Forty Hours Is Full Time Act of 2013

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.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Lynch).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

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

I think, Mr. Speaker, this is about the 52nd time that the Republican majority has attempted to either repeal or derail the Affordable Care Act. I don't know why they do it so often since constitutionally it is abundantly clear that they don't have the votes to pass it in the Senate, and clearly, if it ever reached the President's desk, it would be vetoed, and there are not enough votes to override the veto. So, clearly, this madness continues even after more than enough people have enrolled, far beyond those that were expected by some of the Republicans. And this struggle, this madness, goes on as though Democrats are the only people that are going to become sick and need health care.

So I don't know where we go from here. I assume that comes the next election, once again, the voters will speak out. And for those people that have had kids on their insurance policy, we will hear from them; for those who have had preconditions and couldn't get health insurance, we will hear from them; for those that thought that getting preventive health care was a luxury, we should hear from them; but, more importantly, the people who just could not afford insurance. I cannot conceive how these people are all Democrats, in that the Republicans have no people that are vulnerable to illnesses and the severe expenses that are involved.

But, clearly, it has been my opinion that if this bill doesn't work, if it fails, and if some of these tactics had been successful, that the Democrats would be embarrassed by its failure. But I also thought--and it makes a lot of sense to me--that if, indeed, the American people started to understand the complexities of the bill and thought they were in need of health insurance, as close to 10 million people feel, then the Republicans would have to defend their negative position as to why they fight so hard to deny people health insurance.

So I understand from Mr. Lynch that the bill is named after workers. So that brings me to include a letter for the Record from the AFL/CIO. Clearly, this is not a management outfit but really supports the workers, and they, of course, are opposed to this bill that is drafted to go nowhere.

In addition to that, I include for the Record, Mr. Speaker, a letter from the AFSCME into the Record, which represents county and municipal employees, and they strongly oppose the legislation that the Republican majority has brought to the floor.

Lastly, I include for the Record a letter from the National Education Association that opposes this legislation.

Before I reserve the balance of my time, I would like to join in with the majority that has complimented the work of Chairman David Camp. His announcement surprised most of us, but I don't think in his challenge that he has really proven his chairmanship to be all that we expected from him and then some. I regret the Republicans have passed over his opportunity to reform the tax law, but, then again, the chairman's tax reform law made too much sense for anybody to think that it would be picked up by the Republican majority. But it was a bill that would be great for discussion; it was hard hitting; it provided a lot of savings; and it reduced the rates.

So I don't know why before he leaves that we couldn't have this taken up, but it is my understanding that the gift that was given to him by his majority was just to allow him to present his draft. I think that is unfortunate because, if ever there was a time we need to reform the tax laws, it would be now. So I congratulate Chairman Camp for his attempt to introduce this to the House, and I regret that the Republican majority has, out of hand, rejected it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial

Organizations,

Washington, DC, January 28, 2014.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the AFL-CIO, I am writing

to express our strong opposition to the Save American Workers

Act (H.R. 2575) sponsored by Congressman Todd Young and the

Forty Hours is Full Time Act (H.R. 2988) introduced by

Representative Dan Lipinski.

Both of these bills would weaken the employer

responsibility requirements of the Affordable Care Act (ACA)

by increasing to 40 hours per week the threshold at which

employers are required to either offer coverage or pay a

penalty. Contrary to the intent of this legislation, economic

data show that raising the threshold would cause more

employers to reduce the hours of their workers, and it would

result in millions of working families losing employment-

based insurance coverage.

As the Ways and Means Committee examines these issues in a

hearing this week, and as discussions continue, the House

should instead seek to strengthen the employer responsibility

requirements of the ACA by lowering the hours threshold,

requiring employers to provide coverage for workers who work

20 hours a week or more, and by applying a pro rata shared

responsibility penalty if workers with fewer than 20 hours

are not offered coverage. This is the only way to protect

groups of workers--such as low-wage employees, school staff,

and adjunct professors--that will lose wages under the

existing incentive to reduce hours.

