SAVE AMERICAN WORKERS ACT OF 2015
(House of Representatives - January 08, 2015)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.

        
[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 3 (Thursday, January 8, 2015)]
[Pages H125-H140]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   SAVE AMERICAN WORKERS ACT OF 2015

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 19, 
I call up the bill (H.R. 30) 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, and ask for its 
immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                H.R. 30

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Save American Workers Act of 
     2015''.

     SEC. 2. REPEAL OF 30-HOUR THRESHOLD FOR CLASSIFICATION AS 
                   FULL-TIME EMPLOYEE FOR PURPOSES OF THE EMPLOYER 
                   MANDATE IN THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND 
                   AFFORDABLE CARE ACT AND REPLACEMENT WITH 40 
                   HOURS.

       (a) Full-Time Equivalents.--Paragraph (2) of section 
     4980H(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
       (1) by repealing subparagraph (E), and
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following new 
     subparagraph:

[[Page H126]]

       ``(E) Full-time equivalents treated as full-time 
     employees.--Solely for purposes of determining whether an 
     employer is an applicable large employer under this 
     paragraph, an employer shall, in addition to the number of 
     full-time employees for any month otherwise determined, 
     include for such month a number of full-time employees 
     determined by dividing the aggregate number of hours of 
     service of employees who are not full-time employees for the 
     month by 174.''.
       (b) Full-Time Employees.--Paragraph (4) of section 4980H(c) 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
       (1) by repealing subparagraph (A), and
       (2) by inserting before subparagraph (B) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(A) In general.--The term `full-time employee' means, 
     with respect to any month, an employee who is employed on 
     average at least 40 hours of service per week.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013.

     SEC. 3. BUDGETARY EFFECTS.

       The budgetary effects of this Act shall not be entered on 
     either PAYGO scorecard maintained pursuant to section 4(d) of 
     the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoder). Pursuant to House Resolution 19, 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Levin) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.


                             General Leave

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks on H.R. 30, the Save American Workers Act of 2015.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the first firm step on the ladder of opportunity is a 
full-time job, and for too many Americans, this first step is moving 
out of reach thanks to ObamaCare. Right now, the law says that every 
large employer must give health insurance to its full-time employees. 
Here is the catch: it defines full time as 30 hours or more.
  So guess what is happening--businesses are cutting workers' hours. 
They are keeping them below 30 hours to avoid the penalty. It is 
commonly known as the ObamaCare 29ers. And what is more, community 
colleges are laying off their professors and they are cutting their 
hours, so they have to cut their class offerings as well. In other 
words, the law is making it much harder to learn new skills and to find 
a better paying job. I can't think of a worse way to support working 
families: taking opportunities away from them, cutting paychecks, 
cutting hours.
  Who are the people who are most at risk with this 30-hour rule? Well, 
by and large, it is young people in low-paying jobs--probably their 
first jobs. One study said that over half of them have, at most, a high 
school degree.

                              {time}  1415

  These are the people who are just getting started in life, who need 
those extra hours, who want to move up the ladder of economic 
opportunity. ObamaCare is holding these people down. That is why we are 
here today.
  This bill changes the law's definition of full time to 40 hours a 
week. That is the way most people define full time. That is the way it 
has been done for decades in other parts of law. That way, businesses 
will no longer fear letting their employees work a full workweek. That 
way, people can get the experience they need. That way, we can get 
people working again and build a healthy economy.
  Mr. Speaker, it is really clear. There are so many parts of this law 
that are holding back the country, that are raising health care costs, 
that are putting us further behind and deeper in the hole on fiscal 
responsibility. But this rule is costing people jobs; this rule is 
knocking people out of full-time work. It is no wonder that CBO is 
telling us the equivalent of over 2 million people will not work 
because of this law.
  I urge adoption of this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Republicans say that with this bill they are trying to help or, as 
they put it, save workers. But their legislation will lead to many 
times more workers becoming part time, losing millions of hours of 
work.
  The Republicans constantly talk about the threat of increased budget 
deficits, but their bill would increase the deficit by over $50 
billion. The Republicans like to say they care about the taxes people 
pay, but this bill would substantially shift responsibility for paying 
for health insurance from employers to taxpayers.
  These are indisputable facts based on yesterday's analysis from the 
nonpartisan CBO and Joint Committee on Taxation. This chart helps to 
illustrate what this is really all about. Today, 7 percent, more or 
less, of workers work between 30 and 34 hours, while close to half work 
40 hours. As you can see, the number working 40 hours overshadows 
dramatically those who are working less. This is the key point. So if 
you shift the basis of employer responsibility for health care to begin 
at 40 hours instead of 30 hours, the result will be a dramatic increase 
in the number of workers whose hours of employment will be reduced to 
less than 40 hours per week. You will be creating hundreds and hundreds 
and hundreds of thousands of 39ers.
  CBO and Joint Task conclude, therefore, that 1 million workers will 
lose their employer-based health insurance, with half of them shifting 
to insurance through the health exchanges or through Medicaid--by the 
way, with some taxpayer support--and the other half--listen to this--
losing health insurance coverage completely.
  So when you take off the label of this Republican bill and look at 
the contents in the package, this is a bad deal, highlighting the need 
for a truth in labeling requirement for this Congress. When you go 
beyond the benign Republican rhetoric, this is a bad deal for American 
workers and the middle class and taxpayers. That has led even a 
conservative like Yuval Levin to say that today's bill ``is worse than 
doing nothing.''
  This bill is brought up today without any committee consideration or 
discussion with Democrats--the minority leader is here, the minority 
whip--not a single minute of discussion. Unfortunately, contrary to the 
rhetoric we heard yesterday--again, from the majority--about the need 
to look for common ground, on this issue the Republican approach is 
scorched earth.
  I urge a strong negative vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds simply 
to say that the gentleman's criticism basically makes our point. The 
average workweek is 34.6 hours. So if you go to 30 hours, you are 
cutting people's hours. If you go to 39, you are not. We don't want to 
cut people's hours. We don't want people to work less. We want people 
to work more.
  With that, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Young), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the 
author of this legislation.
  Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I would like to elaborate on the 
chairman's retort to what we just heard about criticisms pertaining to 
this law.
  Number one, this law is inherently unfair. Trying to finance health 
insurance for some Americans by cutting hours and wages for other 
Americans is just, frankly, not what we should be doing as a country. 
The Save American Workers Act would actually save most workers from a 
potentially massive loss in hours and wages, and I will walk the 
gentleman through that momentarily. It will also cause fewer workers to 
be directly impacted by this employer mandate.
  Very briefly, let us start with saving most workers from a 
potentially massive cut in hours. Under current law, if you work 
between 40 to, say, 45 hours and your employer happens to not offer you 
employer-sponsored health insurance, you are in the minority. An 
employer is incentivized to offer these typically higher-wage, higher-
skilled workers employer-sponsored health insurance, and that is why so 
many do. It is part of our normal functioning labor market.
  So if one were to be moved hypothetically from 40 hours down to 29 
hours, they would lose roughly $270 a week or $14,000 a year, according 
to the American Action Forum.
  Under the Save American Workers Act, these 40- to 45-hour workweek 
individuals would no longer be at risk of such a massive cut in their 
wages or their hours.

[[Page H127]]

