Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman. Listen, I am so glad to be here today, talking about the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. As we congratulate each other on this great work--this bipartisan work and bicameral, in saying, my, what a wonderful piece of legislation--because what we are really trying to do is get people back to work.

In Webster's definition of ``education,'' the ultimate function of education is to prepare us for complete living. That is the key to this.

Do you know who the biggest winner in this program is? The hardworking American taxpayers who fund every penny of these programs-- I think, sometimes, we forget about who it is that does this.

We think it actually takes place in this House. It doesn't. It takes place in houses, but it is the homes around the United States. It is these hardworking American taxpayers that deserve a much better return on their investment. It is just that simple.

If we are going to get people ready for the labor market, let's redirect those funds, and let's make sure that it is more effective, more efficient, and something that the people look at and say: Do you know what? I didn't mind putting money in those programs because there was a positive result from it.

From the standpoint of congratulating each other and patting each other on the back and saying how wonderful this is, what I really want to do is take this moment to thank the hardworking American taxpayers who fund every single penny of these programs.

I thank you all for your work on it; Mr. Chairman, I thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a brave young man from back in my district, Ryan Sekerski, a 28-year veteran of a volunteer fire department.

Now, this is a picture of Mr. Sekerski with his family. We celebrated his act of heroism. I have no idea how he is registered or how he votes, but I do know where his heart is.

What you are looking at is a tanker truck. Now, Mr. Sekerski, on his way home from work, heard on a radio that a gas tanker truck had swerved to avoid being in a collision, had hit a utility pole, was on its side, and seeping gas out that was on fire.

When he arrived at the scene, his question was: Is the driver okay? Nobody knew the answer.

When he found out the driver was still inside this truck, he went to his trunk, got on his volunteer fireman's gear, went inside this burning inferno, with no regard for his own life and his own safety, but more regard for the person trapped inside--what a remarkable act of heroism.

At a time when our country is looking for strong Americans, people like Ryan Sekerski are ordinary people doing extraordinary things every day.

Why? Because they are truly Americans--especially on the weekend we have coming up, we celebrate these types of people and what they have done.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 275, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4660, the fiscal year 2015 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. I wish to highlight one area under the jurisdiction of this committee and germane to this bill: U.S. stewardship and the Internet.

U.S. stewardship of the Internet's critical functions has allowed the World Wide Web to safely flourish and expand to endless horizons, enabling new ideas to spread and new markets to grow all over the world. It is clear that we have a duty to keep the Internet and its benefits to people worldwide fully safe from hostile powers overseas who seek to impede the free flow of information.

I am deeply concerned with the Obama administration's recent announcement that the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), an agency of the Department of Commerce, intends to relinquish control over the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and ``to transition key Internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community.'' Thus I introduced H.R. 4367, the Internet Stewardship Act of 2014, to ensure that Congress has the final say in any such transfer of stewardship.

The committee report for H.R. 4660 notes that ``[a]ny such transition represents a significant public policy change and should be preceded by an open and transparent process'' and recommends no funds to be used by NTIA to carry out this transition. I agree. Specifically, the Obama administration must address a number of pressing concerns and demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that its plan will accomplish crucial objectives, including but not limited to the following:

Ensure that ICANN does not fall under the control of authoritarian governments such as Russia or China or UN organizations such as the International Telecommunications Union (ITU),

Create effective oversight of ICANN through the rigorous auditing of ICANN's finances and activities by an independent body, and

Confirm that ICANN has the technical capability to maintain the authoritative root zone and the ability to block any malicious attack on it.

Unless the Obama administration demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the Congress, that its plan to transfer stewardship over these key Internet functions fulfills the common sense requirements described above and other key goals set forth by Congress, such transfer shall not take place.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this important legislation.

I thank the chairman.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you that, when I first got here, people said: Kelly, you expect the government to work as a business. I said: No, no, no, that is not true because there is no way any business can work as the government works.

This bill is a commonsense way of taking care of people who don't perform at a level that is expected. The taxpayers--the citizens of this country--should expect nothing less and to be constantly told that, gee, you can't touch these folks even if they perform so badly-- and, instead of doing that, we give them a bonus--that doesn't make sense.

Accountability is absolutely needed at this time. We give people authority. We give people responsibility. When

they don't do their jobs, they need to be held accountable for it.

I represent not only the State of Pennsylvania, but over 1 million Pennsylvanians who are veterans. If we can't fix this now with a commonsense approach, then--my goodness--what are we doing on the floor of this great House?

This just makes sense. I thank the chairman for bringing it forward. It is long overdue, and it needs to be done now.

Madam Chair, I thank the chairman.

I rise in strong support of my amendment to H.R. 4435, the FY15 NDAA, to renew a 1-year ban on the Obama administration from using any Department of Defense funds to implement the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.

