Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2575) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the 30-hour threshold for classification as a full-time employee for purposes of the employer mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and replace it with 40 hours.

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

Madam Speaker, on a rainy September day in 2008, a constituent of mine named Ingrid was badly injured after a terrible fall in her home. She was rushed to the emergency room, where she was cared for and her life was spared, yet Ingrid came out of that experience stuck with a $23,000 hospital bill because she couldn't afford to have health insurance. A few months later, Ingrid was forced to sell her home to pay off that enormous hospital bill.

Today, on a rainy day in April of 2014, there is a different story to tell. It is a rainy day in Seattle, not here. It is the story of the Affordable Care Act, the story of 7.1 million mothers and sons, fathers and daughters, who have a newfound sense of health security and peace of mind.

That is 7.1 million honest, hardworking Americans, in addition to the 2 million young adults who are protected by staying on their parents' plan, in addition to the millions more who are now covered through the Children's Health Insurance Program and Medicaid expansion. One of them is Ingrid.

Ingrid's life is vastly different now from what it was in 2008. She still is one of the hardest working people her friends and neighbors have ever met. She still loves the outdoors and drives a pickup truck, but today, she is happy, healthy, and covered because of the ACA.

So as this Chamber, for the 52nd time, considers a radical and extremist Republican bill to kill the Affordable Care Act, I stand with millions of people who have been covered because of the ACA and the millions who still need health security. I stand in opposition to the idea that this Nation is incapable of guaranteeing health security for all its citizens.

Republicans have no plan to cover the American people. Speaker Boehner earlier this week would not commit to releasing a Republican plan until after the election. How transparent can you be? Proof that this is political.

So the introduction of this bill is simply surrender in the face of the health care crisis in America. How else can you explain the Republicans' introduction of a bill that cancels the health insurance policies of 1 million Americans? That sounds like surrender to me.

How else can you explain a bill that raises the deficit by $75 billion? More surrender.

How else can you explain a bill that puts five times the number of American workers at risk of losing hours at work? How else do you explain a bill that does anything but dare employers to slash work hours for workers in order to avoid the responsibility to offer health insurance coverage?

How can they say this bill solves a problem of employers cutting hours and refusing benefits when it really only makes it worse?

It is unconditional surrender by the Republicans, pure and simple, to force yet another vote on a bill that has no chance of becoming law. There isn't one chance in a million.

One thing I learned in medicine was you never say never, but this is one time I can say it. It will never, ever pass the Congress. It is a bill crafted purely to appeal to the Koch brothers and the producers of FOX News, rather than forged to protect honest Americans like Ingrid.

The latest Republican bill also denies a confirmed truth; the ACA is succeeding in its primary mission to expand access to quality health care for each and every American.

So make no mistake. I have got news for you. The ACA is not going away. It is not going away. It is here to stay.

The mission before the Congress now should be--in fact, must be--to move forward to further implement the ACA and to improve the law, where needed.

I talked to Bill Frist about a year ago, former Republican leader of the Senate. He said: Don't repeal; fix.

That is what we ought to be about doing--but we are not doing that-- in order to guarantee not just access for each and every American, but to lower health care costs across the board; yet this rather perverse bill raises health care costs for everyone by increasing the number of uninsured. That is surrender, pure and simple surrender.

It is surrendering to an idea that our Nation is no longer capable of accomplishing great things and surrendering to the idea that America, the richest and the most advanced country on the Earth, can't guarantee that its citizens won't lose their homes when they get sick. That is what you are admitting by this bill.

You are saying they have to choose between food on the breakfast table instead of medicine on their bedside table. That, in my view, is a situation that has no explanation, other than the fact that you have surrendered. You have given up the idea that America can take care of its own people.

It was a choice that Ingrid once had to make, but she will never have to make again. That is what is true about the ACA. She has health care coverage. That is what is right about the ACA, and this bill under consideration, H.R. 2575, has nothing to do with what is either true or right.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

A little history might be helpful here. There was a time in this country where people worked 60 hours a week, 7 days a week, 6 days a week. The only reason we have a 40-hour week at all were labor unions who went out and struck and forced the process to get a 40-hour workweek.

They also were the ones who created the health care system in this country after the Second World War. People didn't have health insurance prior to that. When the President said, we can't have an increase in wages, that we can't have an increase in benefits, that prices can't go up, the labor unions said, well, let's have something called a benefits package.

The benefits package that was created in the middle forties included health care and pensions. It came from the union movement. They are the ones that stood in the rain and the sleet and the snow on the picket lines to get these changes.

Now, we have a law that comes in and says, let's deal with everybody in this country, and the judgment of this Congress was that an employer had the responsibility to provide health insurance for his or her employees if they worked 30 hours a week. That was considered full time.

It doesn't change the other laws, the labor laws or any of the other things. It is for the purpose of this act that employers must consider their people full time if they work 30 hours.

Now, if employers don't care, if they say, well, let me figure out how I can cheat my people out of any benefits, I am going to drop them down to 29 hours--well, you know, there are people like that. But the law says, if do you that, then you have to pay a penalty for everybody you didn't cover.

So we tried in every way possible to make it possible to give people flexibility. But this law will not work, according to the American Enterprise Institute, without a mandate that everybody be covered.

We are not changing the labor law. We are not changing overtime rules. We are not changing any of that stuff. We are saying, for the purpose of this law, an employer must cover anybody who works 30 hours. And if they don't care about their employees, if they run a restaurant, and they don't want their employees to be healthy, knock them all down to 29 hours, and let them come in sick. Then you have got a restaurant where you are going to eat lunch, and the employees haven't been able to see a doctor. That is what you are asking for.

We are saying everybody in this country ought to have health insurance, and they ought to have the access to go to a doctor when they need it. So this business about we are somehow destroying the work ethic in this country and all that kind of nonsense is simply nonsense. That is not what this is about. This is about another way to destroy the act. And you know it. We know it. And the world should understand that this is the 52nd attempt to repeal the law, to undermine it so it will not work. I urge people to vote ``no.''

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), my good friend.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time; but could you give us an accounting of our time?

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to point out to my colleagues that CBO did not say people would lose their jobs. They said because they have health care, they no longer have to stay in the job that they have, and they will be able to stay home or do something else, and that will reduce the number of hours of work. They did not say the bill cuts them out or knocks them out of work.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).

Mr. Speaker, would you give us an accounting of the time?

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

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Chicago, Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

I yield the gentlelady an additional 1 minute.

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

My colleagues out here today have really had a good time telling personal stories, so I have got a few of them for them.

Last week, the distinguished Senator from Texas, Senator Cruz, put a poll up on his Facebook, asking if people are better off under the law. The responses were not what he expected. The overwhelming number of responses--he got nearly 56,000 responses--were in support of the ACA. If you look at it online, of the most recent 100 comments, there are just two that appear more negative than positive, so that is 2 percent that are against it.

One of them said:

Not only am I better off now, but I have friends who are

better off, too.

The second one said:

Yes. I have MS, and I lost my job, and I wasn't able to get

any other insurance because of my preexisting condition.

Thank you, President Obama.

Another one said:

This Nation is better off for helping people avoid the

devastation that poor health can bring. Thank you, ACA.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Senator Ted Cruz

Quick poll: Obamacare was signed into law four years ago

yesterday. Are you better off now than you were then?

Comment with YES or NO!