  Let's take someone working 30 to 35 hours, just above that new full-
time employment threshold in ObamaCare. They tend to be lower-wage 
hourly workers, according to the Hoover Institution, and let's assume 
they had no employer-sponsored health insurance. There are 9.8 million 
Americans who fall into this category. They are vulnerable to a cut in 
their hours and wages.
  Were one to move from 35 hours a week down to 29, they would lose on 
average $148 per week, or $7,694 a year--again, according to the 
American Action Forum.
  Under the Save American Workers Act, these individuals, 30 to 35 
hours a week, would no longer lose any hours or wages, just reinforcing 
the point that the good chairman made.
  Well, this is why I introduced the Save American Workers Act. Let's 
restore the 40-hour workweek that so many people worked so hard to put 
in place, that has long been understood to be the gold standard of the 
workweek in this country.
  Over the past few years, I have witnessed a strange phenomenon in our 
country. In Indiana, we have seen local school corporations announce 
they will limit the hours of substitute teachers, classroom assistants, 
cafeteria workers, custodians. We have seen retailers limit the hours 
of their cashiers. The list goes on and on, from hotels to 
manufacturers to colleges and universities.
  I guarantee that every Member of this body back in their district has 
heard similar stories. This is happening because of the new 30-hour 
definition of full-time employment.
  Now, there is no good reason to do this, other than, perhaps, to 
arbitrarily set this new definition of full-time employment to fund the 
massive cost of this national health care bill. It has ignored decades 
of practice in the labor market reality of our 40-hour workweek. It has 
distorted that market.
  As a result, the Hoover Institution estimates that as many as 2.6 
million American workers are at risk for lost hours.
  Now, it is not just the lost hours that should concern us. Again, it 
is the lost wages. An employee losing 10 hours a week is also losing an 
entire week's paycheck each month. An employee going from 35 to 29 
hours is seeing a 17 percent pay cut, courtesy of ObamaCare.
  The people most affected by this provision are the people who can 
least afford it--89 percent of them do not have college degrees, 63 
percent of them are women. Perhaps, ironically, it sounds a lot like 
the people ObamaCare was supposed to help.
  CBO analysis indicates that it comes at the expense of up to $105 
billion in cash wages. Now, I defy anyone to say that it is fair to 
expand coverage to a half-million people--that number from the CBO--on 
the backs of 2.5 million people who can't afford it. How fundamentally 
inefficient is the health care system that potentially requires the 
loss of over $200,000 in cash wages for each person it insures.
  I authored H.R. 30, the Save American Workers Act, to help these 
hardworking Americans. And I introduced this bill jointly with the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), who happens to be a Democrat. 
He, too, realizes that ObamaCare is littered with serious unintended 
consequences that need to be addressed.
  In the Senate, we have seen a similar version of this bill introduced 
in a bipartisan manner.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 
seconds.
  Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Now, this isn't a Republican or a Democrat 
issue; this is a serious solution to a very real problem facing 
American workers.
  I urge all my colleagues to support the Save American Workers Act.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  To say this restores the 40-hour week is pure sophistry. What it does 
is undermine it for hundreds of thousands of workers in this country. 
That is the basis of the Joint Tax Committee report. It is pure 
sophistry to say otherwise.
  I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), 
our distinguished whip.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Save American workers. Make sure they don't lose purchasing power. 
Let's make sure that those at the bottom end of the employment spectrum 
are saved. That is the message.
  I presume the minimum wage bill will be on the floor next week. 
Perhaps you are going to want to extend unemployment insurance next 
week. Perhaps you are going to really want to do something that will 
save the workers and give them the purchasing power they had in 1968.
  The chairman said it well: We go from creating 29ers to 39ers. This 
bill will allow you to work 10 more hours without health care. Isn't 
that wonderful? I am sure every American worker is saying: Thank God 
the Republicans are going to have me work 10 more hours before I can 
get health insurance. Aren't you generous?
  The American worker needs help, not to be misled by a rhetoric which 
pretends to do something for them but leaves them stuck, not just for 5 
years, but for 10, 15, 20 years, as those at the top of the ring get 
better and better off--and we are among most of those 10 percent.
  Mr. Speaker, we are now in the first days of the new Congress, with 
an opportunity to turn the page and write a new chapter of 
bipartisanship and cooperation. We are not doing it today.
  It is unfortunate that the Republican majority has instead chosen to 
replay the highlight reel from the last Congress by bringing back to 
the floor a piece of partisan legislation that would undermine the 
Affordable Care Act and cause approximately 1 million Americans to lose 
their employer-sponsored insurance coverage. Not something that Mr. 
Young says may happen or is extrapolated to happen, but there is no 
doubt that this would happen--1 million people.
  Well, so what? This bill is a solution without a problem.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. HOYER. As of this time, without being timed, I really miss my 
magic minute; I want to tell you that, Mr. Speaker.
  Since the Affordable Care Act became law, 10.8 million new jobs have 
been created in the private sector, and it has not led to a shift to 
part-time work. That is what the statistics tell us.
  You want to save the worker, but under your economic policies in the 
last decade, we had the worst loss of jobs in this country in my 
lifetime. In fact, part-time workers, as a share of all workers in our 
economy, have fallen--have fallen--have decreased, are less since the 
enactment of the health care reform bill.
  Unfortunately, this bill's sponsors have chosen to ignore these facts 
because they don't support their argument. Their legislation would 
allow employers to deny health care reach to those working even as 
many, as I have said, as 39 hours.
  That means the slightest reduction in hours could be used to deny 
employees the coverage they ought to be earning through their work, so 
the rest of us do not have to pay their bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. As a result, up to half a million Americans would become 
uninsured, and this bill would increase the deficit by $53 billion.
  There is not enough time to really explain all the nuances of the 
adverse consequences of this bill. I ask my colleagues: let's have a 
decent and honest debate, let's have an honest debate and honest 
discussion so that, yes, Mr. Young, we can protect those workers that 
we all should be able to protect, and then I will expect that to be 
accompanied with a minimum wage bill and the unemployment insurance 
extension.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, let me inquire about the 
distribution of time, the time remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 22 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Michigan has 22\1/4\ minutes remaining.

[[Page H128]]

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Kansas (Ms. Jenkins), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding, wish the 
chair happy birthday, and I would like to honor the Congressman from 
Indiana, Congressman Young, for his leadership on this important issue.
  This effort to change the employer mandate definition of a full-time 
employee as one who only works 30 hours a week to 40 hours a week is a 
priority for folks all across the country, and it is appropriate that 
the House is taking action on H.R. 30 on this, only the third day of 
the 114th Congress.
  I have heard from employees and employers alike about the negative 
consequences of the employer mandate penalty. The most complicating 
factor that I hear about is the definition of a full-time employee as 
someone who works only 30 hours or fewer per week.
  This rule, which is not based in reality, and goes against every 
traditional measure of a full-time workweek, results in fewer jobs, 
reduced hours, and less opportunity for millions of working-class 
Americans. It effectively is a regressive tax on the folks who can 
least afford to have their hours cut.
  The sticks that are used in the President's health care law to force 
employees into health care plans are hurting employees and employers, 
and unfortunately, the result is reduced hours and opportunity for 
hardworking Americans trying to support their families.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, would the Chair say again how much time is 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 22\1/4\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 21 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes at the most to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I associate myself with the remarks of 
the minority whip. He gave you all the facts and figures.
  Let me tell you what this is really about. This is the 54th time that 
the Republicans have come out here to end the Affordable Care Act. This 
one is an assault on the employer mandate. You cannot have a bill 
without an employer mandate.
  Now, we had to pick a time. Lots of employers in this country right 
now without any Federal law are giving insurance to their people down 
to 30 hours. So we said, ``All right, let's make that full time.'' What 
the business community said they were supporting, they really weren't 
supporting, and they are in here to get rid of it.
  This bill is the blueprint for business to shift all their employees 
on to the government, very simply. Close the building at 4 p.m. Now, 
everybody has only worked 39 hours, right? Go home.
  Now, the office doesn't have to offer them any health insurance under 
the law. They have to go over to the exchange, get involved in 
Medicaid, get involved in the exchanges and getting subsidies and all 
of that, which you are going to pay for. You are going to pay for that 
by letting the employers get out from under paying it and shifting it 
on to the Federal Government. That is what this is all about.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Ryan for his generous step toward a 
single-payer system. When the American people find out that their 
business can now take their insurance away if they don't work 40 hours, 
they are going to say to themselves, ``Well, then I am in this Federal 
Government thing. Why isn't everybody in that?''
  You are heading down the road of a single-payer system because if you 
don't have a mandate for employers to cover their workers, you are 
simply saying, ``Well, the employers don't have to care anymore.'' Who 
is going to care? Well, the Republicans certainly aren't going to care. 
You all know that without being told.
  Ultimately, politically, this is going to come to bite you because 
what you are doing is excluding and telling big business, ``You don't 
have to follow an employer mandate.''
  It is a bad bill. Vote ``No.''
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), a member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, it has been demonstrated many times over 
that ObamaCare is a broken law. For example, under the law, full-time 
employment is classified at 30 hours a week, requiring these businesses 
to provide insurance to these employees.
  Now, what is the consequence? This creates an incentive to limit 
hours. This will disproportionately affect 2.3 million low-income 
workers. It puts our economy in danger of creating a class of part-time 
employees where having two or three jobs is the norm. That is just 
unacceptable. That is not the answer for America.
  Even major unions like the Teamsters say this law will destroy the 
very health and well-being of working families. That is not the promise 
of America. That is not the America we all aspire to. We should be 
encouraging businesses to hire more, to offer more pay, not to limit 
growth and employment. That is not the answer.
  Today, the House is taking action to save the American worker by 
lifting this threshold to a more realistic 40 hours a week.
  I could tell you real-life experience. Having talked to companies, 
they are going to be pushing more and more of these workers into part-
time employment. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to 
talk to businesses in their districts and understand what is really 
happening as a consequence.
  That is why we should pass this legislation. I encourage all Members 
to please support this bill.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Lewis), another distinguished member of our committee.
  Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend of many years for 
yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, here we go again, down the same unnecessary road. This 
bill is a deliberate and systematic attempt to undermine the Affordable 
Care Act. We are supposed to be here to help people and not to hurt 
people. So what is this all about?
  This bill, call it what you may, would roll back protection for 
Americans who work at or near 40 hours a week. Before the Affordable 
Care Act, it was easy to discriminate against the sick, the elderly, 
and those who had lost their jobs through no fault of their own, but 
those days are over. We have come too far. We made too much progress to 
go back, and we will not go back.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no,'' so we can go forward and 
continue to provide comprehensive health care for all of our citizens. 
This is the right thing to do. It is the responsible thing to do. It is 
the fair thing to do.
  Just vote ``no.'' Just say ``no.''
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen), a member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, in 1938, it was Franklin Roosevelt who signed the Fair 
Labor Standards Act, establishing full-time work as 40 hours, so for 
more than 70 years, that has been the accepted definition for 
government, for corporations, for small business; but in 2010, the 
President's health care law threw 70 years of precedent completely out 
the window.
  This new 30-hour rule is forcing companies to scale back hours, with 
more part-time jobs and less full-time jobs, so now, many employees 
that were working full time--good full-time jobs--have seen their 
paychecks cut up to 25 percent.
  One study recently found that regulations in the President's new 
health care law, like the 30-hour rule, are reducing small business 
wages to workers every year by $22 billion and that employment in small 
businesses has been reduced by 350,000 jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, Americans want more full-time opportunities, and they 
should get to choose to pursue those opportunities, not have their 
employers force to reduce them to part-time work. America's workers 
deserve better.
  Mr. Speaker, I insert in the Record a letter from The Associated 
General

[[Page H129]]

Contractors of America supporting this legislation by Mr. Young.