This language is identical to the version of my amendment that was enacted into law FY14 NDAA and reflects the consistent will of the American people and the unified position of Congress in opposition to this misguided and dangerous treaty.

Renewal of this ban is timely and necessary. In January, the Obama administration, unexpectedly and without consultation, issued a new arms export control policy, which has not been changed since 1995.

The administration's new policy clearly seeks to implement the ATT and is based on the most dangerous part of the treaty, the international human rights law/international humanitarian law standard, that can be readily politicized by bad actors to stop the U.S. from providing arms to our friends and allies, including Israel.

The Obama administration has been so brazen about this that, in a speech to CSIS on April 23, Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Countryman openly stated:

We're already implementing the treaty.

Amazingly, in that same speech, Mr. Countryman stated:

We don't have to change any laws to implement the treaty.

That is not up to him or the administration to decide. It is up to the Senate to provide its advice and consent on the treaty, and the House and Senate to pass the necessary implementing legislation.

This President's assertion is deeply disrespectful to the Senate and the House and to the Constitution he is sworn to uphold. I urge my colleagues to stand with me in support of the Second Amendment, our Nation's sovereignty, and vote in support of this amendment to renew the annual ban on funding the ATT.

Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of my amendment to H.R. 4435 to express the sense of Congress against France's impending sale of Mistral class helicopter amphibious assault warships to Russia and urging the President and the Secretaries of State and Defense to seek to stop this sale.

Zoos often have signs posted that say don't feed the bears because it is just common sense. Similarly, I would like to say now, especially, don't feed the Russian bear; but with the sale of these advanced warships, France isn't just feeding the Russian bear, it is serving up fine dining on a silver plate.

A Mistral is no mere civilian hull, as France's Defense Minister claims. Just one Mistral class warship has the capacity to carry 16 helicopters, up to 700 soldiers, four landing craft, 60 armored vehicles, and 13 tanks and has the advanced communications capabilities that make it capable of operating as a command and control vessel.

France wants to send Russia two of them--Vladivostok and Sevastopol-- which just happens to be the name of the naval base in Crimea, which Russia has just annexed from Ukraine.

These warships would allow the Russian navy to expands its naval presence in the region, augmenting its capabilities against Ukraine, Georgia, and Baltic members of NATO, but don't take my word for it. Admiral Vysotsky, former head of Russia's navy, boasted that Russia would have won its war against Georgia in 2008 in just 40 minutes, instead of 26 hours, if it just had these ships back then.

It makes no sense for France to provide these warships to Russia when it is occupying Georgia and amassing troops on Ukraine's border. France's support of Russia's navy is unbecoming of a close NATO ally, and it has got to stop.

I urge my colleagues to stand with me in support of this commonsense amendment for the sake of our allies and our friends in Europe.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding.

I am reminded of a passage in the Bible that you can see a speck of sawdust in your neighbor's eye but not the plank in your own.

We are talking about a resolution. Isn't it amazing that we have to go to a resolution to restore to the American people their faith and trust that they are quickly losing in the government because we will not finish the job. We will continue to backpedal. We will run around the edges, and we will try to put the spotlight someplace else.

This is not gender specific. This is not party specific. This has nothing to do with anything other than honesty and truth. To sit here and bloviate about something that doesn't really exist--oh, they are trying to move the spotlight somewhere else.

Well, I would invite all of you to go back to what it is when we came in here and took a pledge. It is not just a pledge, and it is not just a responsibility. It is an obligation to get to the truth. When we have to have a resolution asking the chief law enforcement officer of the country to appoint a special committee, how far have we fallen in the eyes of the people we represent?

Is there an issue here? Yes, there is. Are there things that have to be settled? Yes, there are.

A year ago, on May 10, I was 65. This Saturday, I will be 66. I have learned more about myself in the last year than the American people have learned about what the IRS had done to them. This covers all Americans. This is not a Republican issue. This is not a Democrat issue, a Libertarian, or an Independent issue.

Whenever we get to the point where absolutely defending the people we represent becomes secondary to a political agenda, then we have fallen far from where we were supposed to be. In this great House, so much has been decided on policy for the American people. Isn't it time to restore their faith and confidence in this model? And why we would sit back and scratch our heads and say: I don't know why our approval rating is so low. Maybe if we just answered the questions and answered them truthfully and were truly transparent, the American people wouldn't cast doubts on who it is that they elected to represent them.

I applaud this issue, and I applaud this resolution. Be it resolved that we will restore to the American people the trust and faith and confidence they have to have in their form of government.

Please, to talk about political maneuvering? We are making balloon animals and are trying to tell people: This is what you need to look at. Don't worry that we have taken away your personal freedoms and your personal liberties. That is not the issue. You see, the issue is, this November, we have got to get reelected.

So let's make it about something else. Let's turn it on gender. Let's turn it on pay inequality. Let's turn it on everything that we can possibly do and turn the light away from what the problem is, and that is the loss of faith and confidence by the people of this great country in the most remarkable model the world has ever known and who everybody would love to emulate but they can't.