Like--Comment--March 24 at 5:45am--

Martha Hall Hansen, Pat White Garcia, Linda Hidy and Top

Comments 10,204 others like this.

5,120 shares

Carol Rietz Gates: Not only am I better off, but I have

friends that are better off. Furthermore, this nation is

better off for helping folks avoid the devastation that poor

health can bring. Thank you, ACA!

1,359--March 25 at 6:46pm

13 Replies--1 hr

Kris Williams: I and a few million other people are a lot

better off. I hope you are enjoying your Cadillac plan given

to you by your wife's employer, Goldman Sachs. Stop trying to

deny the rest of us the peace of mind that quality,

affordable health insurance provides us.

1,342--March 24 at 10:13pm

16 Replies--11 mins

Benjamin Corey Feinblum: Yes. Costs stopped climbing. I'm a

small business guy and I don't have to worry because

insurance companies can't drop us anymore.

2,901--March 24 at 3:14pm

52 Replies--10 mins

Lili Ann Fuller: YES, best law ever! And way overdue! I

spent all my retirement savings on overpriced insurance in

order to save my life when I got cancer in 2005. I had no

income and now have no savings. If it had been in place back

then, I wouldn't be looking at a poor retirement, but at

least I am not worried about having care anymore.

2,300--March 24 at 2:04pm--Edited

25 Replies--7 hrs

Lashawn Bell: Yes I have MS and I lost my job I wouldn't be

able to get any other insurance because of my pre existing

condition thank you President Obama. If people get sick they

will realize how this is good.

1,288--March 24 at 2:00pm

16 Replies--1 hr

Anne Wittig Pryor: I don't have Obamacare, but someone I

know who had bad mouthed it for the past for years, recently

had to get coverage after her husband recently passed away.

The first words out of her mouth, ``Thank God for

Obamacare.'' She is a staunch Republican and believes

everything she hears on Fox News. And those who are saying

they won't comply are cutting off their noses to spite their

faces. Wake up!

2,798--March 24 at 1:49pm

52 Replies--2 hrs

Paige Brennan: Impeach Ted Cruz! He caused the shutdown

that hurt this country badly!

3,188--March 24 at 1:18pm

73 Replies--1 hr

Joe Caparco: Isn't it funny that the govemment ``makes''

you buy car insurance and home owners insurance and no one

says a word. For those of you who say you can't afford health

insurance what will you do when you need your health

insurance. No need to answer I alre . . . see more

1,984--March 24 at 1:11pm

68 Replies

Larry E White: Absolutely better off, now lets push for

universal healthcare for everyone.

2,705--March 24 at 1:08pm

26 Replies--1 hr

Sherry Scott Stewart: Absolutely Yes! I have pre-existing

condition that I was born with but didn't appear until later

in life and could not get health insurance at all. I finally

have decent affordable insurance.

What a huge relief!

1,134--March 24 at 1:05pm

4 Replies

Dave Ninehouser: Yes, my wife's little niece who is very

sick would have hit her lifetime limit by now if not for the

ACA. The nation is better off.

1,684--March 24 at 11:44am

10 Replies

Kris Williams: What is really sad is how the American

people have been kept in the dark as to what the ACA really

is. The whole purpose and driving force behind the ACA was to

Improve care and lower costs. The majority of the law deals

with Medicare. The medical cost . . . See More

1,047--March 25 at 1:08am--Edited

32 Replies

Robin Conrad: Yes, my son has Healthcare for the first time

and I know many friends it is helping. The ACA is awesome.

1,101--March 24 at 7:16pm

18 Replies

Shelley Laysi Peterson: hummm something tells me this isn't

quite the response Mr Cruz was hoping for ROFLMAO

1,828--March 24 at 5:58pm

36 Replies--4 hrs

Shelley Laysi Peterson: YES, YES & YES!! Hands Off My

Obamacare!!

1,076--March 24 at 5:52pm

16 Replies--14 mins

Felicia Willems: Yes! Everyone in my family has a pre-

existing condition that range from minor to serious. We were

uninsurable on the individual market Now we've got

great coverage through healthcare.gov. We did NOT get a

subsidy but it still fits our budget!

2,711--March 24 at 3:19pm

69 Replies

Meredith Stark: Oh Senator Cruz, four years ago we didn't

have health insurance, and now we do. It's helping my husband

and I.

914--March 24 at 2:26pm

11 Replies--1 hr

Laura Eakes: Only in America would people be cursing other

people for finally being able to get health insurance, and

calling them mooches and socialists. I'd rather be a

socialist than a selfish psychopath like many right wingers

on here

1,081--March 24 at 2:09pm

27 Replies--9 hrs

Jeffrey Albuna: Well Mr. Cruz, firstly I want to say, I

think your actions putting our country hostage for your 21

hour publicity stunt were awful and despicable. You stood up

there for 21 hours railing against Obamacare, to show the Tea

Party you ``care'' about their v . . . See More

1,444--March 24 at 1:53pm

18 Replies

Brenda Myrick Yasulevicz: For those of you who think that

anyone who answered yes ``is a part of the problem'', I have

worked hard my entire life and done fairly well. I always had

jobs with insurance. Then I became self employed and found

out I couldn't get insured because of pre-existing

conditions. (None are serious or life threatening, or even

require much care) I am very grateful for this insurance!

997--March 24 at 1:26pm

16 Replies--2 hrs

David C. Brown: Yes Ted. In spite of your empty pandering

rhetoric I am better off now that I was four years ago. I now

have an insurance plan, purchased from a private company,

that must insure me rather than suck profit from me. Before,

I was dumped from insurance f . . . See More

2,071--March 24 at 11:47am

47 Replies--2 hrs

Art Zimmerman: Damn straight I am . . . we all are after

the Bush/Cheney near destruction of our country and the

bullshit trickle-down Republican garbage!!

576--March 24 at 6:34pm--Edited

Joy Williams: Of course we are better off. We will now have

consistent care without it destroying our finances.

491--March 24 at 4:32pm

2 Replies

Chuck Provonchee: Yes, Cruz, you pitiful waste of space, we

are all much better off under the ACA. The only ones who

would not agree with that are the mindless people who blindly

follow the GOP and vote against their own best interests. You

should enjoy your time as senator because I don't think you

will ever win another election.

548--March 24 at 2:45pm

11 Replies--2 hrs

Russ Campbell: Thank God for Obama Care. I now have health

care and they discovered I have cancer. I'm going to have

surgery in one week and I might live. Without Obamacare I

would just die.

576--March 24 at 1:10pm

34 Replies--2 hrs

Terry Kelley-King: YES . . . I have insurance and am very

happy to have it . . . of course it could be better by making

it single payer . . . but this is a republican health plan so

it can't be perfect

1,699--March 24 at 1:05pm--Edited

47 Replies

Dave Posmontier: Definitely YES!. We now have drug coverage

and do pay a little bit more in co-pays but get this--My wife

and I are saving $550 a month in premiums. Thanks you

President Obama . . .

609--March 24 at 1:04pm

4 Replies

Kevin Lawton: Much better off. We'd be even better off if

people like you weren't in the US Senate.

1,736--March 24 at 12:15pm

32 Replies

Barbara J Cobuzzi: Yes, much better off.