                                                    The Associated


                               General Contractors of America,

                                   Arlington, VA, January 7, 2015.
     Re support H.R 30, The Saving American Workers Act of 2015.

     Hon. Todd Young,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Young: On behalf of the Associated 
     General Contractors of America (AGC), I am writing in support 
     of the Saving American Workers Act of 2015, H.R. 30. The bill 
     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 prior delay of the reporting and enforcement 
     provisions of the ACA, the law continues to be an 
     administrative burden for employers. 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. 30 and provide some relief 
     for construction employers across the country.
           Sincerely,

                                             Jeffrey D. Shoaf,

                                        Senior Executive Director,
                                               Government Affairs.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), another active member of our committee.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, America's middle class is facing a 
crisis. Despite the fact that productivity has soared and profits have 
increased, these gains are not flowing to the vast majority of 
Americans.
  In 81 percent of America's counties, median income today is lower 
than it was 15 years ago. After adjusting for inflation, today's 
average hourly wage has the same purchasing power as it did in 1979, 
this despite the fact that American workers are producing far more. 
Productivity has increased 74 percent since 1973.
  There is a reason why the wealth is concentrated at the top. There 
are a myriad of tiny little changes that have a cumulative effect on 
the vast majority of American workers. Refusing to raise the minimum 
wage, attacking the right to unionize, special tax benefits for a few, 
and today's legislation are all examples.
  No doubt changing the definition of 40 hours for purposes of the 
Affordable Care Act will benefit a few businesses, but there are far 
more employees who work 40 hours a week or more than who work 30 to 40 
hours, and as has been pointed out by the conservatives at the National 
Review and The Weekly Standard, it is easier to drop employees to 39 
hours a week than to 29 hours a week. This meaning this proposal is 
going to reduce far more hours of work and wages for whom it matters 
the most.
  Wages aren't the only benefit at stake. As has been pointed out, 
according to the CBO, a million workers will lose health insurance 
through their employer, half of whom will lose it altogether. The other 
half will be shifted to the government through Medicaid, increasing 
spending by more than $50 billion over the next decade.
  Mr. Speaker, this would be one of the myriad of policies that further 
disadvantages America's middle class. This is another step by my 
Republican friends to deny more people the benefits of that work, widen 
the divide, and disadvantage not only families today but far into the 
future.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Ryan for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 30. It was noted not 
long ago that the President's health care law will ``destroy the 
foundation of the 40-hour workweek that is the backbone of the American 
middle class.''
  Those aren't my words, of course, Mr. Speaker. Instead, those are the 
words expressed by leaders of some of the Nation's largest labor 
unions, including the president of the International Brotherhood of 
Teamsters. Echoing these concerns, members of the AFL-CIO endorsed a 
resolution that warned ObamaCare will lead to a ``new underclass of 
less-than-30-hour workers.''
  We have all seen the headlines in recent years, headlines describing 
how employers are left with practically no choice but to cut workers' 
hours in order to avoid the health care law's punitive employer 
mandate. Put simply, the law punishes employers who provide workers 
with full-time jobs.

                              {time}  1445

  A small business owner and constituent of mine from Savage, 
Minnesota, wrote earlier this week that the President's health care law 
is ``wreaking havoc on the American workplace.'' No doubt many 
Americans agree.
  Unfortunately, the law is wreaking havoc in schools as well. 
According to a recent report, Louisiana school administrators are being 
forced to cut staff hours and hire more part-time teachers to avoid 
Federal penalties. Schools in New Jersey and elsewhere are facing 
similar tough choices. One superintendent described the costs 
associated with the health care law's mandates as ``an unbelievable 
drain on school systems.''
  Don't America's teachers and students deserve better?
  Mr. Speaker, let's tell our Nation's school leaders that we won't sit 
idly by while ObamaCare makes it more difficult to provide students the 
quality education they deserve. Let's tell our small business owners 
that we want to help make it easier, not harder, to create full-time 
jobs. Let's tell the country's union leaders that we share your 
concerns and are prepared to do something about it. And finally, let's 
tell workers that we won't let a flawed law deny them the wages that 
they need to provide for their families.
  I urge my colleagues to stand with the American people by supporting 
this commonsense, bipartisan legislation.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), another distinguished member of our committee.
  Mr. KIND. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, let me make sure I have got this straight. We have got a 
bill before us today, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget 
Office, that will increase our budget deficit by $53 billion because 
there are no offsets or pay-fors in this legislation; it will reduce 
the number of people receiving employment-based health care coverage by 
about 1 million workers; it will increase the number of people in 
Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program, the health insurance 
exchanges, by more than 500,000 people; and it will increase the number 
of uninsured in our country by another 500,000 people--all at the same 
time when, again, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found in 
a recent analysis: ``There is no compelling evidence that part-time 
employment has increased as a result of the Affordable Care Act.''
  What's not to like?
  Happy New Year, American workers.
  My good friend from Wisconsin recently said during the debate that he 
can't find a worse way to hurt working families. Well, you did with 
this legislation, and I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on it.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. McCarthy), the distinguished House majority 
leader.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, we all know that the employer mandate has resulted in 
lost wages and jobs in America. That point is just not debatable 
anymore. Numerous studies have said so and the Congressional Budget 
Office. Businesses are now reacting to ObamaCare's perverse incentive 
and scaling down.
  But the impact of this mandate isn't on paper; it is in the people 
across this country in each and every district who feel the pain of 
ObamaCare. In my district, Kern County, firefighters, Department of 
Mental Health, probation facilities have been forced to reduce hours of 
extra-help employees, and that is just in county government.
  But you know who the employer mandate hurts most of all? Women,

[[Page H130]]

small business owners, low-income and unskilled workers. But we have an 
opportunity today to do something about it, passing Representative Todd 
Young's Save the American Workers Act.
  This bill is common sense. It is bipartisan. But the President has 
already threatened to veto it. The American people don't want that. 
They want to see solutions, not obstruction.
  So, Mr. President, you say you care about those who have fallen on 
hard times. Show it; sign this bill.
  You say you care about the youth of this country struggling with the 
debt and unable to find jobs. Show it; sign this bill.
  You care about the low-income workers, about working women and small 
businesses. Show it, and sign this bill. Actions speak louder than 
words.
  The employer mandate and ObamaCare as a whole are hurting the job 
market and are hurting America. Only a full repeal of this law will 
solve the problem. But this bill helps, and the President should sign 
it.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), another active member of our committee.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to the Save 
American Workers Act. Look, we will not recognize the fact that in 1960 
to 2013, this is the lowest increase in health care costs in the last 
50, 60 years.
  They don't want to admit it. You can't admit one positive thing about 
the ACA. But I want you to tell the people who you throw off health 
care insurance, I want them, through the Speaker, to tell them that no 
longer are you going to be covered if you have preconditions. You do 
it.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is nothing more than a tool for large 
employers to avoid providing their employees with health insurance, 
despite the fact they can afford to do so.
  Now, look, this is not a perfect piece of legislation. We have never 
passed a perfect piece of legislation. Only God is perfect.
  The bill will reduce the number of people receiving insurance through 
their employers. Simple fact. Been codified. Increase the number of 
people getting insurance through the Affordable Care Act. Put more 
burden on the Treasury and increase the number of people who will end 
up with no insurance.
  Studies have shown that raising the threshold to 40 hours would 
nearly triple the number of workers at risk of having their hours just 
slightly reduced by firms looking to avoid requirements to provide 
their employees with health insurance.
  My Republican colleagues love to extol the virtues of fiscal 
responsibility, so it is good to know that those concerns can be so 
easily cast aside for bills like this that not only add to the deficit, 
but also achieve their noble goal of resulting in more Americans going 
without health insurance.
  Through the Speaker, I would like to give the manager 30 days to 
change his thoughts that were extended this week in the newspaper when 
he said that this bill will give more people more full-time work. Show 
us. Show us, please.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to stand here in support 
of the Save American Workers Act, legislation that helps my 
constituents in Michigan who are struggling under the President's 
health care law, regardless of the sophistry from the other side.
  While Michigan has been hard-hit over the past few years for many 
reasons, the negative effects of the President's health care law have 
only amplified our struggles by eroding full-time work opportunities 
for hourly workers.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, I am deeply 
committed to safeguarding workers and businesses from ObamaCare's 
damaging consequences. Restoring the traditional 40-hour workweek is an 
important reform that will protect employees and provide certainty for 
employers.
  We need effective solutions that focus on getting people back to work 
rather than forcing people from their jobs, like Janet from Jackson, 
Michigan, who called my office in tears last September.
  This 56-year-old single mother of three had just been told that 
morning by her employer that her home health care job was being moved 
from 36 hours to 28 hours because of the new requirements under 
ObamaCare. She asked: How am I going to pay my mortgage and insurance 
with only 28 hours?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 
seconds.
  Mr. WALBERG. Let's give Janet the opportunity to save her 36 hours, 
have it back, by passing the Save American Workers Act. Like Janet, 
everyone should have the chance to work, to succeed and prosper and be 
in control of their own health care issues.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis), another distinguished member of our 
committee.
  Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong 
opposition to H.R. 30, the so-labeled Save American Workers Act, which 
I call the ``Sabotage the Affordable Health Care Act,'' and that is 
because the bill before us will help to do just that--sabotage 
affordable health care for millions of Americans.
  It would make it easier for employers to not participate in providing 
health care assistance to their employees. It would drive low- and 
moderate-income workers back to the emergency rooms of public hospitals 
and clinics.
  The CBO has said that passage of this measure would raise the deficit 
by $53 billion over a 10-year period and put a million people in 
government-sponsored health insurance, Medicaid, CHIP, and the 
exchanges. It would promote episodic care and take us back to 
yesteryears in health care delivery.
  The Affordable Care Act is already working--and working well. On a 
daily basis, it is taking people off the uninsured rolls.
  H.R. 30 is a step backwards. It is not good for workers; it is not 
good for health care delivery; and it is not good for America.
  I would urge a ``no'' vote for H.R. 30.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Byrne).
  Mr. BYRNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your leadership on 
this very important issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I support this bill. In fact, just this morning I was 
reading your op-ed from USA Today in which you make a great point. This 
law cannot be fixed. It is beyond repair. No quick legislative fix can 
fix this law and make it work for the countless American families who 
have already been negatively impacted, including people in my district.
  Last November, the American people spoke loud and clear. They want to 
see bold legislative action that pushes back against the failed 
policies of this President.
  I support this bill, but I want to do more, and we must do more. I 
look forward to working with the chairman and leadership of this House 
to move forward with the full repeal of this law.
  Mr. Speaker, I will insert into the Record the position statement 
favoring this bill from the National Federation of Independent 
Business, the voice of small business of America.