It falls on our shoulders, not as Republicans or Democrats, but as representatives of the people of this great country, to get the answers that they deserve. Let's stop the fooling around about things that don't really pertain to this, and let's get them the answer.

And again, we have to have a resolution asking the chief law enforcement officer of the United States to do his job? That is pathetic.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate Mr. Bill Adams on having been named the 2014 Inventor of the Year by the Pittsburgh Intellectual Property Law Association. This award honors living inventors whose patented inventions have had a significant impact on the economy, social well-being, and the advancement of technology.

After returning from military service in Vietnam, Bill Adams worked in the Pittsburgh Public Schools as an elementary school librarian. In the late 1970s, Bill inherited $10,000, resigned from his job and built Adams Manufacturing into the $50 million-plus enterprise it is today.

As the Founder and Chairman of Adams Manufacturing, Bill has contributed to progressing the design and use of a number of consumer products, such as suction cups, outdoor resin furniture, and holiday accessories. Founded in 1976, Adams Manufacturing is headquartered in Portersville, Pennsylvania, and celebrates American ingenuity by ensuring that their products are ``Made in the USA.''

Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in recognizing Mr. Adams' contributions to Western Pennsylvania and American manufacturing.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Hyundai Hope On Wheels, a leading contributor to pediatric cancer research nationwide, on celebrating its 16th year in the fight against childhood cancer.

Hope On Wheels has one wish--and it is a wish I share: to end childhood cancer.

Among the largest private funders of cancer research in the United States, Hyundai Hope On Wheels is at the forefront with its singular and steadfast mission of eradicating childhood cancer.

Each year, approximately 15,000 parents will hear the words, ``Your child has cancer.'' Even today, based on average statistics, more than 40 children are expected to be diagnosed with cancer and their average age will be just 6 years old. Children diagnosed with cancer come from all across our country and from all walks of life. Pediatric cancer affects all ethnic, gender, and socio-economic groups. This disease does not discriminate in its victims--any child could be a victim.

Even with all the advances in modern medicine, 12 percent of children diagnosed with cancer will not survive.

To be sure, research and treatment has improved the ``rate of survival'' for children. The overall survival rate for cancer survivors has improved over the years with an overall survival rate of 10 percent just 40 years ago to nearly 90 percent today. That is a drastic improvement. However, despite major advances, the number of diagnosed cases annually has not declined in nearly two decade years. For many with rare cancers, survival rates remain low. At the end of the day, even with the amazing process we have made, childhood cancer still is responsible for killing more children and teenagers every year more than any other disease.

That is why the work Hyundai Hope On Wheels does is critical. Through the innovative medical research leveraged and supported by Hope On Wheels, America is making strides toward ending pediatric cancer.

Hope On Wheels supports hundreds of research grants including the Hyundai Scholar Grant and the Hyundai Hope Grant. The first grant is a $75,000 grant for research or programmatic projects available to young nominated investigators. The later grant is a $250,000 competitive grant open to all researchers pursuing innovative research with the greatest overall potential to impact the lives of children battling cancer.

Just this month, the Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh received the 2014 Hyundai Scholar's Hope Grant, which is a two-year research award in the amount of $250,000. This award will allow doctors to continue to work on life-saving cancer therapies and to treat children from the Third District of Pennsylvania and beyond. By the end of 2014, Hyundai Hope On Wheels will have awarded more than $86 million towards childhood cancer research in pursuit of a cure.

Mr. Speaker, by working to improve the survival rate of our nation's children diagnosed with cancer, I ask that my colleague join with me today in recognizing the good work of Hyundai Hope On Wheels. Committed to the fight against pediatric cancer, Hope On Wheels is providing the next generation of America's children with the hope of a healthy future.

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to offer congratulations to the New Castle Red Hurricanes for winning their first-ever Pennsylvania AAAA State championship, with an undefeated 31- 0 record.

The 'Canes pulled this off with a 52-39 victory over Philadelphia's La Salle College High School 2 weeks ago in Hershey, Pennsylvania, making them only the fourth undefeated Pennsylvania class AAAA boys' basketball champions in State history.

I send a special congratulations to the players' families, as well as head coach Ralph Blundo and New Castle superintendent John Sarandrea.

According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the day after the 'Canes won, Coach Blundo told a group of kindergartners that the 'Canes aren't special because they won the State championship.

He says they are special because of their good grades and the fact that every one of his seniors are going to college next year. He says his players just do things the right way. I couldn't agree more. Go 'Canes.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be able to stand here today with my colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino) and Mr. Wenstrup from Ohio, behind me, in order to talk a little bit about not only the state of our country but of our Congress. When we came here 3 years ago, we were on a mission to get America back to work. We have watched now over the last 3 years. And some of the criticism that comes about all the time is, You know, you guys just aren't getting anything done. I hear people talk about not getting anything done, about being a do-nothing Congress, about not really pushing the agenda forward, about us not being able to get America back to work.