1,042--March 24 at 12:06pm

11 Replies--1 hr

LN Winchester: YES, It's great! Not only for myself and my

kids, but for the other five million people who can now get

the medical care they need! I'm actually paying a bit more,

but I don't mind because so many families are getting the

medical services they need, in some cases desperately. That

makes it all worthwhile.

1,169--March 24 at 11:56am

28 Replies

Amanda Rosales: YES . . . I was denied heath insurance

because of having MS as a pre-existing condition and would

soon be going medically bankrupt or stop getting treatment. I

now have excellent coverage and have a brighter future!

1,205--March 24 at 11:52am

33 Replies--6 hrs

Bruce Lindner: I just left my insurance agent's office. He

walked me through my options with the ACA, and to put it

mildly, I'm one happy customer! As a self-employed cancer

survivor and a heart attack survivor--factoring in the

outrageous prices they've been gougin . . . See More

397--March 28 at 3:56pm

11 Replies

Alisha Clark: Obamacare does not regulate health care, it

regulates health insurance companies. Who in their right mind

wouldn't want health insurance companies to be regulated?

472--March 26 at 12:26pm

15 Replies--1 hr

Alisha Clark: This morning I received a private message

from one of my many fb friends This person would like me to

share her story. I can only imagine what this person is going

through and I want her to know that we are now in this fight

together.

Hi Alisha: I am n . . . See More

434--March 26 at 5:48am

23 Replies--4 hrs

Cathy Paganelli Kaelin: YES! Saving $350 per month,

preventative care plus dental & vision. And now my 2 adult

children have health insurance which they went without for 2

years. Yes, this family is grateful for the ACA. Thank you,

President Obama, for taking this country into the direction

of health care for all!

434--March 25 at 5:17am

13 Replies

Bonnie Flournoy: Yes. Previously, I had your plan whereby

the ER was my primary physician. Having a strategy alone to

seek medical help has lifted a burden. The burden was making

me just as sick as my condition. In fact, I think the stress

caused the illness.

874--March 24 at 2:08pm

15 Replies

Kathe Mendelsohn-White: YES! Without the ACA, my 21 year

old autistic son would not have any insurance. Thank you

President Obama.

1,778--March 24 at 1:12pm

66 Replies

Paulina Trefault: At the same time, costs are coming down.

The Congressional Budget Office found the health care law is

making significant contributions to fiscal responsibility.

The CBO's most recent estimates show that repealing the law

would actually increase deficit . . . See More

435--March 24 at 12:15pm

8 Replies

Tricia Barsamian-Wise: Yes . . . I no longer work 2 jobs

and have the security of not being denied, my insurance going

up or being canceled. I clearly understand Ted Cruz's POV on

this, his financial backers only hired him to do their dirty

work. But what I find so hard to comprehend is average

Americans being so cruel and hateful.

950--March 24 at 11:52am

28 Replies--6 hrs

Vik Verma: Yes

404--March 24 at 11:34am

Charles Reff: Yes, it allowed me to get better insurance

then my job was offering and for less.

1,368--March 24 at 6:38am

28 Replies

Chuck Myers: What I'd REALLY like to know, Senator Cruz, is

are you a big enough man to READ the tens of thousands of

comments below and admit that just MAYBE, you were WRONG!!!!!

If you were truly a representative OF THE PEOPLE you would

instantly see how desperat . . . See More

351--March 29 at 10:51pm

13 Replies--4 hrs

Ilene Leftwing: Yes, but would be even better off if my

Republican Governor, Nathan Deal, saw fit to help the

citizens of Georgia by implementing the medicaid expansion.

Anyone who stands against the ACA does not get MY vote.

316--March 25 at 9:26am

11 Replies--33 miss

Sandie Cohen: Please do not take away our health coverage.

357--March 24 at 3:43pm

11 Replies--32 mins

Scotty-Miguel Sandoe: YES! Access to Obamacare saves me

money, and as former cancer patient, it means I can no longer

be denied health insurance because of a pre-existing

condition. This is the best government program since

Medicare--thank heavens we have a President who cares about

American citizens for a change!

1,404--March 24 at 11:38am

54 Replies

Jeanne Carver: Yes I am. I had a junky plan, which paid

nothing until after 7500 per year. I now have affordable

healthcare, which costs much less.

780--March 24 at 1:12pm

14 Replies

David Davis: No. I couldn't afford healthcare before and I

still can't and now will also have to pay a fine. Wish I

could fine the government for making my life hell everyday.

1,458--March 24 at 5:47am

322 Replies--4 hrs

Rick LaCrosse: The politicians that rule should live by

their rules & laws!!!

253--March 24 at 5:52am

13 Replies--1 hr

Elizabeth Dubrulle: What an incredibly stupid and badly

written question! Were you actually trying to start a

discussion about healthcare, in which case your question

should have been: is your health care better today than it

was four years ago? (my answer would have been . . . See More

406--March 24 at 8:05am

23 Replies--2 hrs

Chris Marko: As a concerned Canadian, I apologize for both

Ted Cruz and Justin Beiber, that being said, you can keep

both of them, we have a no return policy for defective

merchandise.

135--March 29 at 8:28pm

Breana Corea: LMAO!!! Nice!

14--March 29 at 9:40pm

Something Liberal: please take them back . . . you can

imprison them or torture them . . . we don't care.

15--March 29 at 10:22pm

View more replies

Lamar Birdsey: In 1995 I had my first heart attack. At that

point I was insured. However, my coverage was immediately

terminated by my insurance company. Six months

later I had my second heart attack and had no insurance.

Subsequently I have had two more attacks and was not covered.

I have spent my life savings attempting to stay alive. In

2014, I purchased a wonderful Florida Blue policy. My premium

is $88.73 per month. My deductible is $600.00 annually and

any co-payments are extremely low. EVERYTHING IS COVERED! The

most out of pocket expense I will have to pay in a given year

is $2250.00. I am much better off now that the ACA has become

law. Senator Cruz, I suggest you pack your bags and go back

to where you came from, Canada. You are a scourge on this

great nation. We do not need or want your ilk here. If you

want to screw up a health care program, by all means return

to Canada and mess with that one. DO NOT TREAD ON MY

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

Mr. Speaker, can you tell us how much time remains?

Is the gentleman ready to close?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).

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

It is an old political tactic to use confusion. We have watched for almost 4 years the Republican Party try to confuse the American people about the Affordable Care Act. It was the worst thing that was ever going to happen on the face of the Earth. We would have storms, hurricanes, unemployment, wars, and famines, all because of the Affordable Care Act.

Well, we are up here today with yet another attempt to confuse people about the 40-hour workweek and whether or not we are going to cause people to lose their jobs.

On page 125 of the CBO report on the budget outlook for 2004 to 2024, it says:

In CBO's judgment, there is no compelling evidence that

part-time employment has increased as a result of the ACA.

Everything you have learned out here about losing jobs is not true. There is nothing in the law that says people have to shorten the workweek.

I don't know if anybody on the other side understands the free enterprise system. Businesses are run by entrepreneurs who decide what kind of product they are going to produce. They hire people to do that. They decide the hours. They decide the pay. They decide everything.

You keep saying that ObamaCare came in and it is forcing these entrepreneurs in America to cut their employees' wages and hours. There is no such thing in the law. That is not true.

In fact, my colleague from Washington State (Mr. Reichert) just said, Mr. Speaker, that people's hours were already being cut before ObamaCare.