                                            National Federation of


                                         Independent Business,

                                  Washington, DC, January 6, 2015.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the National Federation 
     of Independent Business (NFIB), the nation's leading small 
     business advocacy organization, I am writing in support of 
     H.R. 30, the Save American Workers Act of 2015. H.R. 30 will 
     be considered an NFIB Key Vote for the 114th Congress.
       This legislation would replace the new 30-hour per week 
     full-time or full-time equivalent (FTE) employee definition 
     created by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 
     (ACA) with a 40-hour per week definition. The ACA defines 
     full-time employee for the purpose of the employer mandate as 
     an employee who works an average of 30-hours per week (130-
     hours per month). The employer mandate is a requirement that 
     businesses with 100 or more full-time or FTE employees offer 
     qualified, ``affordable'' health insurance to 70 percent of 
     full-time employees or pay costly penalties beginning in 
     2015. In 2016, businesses with 50 or more full-time or FTE 
     employees must offer qualified, ``affordable'' health 
     insurance to 95 percent of full-time employees and their 
     dependents or pay costly penalties.
       In early 2013, NFIB testified before the House Committee on 
     Small Business that the new definition is ``one of the most 
     dangerous parts in the law.'' The ACA marks the first time 
     that ``full-time'' is expressly defined in federal law. Prior 
     to the ACA's enactment, the determination was left up to the 
     employer.\1\ Similarly, the Fair Labor

[[Page H131]]

     Standards Act has long dictated that overtime pay starts 
     after 40-hours per week.\2\ Thus, employers and employees 
     have long understood ``full-time'' to be equivalent to 40-
     hours per week.
       The 30-hour full-time definition is already resulting in 
     less opportunities, fewer hours and lower incomes for 
     employees. Small businesses are already being forced to 
     shrink their workforce below and restricting workforce growth 
     above the 50 FTE employee threshold in preparation for the 
     costly mandate.
       H.R. 30 would provide some immediate relief for small-
     business owners and employees. The bill would reduce taxes on 
     employers by tens of billions of dollars. For employees, the 
     bill would prevent decreases in take home pay.
       NFIB supports H.R. 30 and will consider it an NFIB Key Vote 
     for the 114th Congress. We look forward to working with you 
     to protect small business as the 114th Congress moves 
     forward.
           Sincerely,

                                                Amanda Austin,

                                                   Vice President,
                                                    Public Policy.


                                endnotes

       1 http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/workhours/full-time.htm
       2 http://www.dol.gov/whd/overtime_payt
.htm

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, could I ask you for the available time now on 
both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 11\3/4\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 13\1/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Curbelo).
  Mr. CURBELO of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
Save American Workers Act of 2015 and would like to thank the gentleman 
from Indiana for reintroducing this important legislation.
  I have only been a Member of Congress for 2 days now, but passing 
bills to help American workers and those who employ them, especially so 
early in the year, is exactly what our constituents sent us to 
Washington to accomplish.
  The purpose of this legislation is simple: to increase the threshold 
of classifying a full-time worker under the Affordable Care Act from 30 
hours to 40 hours a week.
  Back in my south Florida district, I constantly hear from families 
who are frustrated by the burdens of the Affordable Care Act. The 30-
hour workweek provision has limited the incomes of many Americans and 
their potential to grow in their jobs.
  Defining 40 hours as a full workweek will provide relief to many 
families who are unfairly getting caught in these growth-crushing 
regulations. Working Americans want to get ahead and work as many hours 
as possible to provide for their families. The 30-hour workweek is 
limiting their ability to do so.
  So, again, I want to reiterate my support for this bill. I look 
forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
find common ground where we can make changes in the Affordable Care Act 
that will benefit our neighbors back home.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure to yield 2\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the ranking member of 
the Energy and Commerce Committee.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. PALLONE. I thank my colleague from Michigan.
  Mr. Speaker, I was happy to see not the last speaker but the previous 
Republican speaker--I think he was the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Byrne)--actually say that he wanted to repeal the Affordable Care Act 
because that is what this is all about.
  I guess I could take some happiness in the fact that we are not 
having an outright repeal of the Affordable Care Act on the floor 
today, but I know that this effort is really about repealing the bill. 
It is a piece-by-piece approach, where the Republicans want to 
basically tear down what--in my opinion, and when I go home my 
constituents say--is an excellent program.
  More and more people are signing up for the Affordable Care Act. More 
and more people are getting insurance at an affordable price with 
subsidies and the expansion of Medicaid. The Republicans know that they 
can't repeal it outright, so now, they are trying to do it piece by 
piece.
  There is no kidding ourselves as to what this bill will do. It is 
going to increase the deficit, adding $53 billion to our debt. It is 
going to increase the number of uninsured. It will shift more people 
onto public programs, and it will cause workers who are currently 
receiving employer-sponsored health coverage to lose that coverage.
  My Republican colleagues claim this bill is necessary to protect 
jobs, but the fact of the matter is that the Affordable Care Act has 
strengthened the job market. Our economy and workforce are stronger now 
than before the law was passed.
  Basically, what is happening here is if you are a large employer with 
more than 50 full-time workers--in other words, 96 percent of employers 
are unaffected by the law--for those 4 percent of larger employers who 
have the means, the law says they need to do right by their full-time 
workers and offer them health insurance.
  The Republicans don't think businesses owe their employees anything 
at all. They think that bigger businesses should have the right to deny 
their workers health insurance. Even though the ACA says that that is 
what they should do--give them health insurance--they say, ``No, they 
shouldn't have to do that.''
  The bill the Republicans have presented today would say that big 
businesses could deny health coverage to someone working 39 hours a 
week, 52 weeks a year. That is not a part-time worker. Their employers 
should provide them with health coverage. That is all that we are 
asking.
  Giving big businesses a green light to drop coverage for their 
workers is not the way to move the country forward. Workers have the 
right to decent health care, and businesses should help them get it. 
That is the fair thing. That is the right thing.
  This bill simply takes us in the wrong direction. I keep hearing from 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle as to how terrible the 
Affordable Care Act is. The fact of the matter is it is working and it 
is working for working people.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), a member of the Ways and 
Means Committee.
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 30.
  I am amazed as to how many times we let politics interfere with 
policy. I want to tell you who you are really hurting. You are not 
hurting the Republican Party by your remarks. What you are doing is 
hurting the American people by your remarks.
  This is America's Congress. It is not a Republican Congress, and it 
is not a Democrat Congress. It is America's Congress. Who have you hurt 
the most with this policy? Women. Lower-income people and lower middle-
income people have suffered greatly.
  How do I know that? It is because I am actually in the job market. I 
have actually hired people. I know the dignity of labor, and I know the 
harm that is being done by this care act that is totally unaffordable 
and uncaring.
  It is unbelievable that we would come to the floor of this House and 
somehow make the other political party look bad and turn our backs on 
the people who sent us. It is not working, gentlemen. We don't have to 
dismantle it. It is falling apart on its own.
  In fact, it is so bad that the President won't even enforce the full 
law until after an election. Please tell me politics didn't have 
anything to do with that. Let's do what is right for the American 
people for a change and quit trying to posture on some kind of a 
political stance that is just based on fantasy.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott), who is now the ranking member on Education and 
the Workforce.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentlemen from the other side of the aisle have 
already voted over 50 times to roll back the Affordable Care Act. This 
is one more attempt.
  More than 150 million Americans get their health coverage through 
their jobs or through a family member's job. As for the Affordable Care 
Act, when