Well, today, Mr. Marino, our colleagues, and I are going to be here in the position of myth-busters. This myth that somehow the House of Representatives--and I think the key to this is that there are actually two Chambers to this Congress. There is a House of Representatives and there is a Senate. In the House of Representatives, we have done incredible work over the last 3 years. We are talking about 220 House- passed bills that are stuck in the do-nothing Senate. And of those 220 bills, 30-plus of those bills are about job creation. They are about getting America back to work. They are about giving people confidence in the future that they can look forward and begin to plan their lives.

Now, we can't do it alone. And while we get criticism from the administration and as we look down the hall to the Senate, we start to wonder ourselves, what would it take to get America engaged in this process? What would it take to get our American citizens aware of what is actually going on in the Capitol? Why is it that we are stuck here? Why can't we move forward?

So today's exercise--for the next 60 minutes, Mr. Marino, myself, and our other colleagues are going to have an opportunity to speak to the people of the United States to make sure that we expose this myth that this is a do-nothing Congress. No, no, no, no. This is not a do-nothing Congress. This is a Congress that has worked very hard. This is a Congress that has done monumental work to get our fellow Americans back to work.

The problem is, when you walk it down the halls and into the Senate, it

gets lost. It gets tabled. It doesn't get amended. It doesn't get discussed. It doesn't get debated. In fact, it doesn't do anything. It just collects dust.

So I welcome this opportunity to speak not just to this House but also to the people of America. And at this time, I would like my colleague and my good friend in Congress, Mr. Marino from Pennsylvania, to also weigh in on this.

I thank the gentleman.

At this time, I am going to yield to a new Member from the State of Ohio. Brad Wenstrup is with us today. He has done remarkable work since he has gotten here in just a little over a year.

So, Mr. Wenstrup, thank you for being with us today.

I thank Mr. Wenstrup.

Mr. Marino and I were talking for a second. Mr. Marino had touched on something that had just happened recently when you talked about activity on the Senate floor and inactivity on the Senate floor. There was a night not too long ago where the Senate talked all night long, and I think Mr. Marino wants to just touch on that right now.

Thank you, Mr. Marino.

We all have similar experiences. I know you do, Brad, when you are back home; and, Tom, I know you do when you are back home. It really doesn't matter where we are. A lot of times it is coming out of Mass on Sunday morning, and sometimes it is just being down at the K-Mart or the Walmart, or maybe I am up in Erie and I am out near Presque Isle, or I could be in Grove City or I could be in Slippery Rock, and people come up to me all the time and say: Do you know what? You all need to get busy. And they talk about: We don't want to hear any more about the battles between Republicans and Democrats. Quite frankly, we are tired of hearing it because, if you can't work together, you can't get things done. And then the question that comes up is: Can't you just compromise once in a while to get something done? And then you have got to scratch your head and say: Yes, but, do you know what? We are doing an awful lot right now, but you are just not hearing it.

The reason that comes about, and we all know this, is because the biggest megaphone in the country right now is at the White House.

Now, Brad, you and I sat here, and, Tom, you and I sat here during the State of the Union. The President made a very chilling statement. He said:

America can't wait, and I can't wait. And if this Congress

won't act the way I want it to do, I will go around them, and

I will get it done.

Half of this side of the House stood up and cheered that, cheered up their forfeiture of their duty of the oath that they took when they came into office.

Now, I stand here today as a representative of Pennsylvania's Third District. That does not mean that I only represent Republicans that live in the Third District of Pennsylvania. That does not mean that I am only concerned with the concerns of Republicans in the Third District of Pennsylvania. That does not mean that I represent anything else but every single person--every citizen--that resides within that district.

So the things we are talking about today are not Republican issues, and they are not Democrat issues. These are American issues. We are talking about American jobs. We are talking about getting back to work. We are talking about coming here, taking an oath of office, and then fulfilling that oath to the people who sent us.

Now, I know that you go through the same thing. I have many people that approach me and say: Do you know what, Mike? I didn't vote for you. And I say to them: Well, do you know what? I didn't know that until right now, but I will forget about it, believe me. And they will say: Well, this is an issue I have, and these are some things that concern me, and I just want to know where are you all going and what is it that you are trying to do? And why can't you get America back to work? Because you all said when you ran for office that we have got to get this Nation back on track and we have got to get America moving in the right direction. We have got to get America being America again.

We know that oftentimes in our life we look at all the problems we have, and the answer to everything right now is these things need fixing. Now, how do you do that? You can only do it with a very dynamic and robust economy. So when I hear the conversation that takes place either in our Chamber or the Senate Chamber and you start to say to yourself, it is nice to have that conversation, it is nice to have that little talk, and it is nice to have that debate, but do you know what? You

haven't created any jobs. Because without a dynamic and robust economy, it is all just idle chatter. It is just politicians getting up, speaking and hoping that somehow they hit a chord with some constituents somewhere that says, boy, she is speaking for me or he is speaking for me.