It is not ObamaCare that decides how much somebody works. It is the person who runs the company. If he doesn't care about his employees and doesn't want to give them health care, that is one thing. There are people like that, but there are a lot of people who would like to give health insurance to their people, and we are trying to help them do that with the subsidies in this bill.

Let me come to one other issue, and that is this whole question of women.

I have flown back and forth across the country every week, 35 flights a year, for 25 years, and I know most of the flight attendants on United Airlines between Seattle and Washington, D.C.

I can't tell you how many of those women are working because they get health care benefits. Their husband has a job, but has no benefits, and if they don't have their job, they simply won't have health care in their family.

United Airlines has been through two bankruptcies. They have lost pay increases. They have lost their pension rights. The only thing they have left is that health care benefit, and that is what is holding the family together.

I am sort of interested to watch what happens to the older flight attendants I know, to see whether they leave flying, because they would like to. Their husband has a job, but before, he couldn't get health insurance, and now, he can under the Affordable Care Act, and they can quit working.

When the CBO talks about people working less, it is because the job lock is gone. People are not locked into their jobs because of the fact that they can't get health insurance anyplace else. It makes it available for any American.

The fact is that the cuts you are seeing--if you see employers that are going to take people down from 40 hours a week to 39 so that they can avoid giving benefits, take a look at the morals. I wonder if that person goes to church and talks about how they take care of the poor and the weak and the sick and all the rest.

No, no. You can't have it both ways. You cannot cut your people down 1 hour just to get out of giving them benefits, and that is what you are suggesting is going to go on in this country.

I don't think that badly of owners of businesses myself. Now, there may be some people out there looking for a

way to get around the law, but this law doesn't make anybody do anything, and this law is going to create more problems.

You hear 1 million people are going to lose their health care benefits, and that is not good. This whole idea of continuing to undermine this law by confusing the American people, and making them think it bad isn't working. 1.7 million joined.

Labor Market Effects of the Affordable Care Act: Updated Estimates

Overview

The baseline economic projections developed by the

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) incorporate the agency's

estimates of the future effects of federal policies under

current law. The agency updates those projections regularly

to account for new information and analysis regarding federal

fiscal policies and many other influences on the economy. In

preparing economic projections for the February 2014

baseline, CBO has updated its estimates of the effects of the

Affordable Care Act (ACA) on labor markets.

The ACA includes a range of provisions that will take full

effect over the next several years and that will influence

the supply of and demand for labor through various channels.

For example, some provisions will raise effective tax rates

on earnings from labor and thus will reduce the amount of

labor that some workers choose to supply. In particular, the

health insurance subsidies that the act provides to some

people will be phased out as their income rises--creating an

implicit tax on additional earnings--whereas for other

people, the act imposes higher taxes on labor income

directly. The ACA also will exert conflicting pressures on

the quantity of labor that employers demand, primarily during

the next few years.

How Much Will the ACA Reduce Employment in the Longer Term?

The ACA's largest impact on labor markets will probably

occur after 2016, once its major provisions have taken full

effect and overall economic output nears its maximum

sustainable level. CBO estimates that the ACA will reduce the

total number of hours worked, on net, by about 1.5 percent to

2.0 percent during the period from 2017 to 2024, almost

entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor--

given the new taxes and other incentives they will face and

the financial benefits some will receive. Because the largest

declines in labor supply will probably occur among lower-wage

workers, the reduction in aggregate compensation (wages,

salaries, and fringe benefits) and the impact on the overall

economy will be proportionally smaller than the reduction in

hours worked. Specifically, CBO estimates that the ACA will

cause a reduction of roughly 1 percent in aggregate labor

compensation over the 2017--2024 period, compared with what

it would have been otherwise. Although such effects are

likely to continue after 2024 (the end of the current 10-year

budget window), CBO has not estimated their magnitude or

duration over a longer period.

The reduction in CBO's projections of hours worked

represents a decline in the number of full-time-equivalent

workers of about 2.0 million in 2017, rising to about 2.5

million in 2024. Although CBO projects that total employment

(and compensation) will increase over the coming decade, that

increase will be smaller than it would have been in the

absence of the ACA. The decline in full-time-equivalent

employment stemming from the ACA will consist of some people

not being employed at all and other people working fewer

hours; however, CBO has not tried to quantify those two

components of the overall effect. The estimated reduction

stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of

labor that workers choose to supply, rather than from a net

drop in businesses' demand for labor, so it will appear

almost entirely as a reduction in labor force participation

and in hours worked relative to what would have occurred

otherwise rather than as an increase in unemployment (that

is, more workers seeking but not finding jobs) or

underemployment (such as part-time workers who would

prefer to work more hours per week).

CBO's estimate that the ACA will reduce employment reflects

some of the inherent trade-offs involved in designing such

legislation. Subsidies that help lower-income people purchase

an expensive product like health insurance must be relatively

large to encourage a significant proportion of eligible

people to enroll. If those subsidies are phased out with

rising income in order to limit their total costs, the

phaseout effectively raises people's marginal tax rates (the

tax rates applying to their last dollar of income), thus

discouraging work. In addition, if the subsidies are financed

at least in part by higher taxes, those taxes will further

discourage work or create other economic distortions,

depending on how the taxes are designed. Alternatively, if

subsidies are not phased out or eliminated with rising

income, then the increase in taxes required to finance the

subsidies would be much larger.

CBO's estimate of the ACA's impact on labor markets is

subject to substantial uncertainty, which arises in part

because many of the ACA's provisions have never been

implemented on such a broad scale and in part because

available estimates of many key responses vary considerably.

CBO seeks to provide estimates that lie in the middle of the

distribution of potential outcomes, but the actual effects

could differ notably from those estimates. For example, if

fewer people obtain subsidized insurance coverage through

exchanges than CBO expects, then the effects of the ACA on

employment would be smaller than CBO estimates in this

report. Alternatively, if more people obtain subsidized

coverage through exchanges, then the impact on the labor

market would be larger.

Why Will Those Reductions Be Smaller in the Short Term?

CBO estimates that the ACA will cause smaller declines in

employment over the 2014--2016 period than in later years,

for three reasons. First, fewer people will receive subsidies

through health insurance exchanges in that period, so fewer

people will face the implicit tax that results when higher

earnings reduce those subsidies. Second, CBO expects the

unemployment rate to remain higher than normal over the next

few years, so more people will be applying for each available

job--meaning that if some people seek to work less, other

applicants will be readily available to fill those positions

and the overall effect on employment will be muted. Third,

the ACA's subsidies for health insurance will both stimulate

demand for health care services and allow low-income

households to redirect some of the funds that they would have

spent on that care toward the purchase of other goods and

services--thereby increasing overall demand. That increase in

overall demand while the economy remains somewhat weak will

induce some employers to hire more workers or to increase the

hours of current employees during that period.

Why Does CBO Estimate Larger Reductions Than It Did in 2010?

In 2010, CBO estimated that the ACA, on net, would reduce

the amount of labor used in the economy by roughly half a

percent--primarily by reducing the amount of labor that

workers choose to supply. That measure of labor use was

calculated in dollar terms, representing the approximate

change in aggregate labor compensation that would result.

Hence, that estimate can be compared with the roughly 1

percent reduction in aggregate compensation that CBO now

estimates to result from the act. There are several reasons

for that difference: CBO has now incorporated into its

analysis additional channels through which the ACA will

affect labor supply, reviewed new research about those

effects, and revised upward its estimates of the

responsiveness of labor supply to changes in tax rates.