Unfortunately, the ACA's employer responsibility

requirements do not adequately sanction employers that drop

coverage or decline to offer affordable, comprehensive

coverage. The $2,000 penalty for not offering coverage to a

full-time employee pales in comparison to the average annual

cost of single coverage, which was $5,884 in 2013. The ACA's

extension of Medicaid eligibility to the uninsured will tempt

low road employers to move lower-income employees into the

program, since the law has no penalty to discourage employers

from shifting the responsibility for covering these workers.

In the construction industry, where the vast majority of

firms have fewer than 50 employees, there is no penalty for

companies that fail to provide coverage, creating a

competitive disadvantage for employers that do provide

coverage. A true ``employer mandate'' would address these

issues and other weaknesses in the employer requirements.

The bills introduced by Representatives Young and Lipinski

would take the ACA in the opposite direction, compounding the

problem they seek to solve. A December 2013 analysis by the

UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education found

that the approach employed by this legislation--moving the

threshold for coverage from 30 hours to 40 hours--would

result in reduced work hours for three times as many workers

(6.5 million) compared to the number vulnerable to a

reduction of hours at the current threshold (2.3 million).

The researchers also found that the approach would

``effectively eliminate'' the employer shared responsibility

requirement, because employers could cut workers to 39 hours

or less with relatively little cost. Pointing to the

Congressional Budget Office estimate that one million workers

will lose job-based coverage as a result of the

Administration's one-year delay in implementing the current

employer responsibility rules, the researchers warned that

making the ``employer requirement effectively non-binding on

a permanent basis'' would cause many more workers to lose

employment-based coverage. The responsibility for covering

this group would shift from employers to the federal

government, incurring substantial new costs. Instead, the

authors recommend that the incentive to reduce hours created

by the 30-hour cliff could be addressed by applying the

employer requirement to part-time workers and by pro rating

the penalty for these workers.

The AFL-CIO endorses this kind of approach. We seek a full

penalty for employers that fail to provide affordable,

comprehensive coverage to workers averaging 20 hours a week

or more. A pro-rated penalty should apply if adequate

coverage is not provided to employees working less than 20

hours. This policy would eliminate the cliff imposed by the

current 30-hour threshold, rather than simply shifting it

higher and creating a new incentive for employers to reduce

hours.

We look forward to working with you to strengthen the

employer responsibility rules of the ACA, by extending

coverage requirements to part-time workers and bolstering

requirements related to the affordability and

comprehensiveness of coverage. Achieving the coverage goals

of the Affordable Care Act will depend upon maintaining

employer responsibility for providing coverage to working

families.

Sincerely,

William Samuel,

Director,

Government Affairs Department.

I just don't know what part of the Constitution the gentleman doesn't understand, but the truth of the matter is that this law passed the House of Representatives, passed the Senate, was signed into law, and verified by the United States Supreme Court, and still we hear people yelling at the darkness that we should repeal it.

Now, there are ways to do these things, but one thing is abundantly clear: the way we have been going about this, the 52 parliamentary opportunities that the House has had, this doesn't work. And so if you tried something 51 times, it would seem to me, unless somebody is putting something in the water on the other side of the aisle, that we will try something else like try to repair it, try to fix it, try in a bipartisan way to see where we agree that changes could be made to make it easier for employers and employees. But this barking at the Moon, to me, is just a waste of taxpayers' money and time.

How many speakers do we have, and how much time do we have remaining, Mr. Speaker?

How many speakers does the gentleman have? I only have two speakers.

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

At this time, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the former chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee that played such an important role in bringing this historic legislation to the floor and to the law.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our distinguished minority whip. Maybe after he expresses what makes common sense, our Republican friends may change their minds, and so I yield for the hard work he has done in this area, and good luck.

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

I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

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

My colleagues on the Republican side in the House are so blinded by their ideology that they will not or cannot see reality or hear other voices. So here is the reality:

7-plus million people have enrolled in private plans through the ACA marketplaces. The ACA is working; millions have new coverage under Medicaid; up to 129 million Americans with preexisting health conditions, including 17 million children, no longer have to worry about being denied coverage or about being charged higher premiums due to their health status; 3.1 million young adults have gained health coverage because they can now, up to age 26, stay on their parents' health plans. That is the reality of ACA.

There is more. There is also the reality of what this legislation would do, and I want to emphasize this because I don't think it has been accurately stated to date.