We speak for everybody, not just the towns we come from or the townships we come from or the counties we come from or the States we come from, but this entire country.

So when we look at what is going on now and people say: yes, you say that is going on, but you know what, there is no proof.

Here is what I would ask our friends to do because the President says this all the time. He says: you know what, pick up your phone or pick up your pen, and that is what I am going to do, and I am going to get things done; I am going to use my executive powers, which are vast and enormous, to do what I want to do, despite what Congress may say, despite especially what those characters in the House of Representatives are pushing down your throat because that is just not what I want you to hear.

Well, my message to the American people is: you all have phones, and you all have pens, and you all have the ability, because of the country we live in, to speak out on anything, any time, anywhere you want; no place else in the world can we do that.

As an example today, as my colleagues and I are doing--because, as I said earlier, it is time to do some mythbusting, it is time to call a halt to this idle chatter about what America really needs.

We know what America really needs. America needs to get back to work, and this Congress needs to get out of the job creators' way. We need to get the heavy regulatory boot of the government off the throat of our job creators, and we need to let them breathe again.

We need to let them look to the future with some certainty and know that you can go ahead and plan. You can go ahead and make a strategy. You can go ahead and look to the future with a great degree of success waiting for you.

Now, opportunity is there for everybody. There is equal opportunity. There is no question about that. We know there is not equal outcome. My goodness, that is just not the case.

We do know that hardworking Americans throughout our history have done things that are absolutely incredible, and they have done it because of a government that lets people be free. It gives them liberty to go on and do what they need to do and when they want to do it and the ways that they want to do it.

There is no place else in the world, so the question comes down to: Why now? Why now have we hit such a logjam? Why is it that we can't get a law to get America back to work?

The answer is quite simple. Mr. Marino has talked about it. Mr. Wenstrup has talked about it. My goodness, there is another election coming, and if it truly comes down to we can't get these things done because of another election coming, then we can never get anything done because there are elections every year.

Now, if Mr. Reid can say to his people in the Senate and if he can look to this country and if he can go on TV and tell people these things you are hearing about the health care law are all lies, these things have been conjured up by people who don't really exist, the stories that they are spreading are lies, there is not a shred of evidence that would support what they have said--now, he stands in front of the American people and says that you are all liars and that we are not going to tolerate that type of behavior.

Then he goes behind his desk at the Senate and said: all of those pieces of legislation, those 220 House-passed bills, put them on the table because we are not going to talk about them. We are not going to debate them. We are not going to amend them. And you know why we are not? Because there is an election coming.

Right now, there are a third of the Senate Members up for election. That is their rotation--a third, a third, and a third. Every couple of years, there is a third reelected, or new Senators come in.

He has placed the reelection above the redirection of this country. The reelection of his Senate is more important to him than the redirection of this country. That is absolutely unforgivable.

So I would just ask our friends, as they listen--and this is a message to America, not so much to the House of Representatives or to the Senate because we are pretty much ignored, but let me just say this: for those of you who are at home and listening to this, there are several things you can do.

I said about picking up your phone or picking up your pen. How about this, just getting on your computer. Go to www.speaker.gov/jobs. You can also go to majorityleader.gov/bill-tracker.

What will these two sites give you? They will give you everything we are talking about. It is all there. You don't have to come to Washington to see us. You don't have to send away for a book.

You don't have to do anything except go online and pick up this information. You can sit at home and see what it is this House of Representatives has passed; and then you, too, can sit, as myself, Mr. Marino, and Mr. Wenstrup do every day, and ask: What is it that we are waiting for?

The answer is leadership; quite simply, it is leadership. America, right now, is hunting for champions. They are hunting for people who will rise up and take control of this situation, and this idea that, somehow, somewhere, some knight in shining armor has to come riding in on a white charger to get us there is baloney because, every election, it comes right out your hometown.

It comes right out of your churches, and it comes right out of the folks you work with every day and have grown up with and have lived life with. That is who is here. That is who is here. It is so unique; it is the only place in the world that you can do it.

I just tell you, because of the social media, you can go as an individual in your home. You don't have to get in your car and drive anywhere. You don't have to waste any money on gas. You don't have to worry about sitting in traffic.

Just sit at home and go to those two sites, www.speaker.gov/jobs or majorityleader.gov/bill-tracker. You can find out everything we are talking about.

Mr. Wenstrup, you did talk about the Keystone pipeline, and we ask ourselves all the time: What is the holdup on the Keystone pipeline?

One person, one person; and if you don't know where that person is, let me give you a clue: he lives in a white house at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. This is not a tough place to find.

Pick up the phone and call him. Tell him: Mr. President, let's get back to work; Mr. President, let's make America energy independent; Mr. President, let's quit worrying about the next election, and let's get this country back in the right direction.