Effects on Retirement Decisions and Disabled Workers

Changes to the health insurance market under the ACA,

including provisions that prohibit insurers from denying

coverage to people with preexisting conditions and those that

restrict variability in premiums on the basis of age or

health status, will lower the cost of health insurance plans

offered to older workers outside the workplace. As a result,

some will choose to retire earlier than they otherwise

would--another channel through which the ACA will reduce the

supply of labor.

The new insurance rules and wider availability of subsidies

also could affect the employment decisions of people with

disabilities, but the net impact on their labor supply is not

clear. In the absence of the ACA, some workers with

disabilities would leave the workforce to enroll in such

programs as Disability Insurance (DI) or Supplemental

Security Income (SSI) and receive subsidized health

insurance. (SSI enrollees also receive Medicaid; DI enrollees

become eligible for Medicare after a two-year waiting

period.) Under the ACA, however, they could be eligible for

subsidized health insurance offered through the exchanges,

and they cannot be denied coverage or charged higher premiums

because of health problems. As a result, some disabled

workers who would otherwise have been out of the workforce

might stay employed or seek employment. At the same time,

those subsidies and new insurance rules might lead other

disabled workers to leave the workforce earlier than they

otherwise would. Unlike DI applicants who are ineligible for

SSI, they would not have to wait two years before they

received the ACA's Medicaid benefits or exchange subsidies--

making it more attractive to leave the labor force and apply

for DI.

Possible Effects on Labor Supply Through Productivity

In addition to the effects discussed above, the ACA could

shape the labor market or the operations of the health sector

in ways that affect labor productivity. For example, to the

extent that increases in insurance coverage lead to improved

health among workers, labor productivity could be enhanced.

In addition, the ACA could influence labor productivity

indirectly by making it easier for some employees to obtain

health insurance outside the workplace and thereby prompting

those workers to take jobs that better match their skills,

regardless of whether those jobs offered employment-based

insurance.

Some employers, however, might invest less in their

workers--by reducing training, for example--if the turnover

of employees increased because their health insurance was no

longer tied so closely to their jobs. Furthermore,

productivity could be reduced if

businesses shifted toward hiring more part-time employees to

avoid paying the employer penalty and if part-time workers

operated less efficiently than full-time workers did. (If the

dollar loss in productivity exceeded the cost of the employer

penalty, however, businesses might not shift toward hiring

more part-time employees.)

Whether any of those changes would have a noticeable

influence on overall economic productivity, however, is not

clear. Moreover, those changes are difficult to quantify and

they influence labor productivity in opposing directions. As

a result, their effects are not incorporated into CBO's

estimates of the effects of the ACA on the labor market.

Some recent analyses also have suggested that the ACA will

lead to higher productivity in the health care sector--in

particular, by avoiding costs for low-value health care

services--and thus to slower growth in health care costs

under employment-based health plans. Slower growth in those

costs would effectively increase workers' compensation,

making work more attractive. Those effects could increase the

supply of labor (and could increase the demand for labor in

the near term, if some of the savings were not immediately

passed on to workers).

Whether the ACA already has or will reduce health care

costs in the private sector, however, is hard to determine.

The ACA's reductions in payment rates to hospitals and other

providers have slowed the growth of Medicare spending

(compared with projections under prior law) and thus

contributed to the slow rate of overall cost growth in health

care since the law's enactment. Private health care costs (as

well as national health expenditures) have grown more slowly

in recent years as well, but analysts differ about the shares

of that slowdown that can be attributed to the deep recession

and weak recovery, to provisions of the ACA, and to other

changes within the health sector. Moreover, the overall

influence of the ACA on the cost of employment-based coverage

is difficult to predict--in part because some provisions

could either increase or decrease private-sector spending on

health care and in part because many provisions have not yet

been fully implemented or evaluated. Consequently, CBO has

not attributed to the ACA any employment effects stemming

from slower growth of premiums in the private sector.

Effects of the ACA on the Demand for Labor

The ACA also will affect employers' demand for workers,

mostly over the next few years, both by increasing labor

costs through the employer penalty (which will reduce labor

demand) and by boosting overall demand for goods and services

(which will increase labor demand).

Effects of the Employer Penalty on the Demand for Labor

Beginning in 2015, employers of 50 or more full-time

equivalent workers that do not offer health insurance (or

that offer health insurance that does not meet certain

criteria) will generally pay a penalty. That penalty will

initially reduce employers' demand for labor and thereby tend

to lower employment. Over time, CBO expects, the penalty will

be borne primarily by workers in the form of reduced wages or

other compensation, at which point the penalty will have

little effect on labor demand but will reduce labor supply

and will lower employment slightly through that channel.

Businesses face two constraints, however, in seeking to

shift the costs of the penalty to workers. First, there is

considerable evidence that employers refrain from cutting

their employees' wages, even when unemployment is high (a

phenomenon sometimes referred to as sticky wages). For that

reason, some employers might leave wages unchanged and

instead employ a smaller workforce. That effect will probably

dissipate entirely over several years for most workers

because companies that face the penalty can restrain wage

growth until workers have absorbed the cost of the penalty--

thus gradually eliminating the negative effect on labor

demand that comes from sticky wages.

A second and more durable constraint is that businesses

generally cannot reduce workers' wages below the statutory

minimum wage. As a result, some employers will respond to the

penalty by hiring fewer people at or just above the minimum

wage--an effect that would be similar to the impact of

raising the minimum wage for those companies' employees. Over

time, as worker productivity rises and inflation erodes the

value of the minimum wage, that effect is projected to

decline because wages for fewer jobs will be constrained by

the minimum wage. The effect will not disappear completely

over the next 10 years, however, because some wages are still

projected to be constrained (that is, wages for some jobs

will be at or just above the minimum wage).

Businesses also may respond to the employer penalty by

seeking to reduce or limit their full-time staffing and to

hire more part-time employees. Those responses might occur

because the employer penalty will apply only to businesses

with 50 or more full-time-equivalent employees, and employers

will be charged only for each full-time employee (not

counting the first 30 employees). People are generally

considered full time under the ACA if they work 30 hours or

more per week, on average, so employers have an incentive,

for example, to shift from hiring a single 40-hour, full-

time employee to hiring two, 20-hour part-time employees

to avoid bearing the costs of the penalty.

Such a change might or might not, on its own, reduce the

total number of hours worked. In the example just offered,

the total amount of work is unaffected by the changes.

Moreover, adjustments of that sort can take time and be quite

costly--in particular, because of the time and costs that

arise in dismissing full-time workers (which may involve the

loss of workers with valuable job-specific skills); the time

and costs associated with hiring new part-time workers

(including the effort spent on interviewing and training);

and, perhaps most important, the time and costs of changing

work processes to accommodate a larger number of employees

working shorter and different schedules. The extent to which

people would be willing to work at more than one part-time

job instead of a single full-time job is unclear as well;

although hourly wages for full-time jobs might be lower than

those for part-time jobs (once wages adjust to the penalty),

workers also would incur additional costs associated with

holding more than one job at a time.