It would force 1 million people out of employer-based health insurance. According to the CBO, 1 million people would be forced out of employer-based health insurance. It would increase the number of uninsured by about a half a million people, also according to the CBO. So they are bringing this up at the same time that 7 million people have enrolled in private plans through the marketplace and when millions now have coverage under Medicaid. They essentially want to go in reverse in terms of health coverage, and they don't face up to this.

I think it has also been misdescribed. This bill would add $74 billion to the deficit, according to the CBO, when there is no offset.

That is $74 billion, and you are coming forth here, the day after we receive the latest information about ACA and all that has happened beneficially and now coming and saying knock people off of employer- based insurance and add $74 billion to the deficit.

If any of those figures are wrong, I would like someone to stand up and say so.

Also, there has been much discussion about the impact in terms of part-time employment. I want to read what the CBO said definitively in February. In CBO's judgment:

There is no compelling evidence that part-time employment

has increased as a result of the ACA.

So as we heard in testimony, a community college came forth and said they had reduced the hours of teachers in order to avoid paying health insurance. Somebody in the education came forth and said that is their policy.

I suggest, instead of foregoing their responsibility as employers, they ought to go into the marketplace and see what they can do to bring more coverage for the people who are working hard.

Essentially, what you are doing here today is saying to many, many people who are working hard and who need insurance that this bill will knock you off your employer-based insurance and increase the number of uninsured by half a million, while increasing the deficit by $74 billion. Ideology is indeed blind when this kind of a proposition is put forth.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

The evidence is clear that more people would have their hours reduced if this bill passed than might be true under the present ACA.

I said what the CBO has said in terms of reduced hours of work. Once again, you are just not facing the reality. Changing this to 40 hours will hurt all around.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro).

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

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

It is too bad that we don't have a position called fact-checker on the floor. We could yield to the fact-checker every time something is misstated. If there were such a position here today, that person would be immensely busy.

For example, I think it is correct that student workers are exempted from the count, so to come here and talk about students, I think, misstates the facts.

The same is true of the story about the ACA would hurt workers, when the truth of the matter is this shift from 30 to 40 would indeed have a major impact in terms of people.

Let me read to you from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, dated October 12, 2013:

Moreover, raising the law's threshold for full-time work

from 30 hours a week to 40 hours would make a shift toward

part-time employment much more likely, not less so. That's

because only a small share of workers today, less than 8

percent, work 34 hours a week and, thus, are more at risk of

having their hours cut below health reform's threshold.

In comparison, 43 percent of employees work 40 hours a

week, and another several percent 41 to 44 hours a week.

Thus, raising the threshold to 40 hours would place more than

five times as many workers at risk of having their hours

reduced.

That is the reality. And to come here and to say that what would happen if we don't pass this bill is that more people would have their hours reduced than if we pass the bill, that simply is not correct.

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

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

I knew the majority would come here and talk about the middle class. They are trying to escape from their failure to help take action to provide jobs for middle class Americans.

They also, by the way, so far haven't helped out to provide the continuation of the unemployment insurance for hundreds of thousands of people, so many in the middle class, who have lost their jobs.

Look, I quoted from CBO, and I guess I will have to quote again. This is in February. ``In CBO's judgment, there is no compelling evidence that part-time employment has increased as a result of the ACA.''

I will quote again from this study of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and it is headed this way: ``Health reform not causing significant shift to part-time work, but raising threshold to 40 hours a week would make a sizable shift likely.''

I quoted why they say that because the number of people who are working 40 hours or thereabouts, that number is so much larger than those who are working 30 hours or thereabouts; and so any employer who wanted, essentially, to shift the burden from them to others, they are more likely to do it under this bill than under the present circumstance. That is the reason why it has been said by CBO that it would force 1 million people out of employer-based health insurance, and it would add $74 billion to the deficit since it is not offset.

You haven't refuted a single one of those statements. If they are not true, I would like you to say so. I would like you to say CBO is wrong, and also wrong when they say it would increase the number of uninsured by half a million people.

Those are three CBO statements. They stand here to refute the myths that are being brought here in defense of this bill.