We can do it as a people. We can do it together. We must do it. It is not just a responsibility. It is our obligation, not just for the future, but to all those from the past.

So I would just tell you, my friends, there is so much going on right now, and I really would like my two colleagues, let's all join, and we can have a colloquy right now between the three of us and talk back and forth because I think it is important for the people of America to understand.

I yield to Mr. Wenstrup.

I thank the gentleman, and I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

I thank Mr. Lamborn.

If I may inquire, how much time remains?

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino).

I thank Mr. Marino.

I think, Mr. Speaker, as we draw to the end of time, I think it is time for us now to take a look at the world and our place in the world. Geopolitically, we know we have been hurt lately because America has decided to follow something called ``leading from behind.'' I have absolutely no idea what that possibly could mean.

But I hear constantly about the next great emerging economy. You sit back and say, well, who could it possibly be? Well, let me tell you who it is, and it doesn't take much guesswork. It is us. It is the U.S.

Now, why do I say that? Because right now we are uniquely positioned in history at this moment in time to be the greatest economy the world has ever seen. Why? Because we have been blessed by our Creator with abundant, accessible, and affordable fossil fuels. These can be extracted safely, and that creates thousands of jobs. This can lower our cost per energy unit far below anyplace else in the world and allows us, in fact, to let our wages rise because our cost of producing goes down as far as energy is concerned.

What else we have, if you look just to the north of the district I serve, the Great Lake system is there. Lake Erie is there. Also what is there is one-fifth of the world's freshwater. Also, if you were to look at our land, our tillable soil, the production per acre that our people in agriculture are able to achieve.

So I would ask you then, at this point in time, at this point in history, if we know that really what we need to do is to have a robust and dynamic economy, what would be holding us back? It certainly is not our cost of energy, because we are blessed with energy everywhere. It has been placed there by the Good Lord for us to use. Through new technology we are able to extract it. We are able to heat and cool our homes, to light our homes, to run our factories, to light our streets at night, to do almost anything we want to do at a rate that is lower than anyplace in the world.

In fact, we are at a point right now we don't have to rely on anybody else on this globe other than ourselves. We can be energy independent. We have drinking water that the rest of the world would love to have. And we have the ability to produce, as you know, Mr. Speaker, because of where you come from in California, the ability to produce food for a population that doesn't need to go starving, it doesn't need to look to the rest of the world for help, because we can create it right here, right now, for every single American.

The question becomes then: Why are we where we are at right now? Why do we have the lowest labor participation rate we have had in 35 years? My goodness, when you look at all the assets, when you can look at everything that we have, when you can look at the opportunities we have, when you can look at everything, being there and being within our grasp without too far of a reach to get there, the question becomes: What is holding us up? What is holding us back? What is keeping us from achieving that destiny that we have been granted by the Lord? What is keeping us from that?

Look, I would just say this. There are many, many millions of Americans that are out of work. All you have to do is go out of this Chamber and go down the hall and I can show you a lot of Americans that actually have a job that aren't working. I can show you a Senate that continues to sit on all these jobs bills, on all this legislation that would get America back to work.

I am so sick and tired of hearing about, well, you know, if the House would just do something. I will tell you something; I would suggest this: the President would wear out his fingers on that phone calling Harry Reid; in fact, his left arm would probably go numb from signing all the legislation that could be sitting on his desk right now.

What is holding it up? What is the roadblock? What is keeping us from that pathway to prosperity? Do you know what it is? It is a do-nothing Senate. It is a Senate that sits back and calls the American people liars. It is a Senate that sits back and distorts the facts. It is a Senate that puts out, every day, myths about a House of Representatives not working. It is a Senate that had to go under the gun to pass a budget and say: Do you know what? Here is the deal. You don't pass a budget, we don't pay you.

Are you kidding me? Are you kidding me? You have to threaten them that you are going to cut their pay if they don't pass a budget. Oh, Good Lord. I would like to see us do that in our schools. I would like to see us do that in our homes. I would like to see us do that in our factories and in our businesses in the private sector.

When we have to pass a bill to make them pass a budget, is that where we have reached? Have we reached the depths? Is that how low we have become?

It is a great honor and a privilege to serve in this House. It is a great honor to come before the people and to go home and say: We are working hard for you. We are going to do the best we can do.

But do you know what? It requires a little help. It requires a little help. This system, this system where there are two Chambers, it requires us being able to get things through the House, which we have done. 220 House-passed bills are stuck in a do-nothing Senate right now. It requires some teamwork now. It requires us to truly be the ``united'' States and not the ``divided'' States of America. It requires us to be a body that works for the American people and not for a political party. It requires us to work on an agenda that puts America back to work and does not worry about the next election that is coming up and worries about the new direction this country needs to go in.