In CBO's judgment, there is no compelling evidence that

part-time employment has increased as a result of the ACA. On

the one hand, there have been anecdotal reports of firms

responding to the employer penalty by limiting workers'

hours, and the share of workers in part-time jobs has

declined relatively slowly since the end of the recent

recession. On the other hand, the share of workers in part-

time jobs generally declines slowly after recessions, so

whether that share would have declined more quickly during

the past few years in the absence of the ACA is difficult to

determine. In any event, because the employer penalty will

not take effect until 2015, the current lack of direct

evidence may not be very informative about the ultimate

effects of the ACA.

More generally, some employers have expressed doubts about

whether and how the provisions of the ACA will unfold.

Uncertainty in several areas--including the timing and

sequence of policy changes and implementation procedures and

their effects on health insurance premiums and workers'

demand for health insurance--probably has encouraged some

employers to delay hiring. However, those effects are

difficult to quantify separately from other developments in

the labor market, and possible effects on the demand for

labor through such channels have not been incorporated into

CBO's estimates of the ACA's impact.

Effects of Changes in the Demand for Goods and Services on the Demand

for Labor

CBO estimates that, over the next few years, the various

provisions of the ACA that affect federal revenues and

outlays will increase demand for goods and services, on net.

Most important, the expansion of Medicaid coverage and the

provision of exchange subsidies (and the resulting rise in

health insurance coverage) will not only stimulate greater

demand for health care services but also allow lower-income

households that gain subsidized coverage to increase their

spending on other goods and services--thereby raising overall

demand in the economy. A partial offset will come from the

increased taxes and reductions in Medicare's payments to

health care providers that are included in the ACA to offset

the costs of the coverage expansion.

On balance, CBO estimates that the ACA will boost overall

demand for goods and services over the next few years because

the people who will benefit from the expansion of Medicaid

and from access to the exchange subsidies are predominantly

in lower-income households and thus are likely to spend a

considerable fraction of their additional resources on goods

and services--whereas people who will pay the higher taxes

are predominantly in higher-income households and are likely

to change their spending to a lesser degree. Similarly,

reduced payments under Medicare to hospitals and other

providers will lessen their income or profits, but those

changes are likely to decrease demand by a relatively small

amount.

The net increase in demand for goods and services will in

turn boost demand for labor over the next few years, CBO

estimates. Those effects on labor demand tend to be

especially strong under conditions such as those now

prevailing in the United States, where output is so far below

its maximum sustainable level that the Federal Reserve has

kept short-term interest rates near zero for several years

and probably would not adjust those rates to offset the

effects of changes in federal spending and taxes. Over

time, however, those effects are expected to dissipate as

overall economic output moves back toward its maximum

sustainable level.

Why Short-Term Effects Will Be Smaller Than Longer-Term Effects

CBO estimates that the reduction in the use of labor that

is attributable to the ACA will be smaller between 2014 and

2016 than it will be between 2017 and 2024. That difference

is a result of three factors in particular--two that reflect

smaller negative effects on the supply of labor and one that

reflects a more positive effect on the demand for labor:

The number of people who will receive exchange subsidies--

and who thus will face an implicit tax from the phaseout of

those subsidies that discourages them from working--will be

smaller initially than it will be in later years. The number

of enrollees (workers and their dependents) purchasing their

own coverage through the exchanges is projected to rise from

about 6 million in 2014 to

about 25 million in 2017 and later years, and most of those

enrollees will receive subsidies. Although the number of

people who will be eligible for exchange subsidies is similar

from year to year, workers who are eligible but do not enroll

may either be unaware of their eligibility or be unaffected

by it and thus are unlikely to change their supply of labor

in response to the availability of those subsidies.

CBO anticipates that the unemployment rate will remain high

for the next few years. If changes in incentives lead some

workers to reduce the amount of hours they want to work or to

leave the labor force altogether, many unemployed workers

will be available to take those jobs--so the effect on

overall employment of reductions in labor supply will be

greatly dampened.

The expanded federal subsidies for health insurance will

stimulate demand for goods and services, and that effect will

mostly occur over the next few years. That increase in demand

will induce some employers to hire more workers or to

increase their employees' hours during that period.

CBO anticipates that output will return nearly to its

maximum sustainable level in 2017 (see Chapter 2). Once that

occurs, the net decline in the amount of labor that workers

choose to supply because of the ACA will be fully reflected

in a decline in total employment and hours worked relative to

what would otherwise occur.

Differences From CBO's Previous Estimates of the ACA's Effects on Labor

Markets

CBO's estimate that the ACA will reduce aggregate labor

compensation in the economy by about 1 percent over the 2017-

2024 period--compared with what would have occurred in the

absence of the act--is substantially larger than the estimate

the agency issued in August 2010. At that time, CBO estimated

that, once it was fully implemented, the ACA would reduce the

use of labor by about one-half of a percent. That measure of

labor use was calculated in dollar terms, representing the

change in aggregate labor compensation that would result.

Thus it can be compared with the reduction in aggregate

compensation that CBO now estimates to result from the act

(rather than with the projected decline in the number of

hours worked).

The increase in that estimate primarily reflects three

factors:

The revised estimate is based on a more detailed analysis

of the ACA that incorporates additional channels through

which that law will affect labor supply. In particular, CBO's

2010 estimate did not include an effect on labor supply from

the employer penalty and the resulting reduction in wages (as

the costs of that penalty are passed on to workers), and it

did not include an effect from encouraging part-year workers

to delay returning to work in order to retain their insurance

subsidies.

CBO has analyzed the findings of several studies published

since 2010 concerning the impact of provisions of the ACA (or

similar policy initiatives) on labor markets. In particular,

studies of past expansions or contractions in Medicaid

eligibility for childless adults have pointed to a larger

effect on labor supply than CBO had estimated previously.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2575. You know, sometimes you have to figure out, first of all, where did you come from to find out to where you got.

I was trying to understand the 40-hour workweek. Where could it possibly have started? How did we come to accept that, and for 70-some years that is full-time employment, 40 hours? I found out it was actually the product of the Depression. When they did the Fair Labor Standards Act, they said we need to have a measure, so it will be 44 hours--part of the New Deal, by the way. In 1940, they changed it to 40 hours a week was full-time employment. Then, all of a sudden, ObamaCare comes along and the New Deal has been replaced by a bad deal. We told people, no, no, no. It is not 40; it is 30 hours. That is what full- time employment is.

Now, when you go back to 1937 and 1940, what were they trying to do? They were trying to get America back to work. It was after the Great Depression, so it was about getting folks back to work. Now, you fast- forward to today, and it is not about getting people back to work. It is about getting ObamaCare to work.

This makes absolutely no sense. Who does it hurt the most? It has hurt low-income and middle-income people. 2.6 million folks have been affected by either losing a job or losing hours.

So you have got to scratch your head and say, Wait a minute. If we are really trying to get America back to work, why would we take their hours from them? Why would we slash their workweeks by 25 percent and think it is going to work? It has nothing to do with working people. It has to do with making ObamaCare work.

I have got to tell you that we have the New Deal that got replaced with a bad deal, and now we have H.R. 2575. Do you know what it is? It is a good deal. This is a good deal. With 435 Members, any one of us could say that this just doesn't make sense right now for the folks we represent. Why would we do this to them? Why would we take their work hours away? Why would we put in jeopardy 2.6 million people just in an effort to make ObamaCare work?

If it is about making it easier for Americans to work, then it is high time we start to turn the tide. It is time we look at what is going on and that we say to ourselves, If it worked before, why can't it work again? Why can't we go back to 40 hours? Why

can't we make it easier for American families to get through the hard times that they are going through right now?