[[Page H132]]

we passed it, at that time, 96 percent of all businesses with over 50 
employees provided health insurance for their full-time employees.
  So that we wouldn't dismantle the President's system--rather, that we 
would build on it--we established a mandate. Those employers--those 
businesses--with over 50 employees would be mandated to provide 
insurance for their full-time employees. Ninety-six percent were 
already doing it without a mandate, and those with under 50 employees 
weren't subject to the mandate.
  This bill would change the ACA's definition of ``full-time employee'' 
for somebody who works 30 hours a week to 40 hours a week. That puts a 
lot of Americans at risk of having their hours cut to just under the 
40-hour threshold, so that a few employers--just a few, as 96 percent 
were already doing it--can escape their responsibility of providing the 
insurance.
  They are less likely to suffer a job loss today because most people 
work a 40-hour week. Cutting below 30 is very unlikely because people 
would start quitting. Ninety-six percent were already being provided 
their insurance.
  Now, if you are working from 9 to 5, with an hour off for lunch, 
suddenly, you are no longer a full-time employee. That is only 35 
hours. If the employer sends everybody home at 4 on Fridays, that is 39 
hours. You are no longer a full-time employee.
  As a result, many people--those currently working between 30 and 40 
and those who will have their hours cut--will suddenly be part-time 
employees, not entitled to employer-provided health insurance. 
According to the Congressional Budget Office, that is about a million 
people who will lose their employer-based health coverage.
  Mr. Speaker, this is just another attack on the health security of 
American families. It is an attack that families do not want, but it 
will help that handful of businesses that just wants to deny 
hardworking employees their health insurance.
  I want to put one thing on the record. We have had more consecutive 
months of 200,000-plus job growth than anytime in recent history, so 
the job-killing aspect of it can't be doing too badly--a lot more than 
there were under the previous administration.
  We ought to be building on the ACA, not diminishing it. We ought to 
be working to strengthen it, including fully expanding Medicaid to all 
50 States. We can do better. This hurts families.
  It might help a few businesses that want to deny hardworking 
Americans their health coverage that has been mandated, although 96 
percent of businesses already were doing it.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, let me inquire as to the time 
distributions.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Byrne). The gentleman from Wisconsin has 
11\1/4\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Michigan has 6\1/4\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Tennessee, Dr. Roe.
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Save 
American Workers Act. I am pleased that the first vote we are going to 
do is a bipartisan bill of the 114th Congress.
  Everywhere I go, I hear concerns about the lack of jobs and the need 
for job creation. Tennessee's unemployment rate is far too high at 6.8 
percent. We have got to do everything we possibly can to encourage 
employers not only to create jobs but to maintain the jobs they 
currently offer.
  Employers are already struggling to make their budgets work in an 
uncertain economy, and we know that these employers will have to 
respond one of two ways, either by cutting hours or by hiring fewer 
workers. It is already happening. Public school systems in my State and 
community colleges across the country are cutting hours or are reducing 
class sizes taught.
  I have spent my entire adult life as a physician, taking care of 
people from all walks of life. I want every American, including those 
with preexisting conditions, to have access to affordable medical care.
  That is why I have worked in Congress to develop patient-centered 
solutions that help people afford health care, like the American Health 
Care Reform Act. In the meantime, we must do what we can to protect the 
American people from the unintended consequences of the Affordable Care 
Act.
  That is why I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I have 13 minutes remaining, and 
the gentleman has 11 minutes remaining. Is that where we are right now?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 10\1/4\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Michigan has 6\1/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Holding), a new 
member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. HOLDING. Mr. Speaker, we have already seen the disastrous effects 
of the President's health care law, from the increased premiums and 
deductibles to workers' hours being reduced.
  While the President refuses to make commonsense changes to this 
health care law that is destroying opportunities for work in this 
country, my colleagues and I in Congress have been committed to taking 
action.
  I am happy to be a cosponsor of the bill before us, and I look 
forward to restoring the ability for working students, single parents, 
single mothers, women, and other Americans desiring to log more hours 
to do just that, to work more hours.
  Mr. Speaker, hard work is a cherished value in North Carolina. Let's 
pass the Save American Workers Act today to protect workers' hours and 
their wages.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Costello).
  Mr. COSTELLO of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, restoring the 40-hour workweek is an important reform 
that will provide relief and certainty for employers in my district, 
and it will help protect their hardworking employees.
  The ACA's unprecedented modification from 40 to 30 hours has forced 
many jobs creators to scale back business growth, to force them to cut 
employee hours, and/or to reduce the take-home wages of hardworking 
Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, let's focus on what this legislation is designed to do 
and who it is designed to help. Those making under $30,000 a year, 
disproportionately women and young Americans, who need the hours and 
jobs the most, are the ones most at risk of having their hours and 
wages cut under existing law.
  Small businesses and restaurants in my district, such as Victory 
Brewing Company in Downingtown, Pennsylvania, have suffered. For 
example, Victory has faced difficult decisions about employee hours and 
has been plagued with chronic underemployment just to make ends meet.
  I am proud to cosponsor the Save American Workers Act. This will help 
so many businesses not just in southeastern Pennsylvania, but across 
the Nation.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam), a senior member of the 
Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, there is an opportunity here for us to do a good thing, 
and that is to take a law that was well-intentioned but poorly executed 
and fix it and make some improvements. There has been all kinds of 
discussion over the past couple of months--highly-charged political 
discussion, really, on both sides, that makes false claims about 
different people's motives.
  I will tell you the motive of the sponsor of this bill, Mr. Young 
from Indiana, is to do this: to lift a burden off of people who find 
themselves not served by a law that they were told was going to serve 
them.
  They were told: ``Oh, this is going to be great. There is going to be 
no adverse effect on your job opportunities. In fact, it is all going 
to be terrific. Just sign up for it.''
  As it turns out, Mr. Young recognized that that wasn't working out 
for

[[Page H133]]

people who were at the lower end of the economic spectrum, Mr. Speaker, 
so he decided to do something about it. He decided to introduce this 
bill.
  What it does is simply lifts a burden. It says we are not going to 
create a downward pressure on jobs. Instead, we are going to create an 
environment in which jobs are more buoyant, and they are more abundant, 
and there is more of them.
  Enough with the false claims and the straw man argument that this is 
somehow insidious and is taking something away. No, no, no. This isn't 
taking away. This is adding, and this is empowering, and this is life-
giving, and we ought to support it.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), a distinguished member of 
Energy and Commerce.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, this bill purports to solve a problem that 
does not exist.
  The Republicans keep claiming that this provision of the Affordable 
Care Act is affecting workers' hours, but despite these claims and 
despite a lot of anecdotal evidence that I have heard from the business 
community, the labor and employment experts have detected no such 
impact.
  In fact, our economy has created 10.8 million new jobs since the 
passage of the Affordable Care Act. Almost 10 million of those jobs are 
full-time jobs.
  What this proposal would actually do is put more workers into the 
kind of jeopardy that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say 
they are trying to prevent.
  Only 7 percent of Americans work in jobs that place them close to the 
current 30-hour-a-week threshold. Far more Americans--about 44 percent 
of them--actually work 40 hours a week, so even slight changes to their 
work schedules are going to deny them access to the health insurance 
that they so desperately need.
  I have been sitting here. I am really touched by the concern that my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have for women and for young 
people, people who really are at the lower end of the employment 
spectrum and who the Republicans say are going to be harmed by this.
  Let me tell you, for the 4 percent of the large corporations that are 
subject to these provisions of the Affordable Care Act--people who have 
50 employees or more--here is the way it is going to work for the young 
people and for the women.

                              {time}  1515

  These people are going to be people working for large corporations, 
making just barely above minimum wage. If they work 40 hours a week, 
they get insurance.
  Under this proposal, all their employer has to do is cut 1 hour a 
week out of that--39 hours a week--and suddenly they lose their health 
insurance. And that is what is going to put those people at risk. Those 
women in clerical jobs, women with little kids, those young people in 
their twenties coming into the job market, trying to do the right thing 
and have health insurance, now they are going to have to pay for that 
insurance out of their own pockets, and for no reason.
  The consequences of this misguided proposal don't stop there. The 
Congressional Budget Office estimates that H.R. 30 would raise the 
deficit by $53 billion in the next decade while also keeping a million 
American workers from getting health insurance through their jobs.
  I actually agree with my friend from Illinois (Mr. Roskam). I think 
the intentions behind this bill are good intentions. But I think the 
effect of this bill is going to be to deny insurance for a whole lot of 
Americans who are at risk--women and young people, exactly the people 
we should be giving insurance to.
  Vote ``no.''
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  There are a couple of points I would like to make. I have been 
listening to this debate. I think what is happening here is that it is 
the fantasy land of ObamaCare.
  The proponents of the ObamaCare law, on the other side of the aisle, 
speaker after speaker are coming to the well with this fantasy of what 
ObamaCare ought to be, what they think it is. It is this mythical idea 
in their minds, which was all the rhetoric that was used to sell the 
law in the first place on all these good things it is going to do. The 
problem is: reality. Look at what is actually happening in the real 
world.
  This is the problem with ObamaCare, when the myth of ObamaCare 
clashes with the reality of what is going on in America. People are 
losing their hours. People are getting jobs cut back. It is not big 
corporations; it is small businesses.
  Look, I talked to a retailer in the First Congressional District of 
Wisconsin who was telling me--tears coming down her face--of how she 
had to cut back hours, about how she had to take all of her full-time 
employees at her retail business and knock them down to part time. Why? 
Because her competitors are doing the same thing.
  This is happening throughout America. The last speaker basically 
proved the point by saying, if you go to 40, they will go down to 39. 
Well, 39 is a lot better than 29. And guess what? The majority of 
Americans are at 34 hours. Going to 40 puts them above that; going to 
30 puts them below that, putting people out of work.
  The fantasy land of ObamaCare, the fatal conceit of the central 
planning behind this law is that, in reality, it just doesn't work. 
Let's give people relief.
  At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Indiana (Mrs. 
Walorski).
  Mrs. WALORSKI. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I, too, am pleased to stand here today to support the 
Save American Workers Act.
  I also want to thank my colleague and fellow Hoosier, Representative 
Todd Young, for sponsoring this bill.
  This bipartisan legislation would restore the traditional 40-hour 
workweek and help employers and employees. Right now, the Affordable 
Care Act defines full-time employees as those who work 30 hours or more 
a week, not the standard, more traditional 40 hours.
  My district is the RV capital of the world. Businesses are ripe for 
growth. Expansion is on the horizon. They are afraid to hire and be 
forced to lay off if this 30-hour definition is not changed.
  Our businesses, like the School City of Mishawaka that educates kids, 
need permanent relief from the burdensome and costly requirements of 
ObamaCare.
  The Save American Workers Act will create jobs in my State and in my 
district for Hoosiers.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce a letter of support from the 
Precision Machined Products Association, which employs many machinists 
in my district--real jobs for real people.