So you raise the middle class banner. At the same time, you essentially, with this bill, would take away health insurance from many, many, many, many, many middle class citizens. That is what you would be doing here.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, if you care about people you should be for the ACA. Seven million people have been enrolled in private plans through the ACA marketplaces, 7 million-plus. And millions--we will get the figures--now have coverage under Medicaid. That is lots of millions of people, and you come forth with an individual case?

In many cases, I don't know your instance, these cases have turned out to be incorrect. They have been put in political ads, and they have been refuted.

I now want to read the Statement of Administration Policy from the President:

The administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R.

2575, the Save American Workers Act--it should be the so-

called Save American Workers Act--because it would

significantly increase the deficit and reduce the number of

Americans with employer-based health insurance. Rather than

attempting once again to repeal the Affordable Care Act,

which the House has tried to do over 50 times, it is time for

the Congress to stop fighting old political battles and join

the President in an agenda focused on providing greater

economic opportunity and security for middle class families

and all those working to get into the middle class.

This legislation would weaken the provision of the

Affordable Care Act that keeps employers from dropping health

insurance coverage and shifting the cost to taxpayers.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, it would

increase the budget deficit by $73.7 billion over the 2015 to

2024 period. Moreover, the proposed change would reduce the

number of people receiving employer-based coverage by about 1

million, while increasing the number of uninsured.

The Affordable Care Act gives people greater control over

their own health care. Since October 1, over 7 million have

signed up for insurance in the health insurance marketplaces.

Because of the Affordable Care Act, Americans who have

previously been denied coverage due to a preexisting

condition now have access to coverage. Additionally, the law

helps millions of Americans stay on their parents' plan until

age 26 and provides access to free preventive care like

cancer screenings that catch illness early on.

While the administration welcomes ideas to improve the law,

H.R. 2575 would undermine it by shifting costs to taxpayers

and causing employers either to drop or to not expand health

insurance coverage.

``If the President''--and this is underlined--``were presented with H.R. 2575 he would veto it.''

With that very effective, I think so convincing statement--I hope all listen to it--I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the balance of our time today be managed by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from New York for his leadership and years of service and his understanding of this issue.

I heard his debate on the floor of the House, which would drive many of us as Members of Congress to come and join you because of the literalness and the straightforwardness of your argument.

Frankly, I think that is the challenge we have this afternoon, wondering how many Americans even understand what we are doing because it is a numbers game. I have heard the stories of my colleagues, and I am absolutely empathetic, and I am sympathetic.

All of us have young people working, single parents working, husband and wife working. Maybe there are two working in a grocery store.

I think the problem with this legislation is that we are giving a pass to businesses who, in actuality, we are providing them with an opportunity to provide enhanced benefits to their hardworking workers.

This is a threshold question. The Affordable Care Act defined a full- time job as 30 hours. So it means that if you have 50 employees that are at 30 hours or above, you provide them with health insurance. But let me remind you, it is the Affordable Care Act. That means that these individuals, if you don't provide them, you have the opportunity to get into a pool or you can find insurance that fits that level of 50 workers. This does not apply if you have one worker; it doesn't apply if you have two workers. It is a threshold.

So what my friends are telling me is that, if you can afford 50 workers, you are dead broke. Then you have to take that 50th worker and drive him or her into the ground and leave them crawling out of your business at 29\1/2\ or 28 simply because you don't want to do the right thing. That is why this bill is so baffling.

In the Rules Committee, I offered two amendments to try to make it better to indicate that commuting time would be included as part of your 40 hours, or that we should delay this bill until we fully appreciate and understand the overall impact of whether or not it, in fact, undermines hardworking Americans who are in hardworking businesses. We are just passing this bill and have no clue as to whether or not this is going to be something that undermines businesses that have 50 employees.

Now, this is the backdrop of what they are doing. I even offered the point, Mr. Rangel, of why not a tax incentive so that these businesses with 50 employees can keep the 50 employees at 30 hours and get a benefit for providing them with health insurance; and when I say that, one that is pointed to the fact that you have 50 employees and you are willing to give insurance. As it is now, we know that the individual employees will get tax relief.

But 7 million people have enrolled, Mr. Speaker. The fact that we had a record-breaking access to the Affordable Care Act, or interest, this bill seems to be the complete wrong direction to go. It is wrongheaded. I would ask my colleagues to vote against the bill that destroys the working people of America and puts them on their knees to work less hours.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2575, the so-called ``Save American Workers Act of 2014.''