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam), my friend and colleague.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), another colleague and good friend of mine.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to enter into the Record two letters--one from the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, which is in strong support of H.R. 2575, and then another letter from the National Federation of Independent Business--and I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert), my good friend and a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Chamber of Commerce of the

United States of America,

Washington, DC, April 2, 2014.

To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The

U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business

federation representing the interests of more than three

million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as

well as state and local chambers and industry associations,

and dedicated to promoting, protecting, and defending

America's free enterprise system, strongly supports H.R.

2575, the ``Save American Workers Act of 2014,'' which would

redefine a ``full-time employee'' for purposes of the

employer mandate provision in the Patient Protection and

Affordable Care Act (PPACA) to reflect the traditional 40-

hour work week constituting full-time employment. This bill

would be a critical step in helping protect employees and

employers against what would amount to a significant

redefinition of workforce status.

Under the employer mandate provision of the PPACA,

businesses with 50 or more full-time equivalent employees

(FTEs) are required to provide affordable, minimum value,

health care coverage to all full-time employees as well as

coverage to their dependents, or potentially pay significant

penalties. For the first time in history, the PPACA defines a

full-time employee as an individual working 30 hours per week

or more averaged over the course of a month. In an attempt to

mitigate the anticipated high costs of providing coverage to

all employees now considered full time, businesses are

restructuring their workforces. Despite the one-year delay of

the employer mandate, a recent report by the Chamber and the

International Franchise Association confirmed that businesses

are already experiencing increased costs causing them to

reduce employee hours, limit full-time jobs, and drop health

coverage. While the Chamber welcomes and appreciates the

administration's ``transition relief' announced in February,

it fails to adequately mitigate the harmful impacts of the

PPACA's 30 hour workweek definition.

Returning to the widely-accepted 40-hour definition of a

full-time employee would allow businesses to focus on

generating jobs, rather than making them choose between

reducing growth and unfortunate personnel changes or going

bankrupt from employer mandate penalties. By reverting back

to the traditional definition, employees and employers would

both be protected. Particularly during this time when our

economic recovery remains fragile, it is crucial we provide

an atmosphere where employers can focus on strengthening

their businesses, employing workers in traditional full-time

positions, and revitalizing the economy.

The Chamber continues to champion health care reform that

builds on and reinforces the employer-sponsored system while

improving access to affordable, quality coverage. The Chamber

urges you and your colleagues to support H.R. 2575, and may

consider including votes on, or in relation to, this bill in

our annual How They Voted scorecard.

Sincerely,

R. Bruce Josten,

Executive Vice President,

Government Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I will include letters from the Employers for Flexibility in Health Care Coalition and the NRF. We have a lot of these letters. I think I will read more of them as we go on.

I am fascinated by the results of Senator Cruz's request online to hear from people. We will see if we can get some other accurate numbers.

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed), my good friend and another member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Employers for Flexibility

in Health Care Coalition,

February 4, 2014.

Hon. Dave Camp,

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Sander Levin,

Ranking Member, Committee on Ways and Means, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Camp and Ranking Member Levin, The Employers

for Flexibility in Health Care (E-FLEX) is a coalition of

leading trade associations and businesses in the retail,

restaurant, hospitality, supermarket, construction, temporary

staffing, agriculture, and other service-related industries,

as well as employer-sponsored health plans insuring millions

of American workers. The E-FLEX Coalition represents

employers who create millions of jobs each year, employ a

significant workforce in the U.S., offer flexible working

environments for employees, and are a leading contributor to

the nation's economic job recovery.

The common thread among Coalition members is that our

workforces are of a variable nature, and not traditional 9-5

workforces. Maintaining the ability to offer affordable

coverage options to our unique workforces under the new

requirements of the law is of special concern to us. The

Affordable Care Act's (ACA) definition of full-time employee

is of particular importance to the E-FLEX Coalition because

of our industries' unique reliance on large numbers of part-

time, temporary, and seasonal workers with fluctuating and

unpredictable work hours, as well as unpredictable lengths of

service.

While transition relief for 2014 and flexibility in the

proposed rules are greatly appreciated, the E-FLEX Coalition

and many in the employer community remain concerned that the

ACA employer requirements are fundamentally unworkable and

require legislative changes, especially the 30 hours per week

definition of full-time employee status. It is critically

important to change the law's definition of full-time as 30

hours of service to a definition more in line with employment

practices. The law's definition of full-time as 30 hours of

service per week does not reflect employers' workforce needs

or employees' desire for flexible hours. A change is needed

to avoid disruptions in the workforce and maintain flexible

work options for employees.

Better aligning the ACA's definition of full-time employee

status with current employment practices would help avoid

unnecessary disruptions to employees' wages and hours, and

would provide critical relief to employers. Increasing the

ACA's rigid 30-hour per week definition for full-time status

would:

Make it easier for employers to provide more hours to all

employees, thereby increasing their take-home pay;

Help employers offer more generous health coverage to full-

time employees without making employers' share of premiums

cost prohibitive;

Help ensure that lower-income employees have access to more

affordable coverage options.

Using a definition of full-time that better reflects

current employment practices would not cause employees to

lose coverage. In fact, setting the definition of full-time

employee status at a higher level would help eliminate a

coverage gap for lower income employees in some states and

make it easier for employees to increase their income by

requesting work schedules according to their particular

needs.

Although sharp differences in opinion about the ACA remain,

well-intentioned people on both sides of the debate can agree

that using a higher threshold for defining full-time would be

better for American workers and businesses than the ACA's

lower full-time definition. Committee consideration of H.R.

2575--Save American Workers Act of 2013--is a first step in

the process of realigning this threshold.

The E-FLEX Coalition looks forward to continuing to work

with the Committee and your colleagues in Congress on a

bipartisan basis to strengthen and preserve employer-

sponsored coverage.

Sincerely,

Employers for Flexibility in Health Care (E-FLEX) Coalition.

Mr. Speaker, I also have a letter from the Small Business Coalition for Affordable Healthcare. There are 43 members signed onto this one.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Small Business Coalition for

Affordable Healthcare,

April 2, 2014.

Hon. John Boehner,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader Pelosi,

Representing the country's largest, oldest and most respected

small business associations, which have spent more than a

decade working to improve access to and affordability of

private health insurance, the Small Business Coalition for

Affordable Healthcare (the Coalition) is writing in support

of H.R. 2575, Save American Workers Act of 2013. This

legislation would repeal the Patient Protection and

Affordable Care Act's (PPACA) 30-hour per week full-time

employee definition and replace it with a 40-hour per week

full-time employee definition.

Beginning in 2015, PPACA requires businesses with 100 or

more full-time equivalent (FTE) employees to offer affordable

health insurance to full-time employees or potentially pay

significant penalties. Businesses with 50 or more FTEs must

offer affordable health insurance to full-time employees and

their dependents or potentially pay penalties beginning in

2016. PPACA defines a full-time employee as an employee who

averages 30-hours of service per week, or 130-hours of

service per month. PPACA's definition of full-time is counter

to the traditional 40-hours of service threshold that most

American businesses use to define full-time for benefits and

other purposes. Implementing this new definition will require

most businesses to change both their policies and their

practices.

