophic policy to be sold again because that has, after all, been prohibited under the Affordable Care Act. They are valid suggestions. They are trying to fix the problems contained within the Affordable Care Act because they recognize it is unsustainable and unmanageable. Perhaps they are a little bit embarrassed because each one of them was the 60th vote that allowed the Affordable Care Act to come back over to the House and be passed.

Now, today we are talking about a fix to a problem within the Affordable Care Act that allows full-time employment to be reestablished and redefined at 40 hours per week.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Your colleague always has more speakers as long as he is seated in the House. But I see no one else waiting, so we can proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, to the issue of jobs created in the last 5 years, let me point out that the State of Texas has been responsible for the creation of about one-third of those jobs. It is our robust oil and gas business and the manufacturing sector in the State of Texas that have been responsible for that job growth.

So when the President comes in front of a joint session of Congress for the State of the Union address and wants to talk about the jobs created since he became President, my belief is, he should say in the next statement, May God bless Texas, because Texas is responsible for that job growth, and it had nothing to do with the Affordable Care Act.

Let me talk briefly about why we are here today. Of course the gentlelady mentioned about the passage of the Affordable Care Act. She mentioned the detailed analysis that was done by Democrats, who were then in the majority, how they pored over every word in the legislation.

Let me read you the paragraph that is under question today. I am reading from section 1513 of the consolidated Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: ``The number of full-time employees for any month otherwise determined include for such month a number of employees determined by dividing the aggregate number of hours of service of employees who are not full-time employees for the month by 120.'' Period, end of sentence.

What does that mean, Mr. Speaker? Well, fortunately, we don't have to wonder what it means because we have a rule that was promulgated by the Department of the Treasury which came out this past February. It is about a 55-page rule based upon what I just read

to the House. It is a long recitation. It contains a lot of things, but here is the bottom line: For employees who average at least 30 hours of service per week during a measurement period, who thus must be treated as full-time employees during an associated 6-month stability period. That is the bottom line.

I don't know how we went from 120 per month to 30 hours per week, but they figured it out at the Department of Treasury at some great expense, I rather suspect, because here is this rule that came to the American people in February of this year when the actual law was passed almost 4 years prior. Nevertheless, we have the rule, and people are welcome to read it in the Federal Register. It was published on Wednesday, February 12, 2014, 2 days before Valentine's Day. We love you, America.

Mr. Speaker, the rule that governs the debate on this bill before us today keeps that fundamental contract with employers and their workers that full-time employment will be 40 weeks. If you accept the definition from the Department of Labor that it is now 30 weeks and an employer is trying to reduce the cost of providing employment, they may make the logical assumption that if someone only works 28 or 29 hours, then they are not full-time; therefore, they do not need to be providing health insurance.

And what we have done is, we have shifted that entire equation and robbed people of 10 hours of employment every week. That is a significant change in their take-home pay.

Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for consideration of a critical bill to ensure that Americans are not forced to work fewer hours than they otherwise would without these draconian labor laws included in the Affordable Care Act.

I want to thank Mr. Young for his thoughtful legislation, working across the aisle to offer a bill that both Republicans and Democrats have accepted in the committee by passing it through the committee with no amendments. He has bipartisan cosponsors, and he has public support.

I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time and I move the previous question on the resolution.