This bill represents the 52nd time that House Republicans have tried to scuttle or impede the Affordable Care Act and deny Americans the security that comes from having access to affordable, high-quality health care.

Their record to date is 0-51.

The Affordable Care Act, which has been passed by both the House and Senate, signed by President, upheld by the Supreme Court, and ratified by the voters in the 2012 presidential election, is here to stay.

It is long past time that House Republicans abandon their quixotic quest to derail a law that is bring so much peace of mind to millions of Americans and will reduce the deficit by $1 trillion.

The Affordable Care Act is working. For example, in my State of Texas:

1. 5,198,000 individuals on private insurance have gained coverage for at least one free preventive health care service such as a mammogram, birth control, or an immunization in 2011 and 2012. In the first eleven months of 2013 alone, an additional 1,683,800 people with Medicare have received at least one preventive service at no out of pocket cost.

2. The up to 10,695,000 individuals with pre-existing conditions such as asthma, cancer, or diabetes--including up to 1,632,000 children-- will no longer have to worry about being denied coverage or charged higher prices because of their health status or history.

3. Approximately 5,189,000 Texans have gained expanded mental health and substance use disorder benefits and/or federal parity protections.

4. 4,889,000 uninsured Texans will have new health insurance options through Medicaid or private health plans in the Marketplace.

5. As a result of new policies that make sure premium dollars work for the consumer, not just the insurer, in the past year insurance companies have sent rebates averaging $95 per family to approximately 726,200 consumers.

6. In the first ten months of 2013, 233,100 seniors and people with disabilities have saved on average $866 on prescription medications as the health care law closes Medicare's so-called ``donut hole.''

7. 357,000 young adults have gained health insurance because they can now stay on their parents' health plans until age 26.

8. Individuals no longer have to worry about having their health benefits cut off after they reach a lifetime limit on benefits, and since in January, 7,536,000 Texans will no longer have had to worry about annual limits, either.

9. Health centers have received $293,038,000 to provide primary care, establish new sites, and renovate existing centers to expand access to quality health care. Texas has approximately 400 health center sites, which served about 1,079,000 individuals in 2012.

I oppose this bill because its effect would be to deny employer provided health insurance to hard working employees who work more than 30 hours but less than 40 hours per week.

If this bill were to become law in its current form, the health security of 10.2 percent of the workforce, or approximately 19.8 million workers, would be placed at risk.

I offered two amendments to H.R. 2575 that would prevent this travesty but regrettably neither was made in order by the Rules Committee.

Jackson Lee Amendment #1 would have improved this bad bill by amending the bill's 40-hour work week definition to include the employee's average commuting time in the computation of hours worked for purposes of determining ``full-time employment.''

Commuting time has become a major issue for those who work hourly wage jobs because their workday is much longer.

According to the Bureau of the Census nearly 8.1 percent of American workers commute 60 minutes or longer.

In 2011, almost 600,000 full-time workers had ``mega-commutes'' of at least 90 minutes and travel 50 miles or more from their homes. The daily average one-way travel to work for employees nationally is 25.5 minutes, and 1 out of 4 workers cross county lines to reach their jobs.

Jackson Lee Amendment #2 would have amended the bill by delaying the effective date of the bill until the first month after there has been two consecutive quarters in which the national unemployment rate is below 5 percent, which would indicate the Nation has reached a full employment economy.

Our Nation has taken a momentous step in creating a mindset that health insurance is a personal responsibility with the enactment of

the Affordable Care Act. The law did not automatically enroll all citizens into the program because it was specifically designed to be an opt-in process.

This week all over the Nation, over 4 millions of Americans took the first step toward taking control of their lives by purchasing their first personal or family health insurance policy.

Over the course of the sign-up process for the Affordable Care Act tens of thousands of visitors each day shopped the website and over 7.1 million people were added to private insurance roles as customers or have enrolled into Medicaid.

Despite problems with the initial rollout of the online health insurance registration process, people were patient and persistent about getting coverage for themselves and their families.

I have held many events in my District to inform and connect people with Navigators and Community Health Centers to support the message that it was time to get health insurance for yourself and your family.