Despite the one year delay of the employer mandate

requirement for 2014 and more recent transition relief for

midsize businesses in 2015, employers have been preparing to

closely track employee hours and make these complicated

administrative calculations this year, as business size

calculations are based on an employer's workforce during the

preceding calendar year. Without H.R. 2575, employers will

face higher employer mandate penalty taxes, and employees

will see reduced hours and take home pay.

The Coalition urges all Members of the U.S. House of

Representatives to support H.R. 2575.

Sincerely,

Aeronautical Repair Station Association; American Apparel &

Footwear Association; American Bakers Association; American

Farm Bureau Federation; American Foundry Society; American

Hotel & Lodging Association; American Staffing Association;

American Supply Association; Asian American Hotel Owners

Association; Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc.;

Associated Equipment Distributors; Associated General

Contractors; Association for Manufacturing Technology;

Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association; International

Housewares Association; Metals Service Center Institute;

National Association of Convenience Stores; National

Association of Home Builders; National Association of RV

Parks and Campgrounds; National Association of Theatre

Owners; National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors;

National Club Association.

National Federation of Independent Business; National

Restaurant Association; National Retail Federation; National

Roofing Contractors Association; National Small Business

Association; National Systems Contractors Association;

National Tooling and Machining Association; North American

Die Casting Association; North American Equipment Dealers

Association; Precision Machined Products Association;

Precision Metalforming Association; Professional Golfers

Association of America; Service Station Dealers of America

and Allied Trades; Small Business and Entrepreneurship

Council; Small Business Council of America; Society of

American Florists; Specialty Equipment Market Association;

Textile Rental Services Association; Tire Industry

Association; U.S. Chamber of Commerce; WMDA Service Station

and Automotive Repair Association.

We are prepared to close.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we have had an interesting conversation today. We have talked about the 40-hour workweek and what was established back in the 1930s under the New Deal, how it switched then under ObamaCare to a bad deal. Thirty hours is considered now full-time employment.

Now we talk about Mr. Young's bill, H.R. 2575, that will be a good deal for American workers; actually gives them back those 25 percent of the hours that they were going to lose each week.

Now, we can play ring around the rosy with this and talk about who doesn't like whom and how these terrible, terrible businessowners don't go to church, they don't have a heart, they don't seem to worship anywhere, but they want to make sure that they take advantage of their very associates with whom they have a close relationship.

I can just tell you, after being in business my entire life--I am the son of a parts picker from a General Motors warehouse, a guy who worked his fingers to the bone to have something. I have got to tell you, it is really important, though, sometimes to step out of this room and go out into the marketplace and sit down with people who actually sit across the desk from somebody and hire them. There is no greater thrill for an employer than to be able to tell somebody: You know what? We are going to bring you on our team. You are going to be able to work with us. You are going to have wages that can support your family, plan for the future, do things that you never thought you were going to do, and you can do that because of a job.

Then, suddenly, because the numbers just weren't working for ObamaCare--and as the President says all too often, it is just the arithmetic--we are going to do something that makes it work for us, not for you, but for us. We are going to make full-time employment 30 hours. We are going to take 25 percent of your workweek away from you, and we are going to say it is 30 hours now. And now we say to these people who have a great association and a great relationship with the people they work with every day, because the success of the business is also the success of the employee, we are dividing these people and making them enemies in the marketplace. You don't need to do that.

But only in this great House and only in this great town and only in the place that is so out of touch with everyday America can we stand up and make these statements and think that they stick.

2.6 million people are affected by this in a very negative, negative way. They are going to lose jobs and they are going to lose hours. It is not the fault of the employer because he is trying to make his model work. It is the fault of the government who works at such great deficits that people can't even begin to understand what it is.

My little 9-year-old grandson says to me all the time when he looks at these things: Grandpa, it just doesn't make sense. A child can get it, but we can't get it. And in a time when we need to be more united than ever as a country, as we make our way back through a very tough time, we need to stand together on these things.

What I have heard since I got here is: You guys just don't like this Affordable Care Act. Help us make it work.

So we said: Why don't we give people full-time employment, 40 hours again?

That is not the kind of help we want. That doesn't fit our narrative. Don't you get it?

So we stand here today and we have this debate. I told you how the New Deal got replaced by the bad deal, and I also told you how this bad deal is going to get replaced by a good deal by Mr. Young. H.R. 2575, that is going to help America get back to work.

Honestly, if that is not why we are here today, if that is not what our main purpose is, why are we here? What are we doing? Why do we continue to spin this so much?

Hardly any American can walk straight anymore because they get spun every day by a message from Washington. We continue to do it, and we continue to thump our chest and say we did good, we did really good.

The lowest labor rate participation in 35 years in a country that has been so blessed by our Creator that the rest of the world looks at us and says: What in the world are you doing? What is holding you back? You have every asset you could possibly want. You have great workers. You have great energy sources.

We have sources of energy that would last for several decades, several centuries. Great, great abundance and affordable and accessible energy, but we hold back on it. We have assets that make sense to everybody in the world but us. We have one-fifth of the world's freshwater sitting right in our Great Lakes, and our production per acre exceeds anybody's wildest dreams. We can have energy independence. We can feed ourselves, and we have drinking water. Everybody else in the world wants to have it.

Let me just ask the gentleman and the rest of the Congress--listen, there are 435 of us--if it is really about getting people back to work, let's do things that make sense. Let's not beat around the bush about some type of an ideological debate over what we are trying to do to each other.

Forty hours a week was always considered full-time employment. It is just that simple. It is not hard to figure out.

I can tell you, as an employer, having to let somebody go is the worst feeling you can ever have, and I do go to Mass every day, and I do pray about it every night, and I do pray about the future of this country. To suggest that anybody, any of the great employers we have and the job creators we have around this country are all somehow godless, heartless people who don't have feelings is absolutely absurd.

And it is what continues to make it hard to come to this House every day and say: You know what? We are going

to fix this for America. We are going to get America back to work. We are going to do the right thing every day, in every way.

No, that just doesn't fly here.

Well, we could go on with this for hours, Mr. Speaker. But I would just tell you this. Returning America to a 40-hour workweek just makes sense. This is not a hard thing to figure out. If a 9-year-old child can understand it, why can't the Congress of the United States? If we are truly going to turn this economy around, if we are truly going to get people back to work again, let's make sure that we renew that great sense of dependency that we have on each other, not divide ourselves between those who don't like you and those who do like you.

By the way, Senator Cruz's poll, I know that the gentleman referred to several replies that had gone to that poll. There were 57,444 people that actually answered that poll, so I am sure there was probably some good stuff on there, too.

But that is not my point. My point is we have an opportunity here in this House like no other place in the world. When something is wrong, we can fix it.

I have heard from the time I came here the problem with a lot of these laws that are passed are the unintended consequences. Well, let me tell you there may be unintended consequences, but there are not uninsured people. There are not people out there that are not feeling the pain. There is a lot of pain out there right now. So the unintended consequences have certainly not been unpainful.

You know the other thing? They are also not unfixable. Do you know we can fix this today? Do you know we can fix this and send it over to the Senate? Do you know we can make people go back to work, make their futures look brighter? Do you know we can do that in this House of Representatives?

So forget about whether you are wearing a blue tie or a red tie. Forget about whether you have an R on your back or a D on your back, and start thinking about who you really represent, because each of us in our districts represent not just Republicans, not just Democrats, but every single American.

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

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, 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.

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.