It is a responsibility to take advantage of all those assets the Lord has given us; and it is time for the United States to now become the next great emerging economy, one that will be heralded all over the world, one that the rest of the world is looking to and scratching their head and says: My goodness, you have got everything. What is it that you are waiting for?

And the answer, again, is leadership. That leadership has got to take place, and it has got to take place soon.

We will continue to do our job in the House of Representatives. We will continue to push bills forward. We will continue to debate and amend bills. We will continue to pass bills, and we will walk them down the hall to the Senate. But after that, the Senate has to pick these bills up. It has to debate them. It has to amend them. It has to vote on them, and it has to send them down to the White House for the President's final signature.

If we are truly going to get America back to work, then let's get to work. My colleagues in the House have already heard that clarion call and they have done their job. I am just going to yell it down the hallway as we walk out of here tonight: Hey, you all need to get to work because America is waiting for you to lead. Then the phone should be ringing off the hook in Mr. Reid's office and at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue as America says it is time to get up off your seat and get the job done.

It is time to quit talking the talk. It is time to walk the walk. It is time to actually do what we know we can do and take advantage of every single asset the Lord has provided for us.

I would just say, Mr. Speaker, in closing, thank you so much for allowing us to be here.

Mr. Marino, always a pleasure to be with you, sir. As we go back to Pennsylvania, we will continue to fight those fights.

Mr. Wenstrup is gone and also Mr. Lamborn is gone, but it is good to have colleagues to join us.

I would just tell you this. If there is nobody that sits in this House of Representatives that doesn't want to see America do well, it is just time to get back to work.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am going to yield to Mr. Marino, and he will finish up.

Mr. Speaker, I think my time is pretty close to the end, is it not?

I will take this brief opportunity to thank my colleagues Mr. Marino and Mr. Wenstrup for being here and Mr. Lamborn for being here and for your indulgence and for the American people's.

We have often said--and we have shared these moments together many times--that we have not just a responsibility but an obligation not just to ourselves and to our current generation but to all of those who came before us for all of the sacrifices that they made--for the 1.6 million men and women in uniform who gave their lives that we could have this moment today and those into the future. We have a responsibility to guarantee to them that we made a conscious decision to make sure that their future would be as secure as the one that we were given.

In having said all of that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman. It is really a pleasure to be with you tonight.

Representative Young's piece of legislation, H.R. 2575, is really something

that I think that perhaps if more of us who serve in this body were actually people who experienced what it was like to be in the private sector, more of us would understand.

I was very fortunate to have a family business, and I can tell you, from an employer standpoint, that one of the greatest thrills you have in your life is to sit across the desk from somebody who has come in and applied for a job and to be able to say to them: you're hired, we need you on board, we need you to be part of our team to make the business successful.

You can see in their eyes, at that moment, that they look at this opportunity as: my goodness, now I can put a roof over the head of my family, I can put food on the table, and I can put clothes on their back, and I can plan for a future.

Now, why in the world would we all of a sudden say: You know what? We are going to change that dynamic because it is no longer going to be a 40-hour week; we are going to dial it back to 30 hours a week.

You say to yourself: How did anybody come up with those numbers? Why would they come up with those numbers, and what is the benefit of those numbers?

The answer is that it helps make the Affordable Care Act work. It doesn't help America work. It helps a piece of flawed legislation work. It is about the dynamics of the math.

It is not about the dynamics of allowing men and women to go to work and be able to go home at night and say: I went to work today for you, I went to work to make your life better.

You look at some of the numbers, Mr. Young. The 30-hour rule puts 2.6 million workers with a median income of under $30,000 at risk for losing jobs or hours. Eighty-nine percent of these workers impacted by the rule do not have a college degree. 63 percent of these folks are women, and over half have a high school diploma or less.

When I look back at my district, District Three in Pennsylvania, they are hardworking good American people. I have no idea how they are registered. I have no idea how they vote. I have no idea what they think about at night and what they pray for at night before they lay their head on the pillow.

I do know who they are, basically, because they are all of the same ilk. They are the same people. The blood that courses through their veins is pretty much the same. They believe in America. They believe in paying their fair share. They believe in lifting the load and helping out.

Barb Wilson works for the Arc in Mercer County, Pennsylvania. This is a phenomenal organization that assists people with developmental disabilities. Barb is a part-time employee who used to work 30 to 35 hours a week.

Her employer recently informed her and her coworkers that all part- time employees will be having their hours cut to around just 20 hours a week because of the Affordable Care Act's employer mandate.

Barb tells me that she was shocked when she heard this news. Because of her hours being cut, she says she will no longer be able to afford the cost of living.

I have more people in my district that come to me and talk to me. One of the things--and I think you found the same thing in Indiana, and I am sure Mr. Barr has in Kentucky--I have people that say: You can use my story, but you can't use my name.

Now, that is a very chilling effect to think that, in this country, the United States of America, people are afraid to be identified with their story because they are afraid of a retribution from the government. That is just totally unacceptable.