Why with 60 legislative days remaining in the Second Session of the 113th Congress before the end of the 2014 fiscal year, we are still seeing attempts to end the Affordable Care Act is a mystery to the American public who are voting with their own healthcare dollars for Obamacare.

H.R. 2575 proposes to amend the Internal Revenue Code by redefining a full-time employee for purposes of providing health insurance to only those workers who work a 40-hour work week.

Mr. Speaker, few hourly workers in low-wage jobs work a 40-hour work week. These employees often rely on government assistance, which amounts to a hidden tax break to employers.

Low wageworkers often rely upon public housing assistance, SNAP, WIC, or Medicaid to make ends meet.

Health insurance should not be used as a status symbol, but a basic right for people who live in the world's most prosperous nation.

I know that many predicted that the Affordable Care Act would cause havoc on the Nation's health care system, but it is not the ACA that is causing havoc--it is a small vocal minority within the majority party that is causing headaches and heartaches to doctors and their patients.

I ask that my colleagues to join me in protecting workers by voting down this rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

It was pointed out by the chairman in the House Education and the Workforce Committee, as the name suggests, the committee has broad jurisdiction over policies affecting our Nation's classrooms and workplaces. It goes without saying that both face difficult challenges today.

Budget constraints continue to plague States, school districts, and institutions of higher education, straining their ability to effectively serve students. Workers and job creators are still struggling in a persistently anemic economy, making it difficult for many Americans to pay the bills and provide for their families.

Unfortunately, the health care law is making things worse. Thanks to the President's government-run scheme, full-time jobs are being destroyed, not created. Health care costs are going up, not down; and millions of individuals are losing the health care plan they like--an example of which we just heard earlier--instead of keeping it as promised.

This reality isn't limited to private businesses. It is a reality unfolding in schools, colleges, and universities across the country. Recent headlines confirm in stark detail how the President's health care law is hurting our education system.

From The Washington Free Beacon: ``Alabama schools face shortage of substitute teachers due to ObamaCare.''

From The Weekly Standard: ``Hours cut for 200 North Carolina teachers due to ObamaCare.''

And just in case my friends from the other side of the aisle would accuse me of selecting only conservative publications, from The New York Times: ``Public sector capping part-time hours to skirt health care law.''

Aside from press reports, we have also heard firsthand accounts of how ObamaCare is making it harder for school leaders to meet the needs of students. In December, the committee asked the public to share personal stories about the effects of the health care law on local classrooms and campuses.

Helieanna, from Saint Anthony, Minnesota, described her dream to teach at the school she once attended as a student. While that dream may have come

true, she wrote that her financial situation is less stable than it was before the health care law.

Kate, from Hemet, California, informed the committee that her community college would have to restrict workers' hours, noting this impacts our ability to properly serve students.

Secretary Sebelius once dismissed concerns about jobs lost and hours cut under ObamaCare as ``speculation.'' Yet for Helieanna, Kate, and countless others, the health care law is wreaking havoc on their families, their livelihood, and their schools. It is time to do something about it.

By restoring the traditional standard of full-time work, the Save American Workers Act will help restore workers' hours and allow them to earn the wages they deserve. Just as important, the legislation will provide relief for schools grappling with a flawed health care law.

Congress should not stand by while teachers have their hours cut and students receive diminished access to educational opportunities, all because of bad policies out of Washington.

Certainly I urge my colleagues to provide relief for our Nation's workplaces and classrooms by supporting the Save American Workers Act. I would point out, as my colleague did, that taking the administration's Statement of Administrative Policy as definitive here defies, frankly, all logic.

There is no one in America who would be surprised that the President doesn't want changes to his law, unless he unilaterally makes those changes, because after all, Mr. Speaker, if you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan--unless you can't. If you like your doctor, Mr. Speaker, you can keep your doctor--except when you can't.

Before I yield back my time, I would like to thank the Ways and Means Committee for their excellent work on this legislation, and I would like to take a moment to recognize my friend and colleague, Dave Camp, who announced earlier this week his plan to retire. During more than 20 years of service, Chairman Camp has been a distinguished Member, a dedicated reformer, and tireless champion of working families. We are going to miss him. I wish him all the best.