                                                Precision Machined


                                         Products Association,

                                                  January 6, 2015.
     Hon. Todd Young,
     Longworth House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Young: On behalf of the Precision 
     Machined Products Association (PMPA), our members and the 
     roughly 100,000 employees nationwide in our industry, thank 
     you for your introduction of H.R. 30, the Saving American 
     Workers Act, and your continued efforts to address the issues 
     facing businesses manufacturing in America.
       Like many other manufacturers and small businesses across 
     the country, we are concerned about the potential negative 
     impacts caused by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care 
     Act's 30-hour threshold for full-time employee 
     classification.
       Manufacturing businesses, especially companies with fewer 
     than 500 employees, already face significant disadvantages 
     when competing with foreign manufacturers in the global 
     market and this ``30-hour rule'' is counter-productive to the 
     goal of expanding access to affordable healthcare for 
     employees of small businesses. Rather than providing 
     additional employees with healthcare, the 30-hour rule will 
     force employers to cut their part-time employees' hours in 
     order to prevent their healthcare costs from skyrocketing.
       Your leadership and efforts to repeal the 30-hour rule and 
     standardize the definition of a ``full-time'' employee to 40 
     hours per week would save manufacturers like us from having 
     to reduce their employees' hours and, rather, would allow 
     them to invest in more employees and grow their businesses. 
     At such a crucial time in our nation's economic recovery, the 
     Affordable Care Act's incentive for businesses to cut their 
     employees' hours to avoid the ``full-time'' classification 
     and dramatic increases in healthcare costs will be damaging 
     to small businesses and to the employees' it purports to 
     help.

[[Page H134]]

       Thank you for your consideration and your leadership on 
     this issue on behalf of the metalworking industry.
           Sincerely,

                                                   Miles Free,

                                    Co-interim Executive Director,
                                                             PMPA.

  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Lipinski).
  Mr. LIPINSKI. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I will first enter into the Record a letter from the 
Illinois Restaurant Association in support of the Save American Workers 
Act.

                              Illinois Restaurant Association,

                                     Chicago, IL, January 7, 2015.
     Hon. Dan Lipinski,
     Congressman, Illinois 3rd Congressional District, Rayburn 
         House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Lipinski: I am writing you on behalf of 
     the Illinois Restaurant Association to express my full 
     support of your efforts to restore the traditional definition 
     of full-time employee to 40 hours per week with your 
     sponsorship of H.R. 30, the Save American Workers Act of 
     2015. This legislation will encourage a business environment 
     where employers in the restaurant and hospitality can focus 
     on creating more jobs, expanding their businesses, and 
     contributing to a robust economy.
       The restaurant and hospitality industry is the largest 
     private sector employer in the state of Illinois, employing 
     over 517,000 people. As President & CEO of the Illinois 
     Restaurant Association, I represent over 25,000 restaurants 
     operating in the state who have expressed the urgent need to 
     redefine the full-time work week definition of 30-hour-per-
     week.
       Because of the Affordable Care Act's arbitrary 30-hour-per-
     week definition of a full-time employee, restaurants are 
     being forced to restructure their workforce by reducing their 
     employees' hours. Employees are losing the mobility and 
     flexibility in their schedules they normally would enjoy when 
     working at a restaurant. Opportunities are decreasing for 
     young and inexperienced workers to gain entry-level 
     employment and advance into a fulfilling career in the 
     restaurant and hospitality industry.
       The implications of this issue cannot be overstated. 
     Nationally, restaurants employ over 13.5 million people, and 
     our industry is a major driver of the economic recovery. If 
     Congress does not act to address this issue, thousands of 
     jobs will be lost and businesses will suffer. I encourage you 
     and your colleagues in Congress to pass the Save American 
     Workers Act of 2015, a piece of common sense legislation that 
     will protect jobs and strengthen the American economy.
           Sincerely,

                                                     Sam Toia,

                                                  President & CEO,
                                  Illinois Restaurant Association.

  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Save American 
Workers Act, which I join the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young) in 
introducing again this year.
  I have not supported and I do not support the repeal of the ACA, but 
some commonsense changes need to be made. The administration has 
already acknowledged difficulties in implementing the employer mandate 
by instituting delays and substantial administrative changes.
  One problem is that the ACA defines full-time work as 30 hours a 
week, causing small businesses, local governments, and schools to cut 
the hours of workers and limit workers' scheduling flexibility. The CBO 
has confirmed that shifting to a 40-hour full-time definition--
Americans' common understanding of full-time work--would lead to some 
workers seeing an increase in their take-home pay.
  Even the President's former senior adviser, David Axelrod, has 
suggested that the President consider this change. So let's do right by 
America's part-time workers, family businesses, local governments, and 
schools. Let's pass this bill and fix this broken part of the ACA.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
  Mr. PERRY. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I also am proud to cosponsor this bill and thank the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young) for his hard work on it.
  I think it is fascinating that we hear from my colleagues from the 
other side that they are so interested in how much money the Federal 
Government would lose--the Federal Government. I wonder who they came 
here to work for. Are they interested in how many dollars their 
hardworking taxpayers are losing by the implementation of this ill-
founded law?
  I just got off of the phone with one of my employers in the district 
who has about 500 employees. It is a good, hardworking, family-run 
business, and he tells me, the number one issue that he is dealing with 
is poring over spreadsheets day in and day out, trying to figure out 
how he can put one employee in a place where that employee wants to 
work in his business because that employee might want more hours 
because he wants to make his own or her own choice about health care or 
how much money he or she has. Maybe that employee is retired, their 
husband or wife is retired, and they just need the extra hours, want 
the extra hours, but he can't provide them.
  Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to me that some folks on the other 
side said, just help us fix it. Yet when we try to fix it, they say, 
no, it is fine; it is perfect the way it is.
  Mr. Speaker, central planning did not work in the USSR. It does not 
work in Cuba. And I wish you would quit trying to place it in the 
United States.
  Mr. LEVIN. How much time do I have, Mr. Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 2\1/4\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, you know, there has been some discussion here. The 
gentleman from Illinois said there isn't anything being taken away. 
That is simply not true. The basis for the Joint Tax and CBO estimate 
is that there will be the loss of hours for hundreds of thousands of 
people. And as a result, 1 million people will no longer be enrolled in 
employment-based coverage, and of those, 500,000 will have no 
insurance. So that statement is not correct.
  And, if I might say so, when the chairman said the House will take up 
a bill to define full time as 40 hours per week so more people can work 
full time, the basis of the CBO estimate is that fewer people will be 
working 40 hours or more. That is the basis for their conclusions.
  So let me just, if I might, emphasize what has been said by a 
conservative, Yuval Levin--not related:

       Putting the cutoff for the employer mandate at 40 hours 
     would likely put far, far more people at risk of having their 
     hours cut than leaving it at 30 hours. That would make for a 
     worse effect on workers and on the economy.

  That is just a fact.
  The ACA has eliminated discrimination in terms of preexisting 
conditions. It has dramatically reduced the uninsured rate--now 12.9 
percent, the lowest since that began to be tracked. It has increased 
Medicare benefits, and it has held health care cost growth to record 
lows.
  If you don't like the ACA despite all of these achievements, continue 
to try to repeal it. But don't punish people who are working 40 hours 
or more with this bill. That is what this does. And it leaves 500,000 
with no insurance whatsoever. This is worse than a terrible bill.
  And I will now enter into the Record letters of opposition from the 
Consumers Union, the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, SEIU, and the Teamsters.

                                              Consumers Union,

                                                  January 6, 2015.
     Hon. Sander M. Levin,
     House of Representatives, Longworth House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Consumers Union urges you to oppose changing the Affordable 
     Care Act's (ACA) definition of full time work from a 30-hour 
     per week threshold to 40 hours. The Affordable Care Act's 
     current 30-hour threshold for classification as full-time 
     employee for purposes of the employer ``mandate'' in the ACA 
     discourages employers from easily circumventing penalties 
     that incentivize employers to provide health insurance 
     coverage to their workers. Raising the full-time threshold to 
     40 hours per week would reduce access to employer-provided 
     insurance coverage.
       Under the ACA, employers with at least 50 full-time 
     equivalent employees who do not provide health insurance to 
     their full-time workers must pay a penalty. This makes it 
     fairer for employers who do provide insurance and have to 
     figure that into their costs. More importantly, it helps 
     reduce the cost of providing care to the uninsured that would 
     otherwise be picked up by public programs, such as Medicaid, 
     and, hence, ultimately passed on to taxpayers. In fact, the 
     Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation 
     estimate that changing the threshold to 40 hours would 
     increase budget deficits by $25.4 billion over the 2015-2019 
     period and by $73.7 billion over the 2015-2024 period.
       Currently the ACA penalty is applied to employers who do 
     not offer insurance to full-time employees defined as those 
     who work at least 30 hours a week. Raising the threshold to 
     40 hours per week would make it much easier for employers to 
     avoid covering millions of Americans who work between 30 and

[[Page H135]]