One of those people is in the fast food business. How about this?

In 2012, 92 of its 993 employees worked more than 30 hours a week. Think about that. All of these 92 employees have had their hours cut to less than 30 hours.

On top of that, more than 30 employees have had access to their health insurance plans ended. Even though their plans made sense for them, they did not meet ObamaCare's standards, and so the company could not afford to keep them.

This doesn't make any sense. At a time when we want to get America to work, when we want to increase jobs, why would we make it harder for those people to accomplish those goals? It just doesn't make sense.

I agree with you. In my district, Butler Area School District has had to implement procedures to keep all of its part-time employees working less than 30 hours. This hurts education.

In New Castle, Lawrence County, their local government has reduced all of it employees to just 28 hours.

So we talk about these things. You and I just got here 3 years ago. You look at a government that is supposed to be a citizen government--a government that works for the people and does things in the people's best interest--and then you look at this piece of legislation and say: My goodness, how did we come up with this?

The answer is always: There are unintended consequences.

I understand that there are unintended consequences, but they are not always painful consequences. If we are going to do anything here, we better start responding when we hurt the people we represent.

We also better understand that these unintended consequences are also fixable. They are not unfixable. Why wouldn't we fix it if you know it is hurting someone, if you know it is taking away opportunity?

I talked about being in the private sector. When we bring people on board, it is mutually beneficial. It is to share in success.

I can tell you that the gap right now has widened between those who own businesses and run them and those associates who work there. We have put them at odds with each other because now it becomes: well, you know what? The people that employ you really don't care enough about you. And you say: my goodness. No, no, that is not true. That is not true.

I can tell you from the position that I have been in from a business that my dad started in 1953 after being a parts-picker in a Chevrolet warehouse and coming back after the war and starting a little Chevrolet dealership and watching it grow into something where we have 110 people that every 2 weeks get a check, I know that when they are successful, the business is successful;

and when the business is successful, the community is successful, because we all participate at every level.

Now, why would you destroy a model that is so perfect? Why would you destroy something that is so fundamentally strong? Why would you take apart the American Dream in order to have a flawed piece of legislation meet the metrics that this is looking for? It just doesn't make sense.

In a town that you and I have discussed many times is devoid of common sense, we need to take a look at it, because if our real concern is the next election and not the direction that we are going in, then we are here for the wrong purposes.

So I want to thank the gentleman. I have got to tell you, we talked long and we talked at great length about the effects this was having.

H.R. 2575 corrects a flawed idea. It just makes sense what you are doing, sir. And I would just tell you that, for all of those thousands and thousands and millions of workers who have been hurt by this law, our ability to fix it, which is what some of our colleagues say--I know you don't like it; I know you don't agree with it, but help us fix it-- we need to fix it, not so much for a political agenda but for the people we represent.

I thank you for what you are doing. I think that this piece of legislation is timely and is needed, and your dedication to the American worker and to the American families is to be heralded.

Thank you so much.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Slippery Rock University, which is celebrating its 125th anniversary this year.

In 1887, the citizens of Slippery Rock, Pennsylvania, saw the need for affordable and accessible higher education in their community. In less than 18 months, land was purchased from my good friend and colleague Jim Gerlach's family, to whom it had belonged for three generations.

On that land was soon established Slippery Rock State Normal School. It opened to 168 students on March 26, 1889, with its ultimate object to make the student an educator. It was purchased by the Commonwealth in 1926 and was granted university status in 1983.

After 125 years, Slippery Rock University has nearly 80,000 proud graduates. It offers a broad array of undergraduate and graduate programs to more than 8,000 students and is consistently recognized as a great place to learn and work.

For as long as this impressive institution remains standing, Slippery Rock's commitment to intellectual development, leadership, and civic responsibility will endure.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my heartiest congratulations to Tech Molded Plastics Inc., a family-owned injection mold company, on being named Plastics News' Processor of the Year.

Located in Meadville, Pennsylvania, Tech Molded Plastics celebrated its 40th year in business just last year. In 1973, Bill Hanaway and his wife Eva started their family business in a rented garage. Over the years, Tech Molded has expanded and diversified its business through smart investments in their people and technology. In the mid-1990s, Tech Molded erected the factory building that now houses its company headquarters. In 2011, the company expanded again by purchasing the building adjacent to it with an investment of more than $1.5 million. Today, sons Scott and Mark still run the family business along with their mother, Eva, manufacturing precision parts for the electronics, automotive and medical industry. Employing 120 Pennsylvanians and generating sales of $17.7 million, Tech Molded Plastics embodies the best of America's family-owned small businesses.

Mr. Speaker, in light of being awarded Processor of the Year, I ask that my colleagues join with me today in recognizing Tech Molded Plastics for its national leadership in the plastics industry and for the invaluable contributions of the Hanaway family to the citizens of Meadville and Western Pennsylvania.