     40 hours a week by cutting their hours slightly. Thus, 
     raising the threshold to 40 hours will jeopardizes access to 
     employer coverage for many people who get their insurance 
     through an employer.
       Consumers Union strongly supports retaining the current 30-
     hour threshold and urges you to oppose efforts to increase 
     it.
           Sincerely,
                                                 De Ann Friedholm,
     Director of Health Care Reform.
                                  ____

         American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial 
           Organizations,
                                  Washington, DC, January 6, 2015.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the AFL-CIO, I urge you 
     to vote against the misnamed Save American Workers Act. This 
     bill will result in lost work hours for 6.5 million workers, 
     and it will cause many to lose their employment-based 
     insurance coverage, resulting in higher costs for government-
     subsidized health coverage.
       When the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Joint 
     Committee on Taxation (JCT) scored this legislation in July 
     2014, they found it would increase budget deficits by $45.7 
     billion due to a decrease in employer penalty collections and 
     an increase in government-funded health coverage. CBO and JCT 
     found that reductions in employment-based coverage would 
     increase spending for marketplace premium subsidies by $12.7 
     billion and for Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance 
     Program coverage by $6.9 billion.
       The Affordable Care Act (ACA) extends coverage to the 
     uninsured by allocating responsibility for the costs among 
     individuals, employers, and government. Under this shared 
     responsibility framework, employers with 50 or more full-time 
     equivalent employees must pay their fair share by offering 
     health care coverage to employees who work 30 or more hours a 
     week or paying a penalty if these workers access exchange 
     subsidies instead. To ensure the success of the ACA, an 
     employer responsibility requirement is needed to preserve 
     current levels of employer-based coverage. However, the 30-
     hour ``cliff' created by the law has motivated some employers 
     to reduce workers' hours to avoid providing coverage. This 
     has been a particular problem for workers employed at 
     retailers, restaurants, public schools, and institutions of 
     higher learning.
       Proponents of the Save American Workers Act claim they want 
     to help part-time workers by moving the threshold for 
     employer penalties from 30 to 40 hours. But raising the 
     threshold will only move the cliff and actually increase 
     employers' incentive to reduce workers' hours. According to 
     experts at the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and 
     Education, moving the threshold to 40 hours will result in 
     lost work hours for 6.5 million workers. That is nearly three 
     times the number that are vulnerable to employers cutting 
     their hours under the current threshold (2.3 million). The 
     researchers also found that the policy would essentially 
     eliminate the employer responsibility requirement, since 
     employers' costs in moving workers from 40 to 39 hours per 
     week are negligible compared to the costs of offering 
     coverage or paying the employer responsibility penalty.
       Congress should strengthen the employer shared 
     responsibility requirement and eliminate the hours cliff, not 
     simply move it. The employer responsibility requirement 
     should be strengthened by lowering the threshold, requiring 
     employers to provide coverage for workers who work 20 hours a 
     week or more or risk a penalty, and by applying a pro rata 
     penalty if workers with fewer than 20 hours are not offered 
     coverage. This is the only way to protect groups of workers 
     that will lose wages under the existing incentive to reduce 
     hours.
                                  ____

                                     American Federation of State,


                               County and Municipal Employees,

                                  Washington, DC, January 7, 2015.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.6 million members 
     of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal 
     Employees (AFSCME), I am writing to express our strong 
     opposition to the Save American Workers Act (H.R. 30), 
     scheduled for a vote in the House on Thursday. Rather than 
     building upon the employer-based system, the bill would 
     undermine it. Despite claims that the bill would restore the 
     40-hour work week, it would put millions of workers at risk 
     of a reduction in hours below the 40-hour threshold.
       Under the Affordable Can Act, large and mid-size employers 
     are required to provide coverage to employees who work 30 or 
     more hours per week. Employers who do not provide coverage 
     must pay a penalty when a full-time worker obtains a tax 
     credit through a health insurance exchange. H.R. 30 would 
     raise the threshold, from 30 to 40 hours, at which point 
     employers are required to either offer coverage or pay a 
     penalty. According to an analysis by researchers at the UC 
     Berkley Center for Labor Research and Education, moving the 
     threshold from 30 to 40 hours would result in lost work hours 
     for 6.5 million workers, nearly three times the number 
     vulnerable to losing their hours under the current 30-hour 
     threshold (2.3 million).
       In addition to causing a loss of work, H.R. 30 would cause 
     a loss of employer-sponsored health coverage and increase the 
     federal deficit. In a report issued today, the Congressional 
     Budget Office estimates that one million people would lose 
     employer-sponsored health coverage under this bill. While 
     some would remain uninsured, the CBO estimates that at least 
     500,000 would obtain coverage through Medicaid, the 
     Children's Health Insurance Program or health insurance 
     exchanges. Coupled with the loss of penalty revenue, this 
     increased spending would increase the federal deficit by 
     $53.2 billion over 10 years.
       H.R. 30 would effectively eliminate the employer 
     responsibility requirements of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), 
     shifting costs onto workers and to taxpayers. Rather than 
     weakening the employer-based health care system, AFSCME 
     encourages Congress to strengthen it by asking employers to 
     do more of their share, not less.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Scott Frey,
     Director of Federal Government Affairs.
                                  ____

                                                 Service Employees


                                          International Union,

                                  Washington, DC, January 7, 2015.
       Dear Representative: The Service Employees International 
     Union (SEIU) strongly opposes H.R. 30, the supposed Save 
     American Workers Act of 2015. Under current law, large 
     employers must provide health coverage to all full-time 
     employees, defined as those employees who work an average of 
     30 hours or more per week. H.R. 30 would increase the ``hours 
     threshold'' used to determine full-time employment for ACA 
     purposes from 30 to 40 hours--and, in so doing, hurt working 
     families by putting their benefits and wages at risk.
       This bill would jeopardize more workers' full-time status, 
     allow businesses to shift the costs of healthcare to 
     taxpayers and the government, and reduce the availability of 
     employer-sponsored coverage overall. Contrary to proponents' 
     claims, raising the ACA's threshold for full-time work from 
     30 hours a week to 40 would make a shift towards part-time 
     employment much more likely--not less so. An independent 
     analysis conducted by the University of California Berkeley 
     Center for Labor Research and Education found that increasing 
     the threshold from 30 to 40 hours would result in nearly 
     three times as many workers, about 6.5 million in total, 
     being vulnerable to hour reductions than under current law.
       This ill-conceived bill not only worsens the situation it 
     purports to solve, but will increase costs to the government. 
     As a result of about 1 million workers losing employer-
     sponsored coverage, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) 
     estimates that changing the hours threshold would increase 
     the deficit by $53.2 billion. This bill will allow more 
     businesses to evade their responsibility to provide health 
     insurance, forcing taxpayers and the government to make up 
     the difference.
       Finally, while forcing workers from full-time to part-time 
     work is a serious issue, the Affordable Care Act is not the 
     cause. Recent research has shown that transitioning workers 
     to part-time follows historical trends that preceded the ACA 
     and that the transition from part-time back to full-time is 
     slow due to the ongoing recovery from the great recession.
       We can work together to improve the law and find policies 
     that help protect working people while ensuring everyone has 
     access to quality, affordable healthcare. However, rather 
     than improving the law, H.R. 30, only serves to undermine the 
     ACA by making a complicated situation worse. For these 
     reasons, SEIU urges you to vote no on H.R. 30, and will 
     include this vote on our Legislative Scorecard, located at 
     www.seiu.org. If you have any questions, contact Ilene Stein, 
     Assistant Legislative Director.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Mary Kay Henry,
     International President.
                                  ____

                                         International Brotherhood


                                                 of Teamsters,

                                  Washington, DC, January 7, 2015.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: The International Brotherhood of 
     Teamsters opposes H.R. 30, the so-called ``Save American 
     Workers Act.'' We urge you to vote against H.R. 30 when it 
     comes to the House floor this week. This legislation will 
     cause millions of workers to lose work hours and it will 
     cause many employees to lose their employment-based health 
     insurance coverage.
       The Affordable Care Act requires employers (with 50 or more 
     full-time equivalents) to either offer healthcare coverage to 
     employees who work more than 30 hours a week or to pay a 
     penalty if those workers get healthcare coverage via exchange 
     subsidies. H.R. 30 would raise that threshold (or ``cliff') 
     from 30 hours to 40 hours. However, the current 30 hour 
     threshold created by the law has motivated some employers to 
     reduce workers' hours to avoid providing coverage.
       Proponents of the bill claim they want to help part-time 
     workers by moving the threshold for employer penalties. 
     However, raising the threshold will increase employers' 
     incentive to reduce workers hours. It will result in nearly 
     tripling (from 2.3 million to 6.5 million) the number of 
     workers vulnerable to having their hours cut, according to 
     experts at UC Berkley. Researchers have also found that the 
     cost to employers in moving workers from 40 hours (the 
     proposed threshold under H.R. 30) to 39 hours per week are 
     negligible compared to the costs of offering coverage or 
     paying the employer responsibility penalty. Thus, this policy 
     would essentially eliminate the employer responsibility 
     requirement.
       Proponents of this legislation claim that they want to help 
     part-time workers. However, the bill would exacerbate the 
     problem it purports to solve. The ``Save American

[[Page H136]]

     Workers Act'' will actually hurt millions of workers and the 
     U.S. economy. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters 
     urges you to vote no on H.R. 30.
           Sincerely,
                                                   James P. Hoffa,
                                                General President.

  Mr. LEVIN. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time I have 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 3\1/4\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young) for the closing on his 
legislation.
  Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank you so much for this opportunity to try to 
advance legislation to improve the Nation's health care law in a 
bipartisan fashion.
  You know, I don't understand the visceral resistance to trying to 
lighten the load on our Nation's hourly workers. The wage earners, the 
people who need it most--our cafeteria workers, our substitute 
teachers, our people at retail centers all across the country--they are 
the ones during this still-recovering, seemingly dormant recovery for 
so many of my constituents, they are the ones who are demanding these 
sorts of changes.
  Much has been made of the evidence here. There is plenty of evidence 
in every congressional district across the country that people are 
hurting on account of this 30 hours is full time provision in the 
Affordable Care Act. And this all comes before the employer mandate had 
kicked in, and it has followed in the recent days since it officially 
kicked in on January 1.
  This was just implemented. It will be amazing to see the evidence 
come in, should we not change the definition of full-time employment up 
to 40 hours, once people figure out that they are going to be paying a 
big old tax for not buying every single employee above that 30-hour 
threshold government-sanctioned health insurance.
  More evidence: there are over 300 groups that have associated 
themselves with this legislation and ask that we pass it. Among those 
groups is the More Time for Full Time coalition, which includes such 
groups as the Indiana Chamber of Commerce, Indiana Grocery and 
Convenience Store Association, Indiana Restaurant & Lodging 
Association, the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the Michigan Grocers 
Association, the Michigan Lodging and Tourism Association, the Michigan 
Restaurant Association.
  For more examples, I will enter this document into the Record.

                                      More Time for Full Time,

                                                  January 6, 2015.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Senate Majority Leader,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Leader McConnell: The More Time for Full-Time 
     Coalition (www.moretimefor
     fulltime.org ) greatly appreciates your steadfast support for 
     restoring the traditional definition of full-time employee to 
     40 hours per week and urges you to move Senate consideration 
     of legislation to do so as early as possible in the 114th 
     Congress.
       Many employees are being hurt by lost wages and hours 
     because the 30-hour-per-week definition in the Affordable 
     Care Act is forcing employers to restructure their workforce 
     by reducing their employees' hours to alleviate the burden of 
     compliance. Harmonizing the definition of full-time employee 
     in the ACA with the traditional 40-hour definition would 
     benefit both employees through more hours and income, and 
     employers now able to focus on growing their business and 
     creating jobs rather than restructuring their workforce.
       In this is not addressed soon, our country will experience 
     significant workforce disruptions and individuals as well as 
     companies will lose valued workforce flexibility. We urge you 
     to work in a bipartisan way to restore the traditional 
     definition of full-time employment by changing the Affordable 
     Care Act's 30-hour-per-week definition.
       Many Americans are drawn to part-time jobs with flexible 
     hours to suit their personal needs. Further, employers with 
     variable-hour workforces and flexible scheduling have been 
     appealing and critical for students, single parents, and 
     other individuals struggling to balance various obligations 
     and commitments. This critical flexibility will be lost if 
     employers are forced to abandon current practices in order to 
     avoid significant financial penalties.
       Aligning the law's definition of full-time employee status 
     with current levels would help avoid any unnecessary 
     disruptions to employees' wages and hours, and would provide 
     significant relief.
       Thank you for considering our concerns and for your 
     leadership in addressing a fundamental challenge employees 
     and businesses face in implementing this law.
           Sincerely,
       National Associations: American Hotel & Lodging 
     Association, American Rental Association, Asian American 
     Hotel Owners Association, Associated Builders and 
     Contractors, College & University Professional Association 
     for Human Resources, International Franchise Association, 
     National Association of Convenience Stores, National 
     Association of Manufacturers, National Association of Theatre 
     Owners, National Association of Truck Stop Operators, 
     National Club Association, National Council of Chain 
     Restaurants, National Grocers Association, National 
     Restaurant Association, National Retail Federation, Society 
     for Human Resource Management, U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
       State and Local Associations: Adirondack Regional Chamber 
     Commerce (NY), Alabama Grocers Association, Alabama 
     Restaurant & Hospitality Alliance, Alaska Chamber (AK), 
     Alaska Hotel & Lodging Association, Alaska Restaurant & 
     Hospitality Alliance, Albany-Colonie Regional Chamber (NY), 
     Alexander City Chamber of Commerce (AL), Ames Chamber of 
     Commerce (IA), Angel Fire Chamber of Commerce (NM), ARA of 
     Alabama, ARA of Arizona, ARA of Arkansas, ARA of California, 
     ARA of Colorado, ARA of Connecticut, ARA of Florida, ARA of 
     Georgia, ARA of Idaho, ARA of Illinois, ARA of Indiana, ARA 
     of Iowa, ARA of Kentucky, ARA of Louisiana, ARA of Maine, ARA 
     of Maryland, ARA of Massachusetts, ARA of Michigan, ARA of 
     Montana, ARA of Nebraska, ARA of New Jersey, ARA of New 
     York, ARA of North Carolina, ARA of Ohio, ARA of Oklahoma, 
     ARA of Oregon, ARA of Pennsylvania, ARA of Tennessee, ARA 
     of Vermont, ARA of Virginia;
       ARA of Washington, ARA of Wisconsin, Arizona Food Marketing 
     Alliance, Arizona Lodging & Tourism Association, Arkansas 
     Grocers and Retail Merchants Association, Arkansas 
     Hospitality Association, Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce 
     (AK), Ashland Area Chamber of Commerce (OH), Associated 
     Industries of Massachusetts, Inc. (MA), Baltimore Washington 
     Corridor Chamber of Commerce (MD), Bangor Region Chamber of 
     Commerce (ME), Barrow County Chamber of Commerce (GA), Beaver 
     Dam Chamber of Commerce (WI), Boca Raton Chamber of Commerce 
     (FL), Brownsville Chamber of Commerce (TX), California 
     Grocers Association, California Hotel & Lodging Association, 
     California Restaurant Association, Campbell County Chamber of 
     Commerce (WY), Cape May County Chamber of Commerce (NJ);
       Carolinas Food Industry Council, Catawba County Chamber of 
     Commerce (NC), Central Chamber of Commerce (LA), Central 
     Delaware Chamber of Commerce (DE), Chester County Chamber of 
     Business and Industry (PA), Clearwater Regional Chamber of 
     Commerce (FL), Cobb Chamber of Commerce (GA), Colorado Hotel 
     & Lodging Association, Colorado Restaurant Association, 
     Committee of 100 Louisiana (LA), Connecticut Food 
     Association, Connecticut Lodging Association, Corning Area 
     Chamber of Commerce (NY), Council Bluffs Area Chamber of 
     Commerce (IA), Dakota County Regional Chamber of Commerce 
     (MN), Delaware Restaurant Association, Delaware State Chamber 
     of Commerce (DE), Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce (CO), Des 
     Plaines Chamber of Commerce & Industry (IL), Dublin-Laurens 
     County Chamber of Commerce (GA);
       Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce (VA), Florida Chamber of 
     Commerce (FL), Florida Restaurant & Lodging Association, Fox 
     Cities Chamber of Commerce (WI), Fresno Chamber of Commerce 
     (CA), Fullerton Chamber of Commerce (CA), Galesburg Area 
     Chamber of Commerce (IL), Garrett County Chamber of Commerce 
     (MD), Georgia Food Industry Association, Georgia Hotel & 
     Lodging Association, Georgia Restaurant Association, Glendale 
     Chamber of Commerce (AZ), Goshen Chamber of Commerce (IN), 
     Grand Junction Area Chamber of Commerce (CO), Grand Rapids 
     Area Chamber of Commerce (MI), Grapevine Chamber of Commerce 
     (TX), Greater Burlington Partnership (IA), Greater Durham 
     Chamber of Commerce (NC), Greater Flagstaff Chamber of 
     Commerce (AZ), Greater Green Bay Chamber (WI);
       Greater Louisville, Inc. (KY), Greater North Dakota Chamber 
     of Commerce (ND), Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce (AZ), 
     Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce (RI), Greater 
     Shreveport Chamber of Commerce (LA), Greater Springfield 
     Chamber of Commerce (VA), Greater Topeka Chamber of Commerce 
     (KS), Greece Chamber of Commerce (NY), Hardy County Chamber 
     of Commerce (WV), Harford County Chamber (MD), Harlan County 
     Chamber of Commerce (KY), Harrisburg Regional Chamber & CREDC 
     (PA), Hawaii Lodging & Tourism Association, Hotel Association 
     of New York City, Inc., Hotel Association of Washington DC, 
     Hueneme Chamber of Commerce (CA), Idaho Lodging & Restaurant 
     Association, Idaho Retailers Association, Illinois Chamber of 
     Commerce (IL), Illinois Food Retailers Association;
       Illinois Hotel & Lodging Association, Illinois Restaurant 
     Association, Indiana Chamber of Commerce (IN), Indiana 
     Grocery and Convenience Store Association, Indiana Restaurant 
     & Lodging Association, Iowa Chamber Alliance (IA), Iowa 
     Chamber Alliance

[[Page H137]]

     (IA), Iowa Grocery Industry Association, Iowa Restaurant 
     Association, Irving Hispanic Chamber of Commerce (TX), 
     Jacksonville-Onslow Chamber of Commerce (NC), Jefferson 
     Chamber of Commerce (LA), Kansas Food Dealers Association, 
     Kansas Restaurant & Hospitality Association, Kentucky 
     Association of Convenience Stores, Kentucky Chamber of 
     Commerce (KY), Kentucky Grocers Association, Kentucky 
     Restaurant Association, Lemoore Chamber of Commerce (CA), 
     Licking County Chamber of Commerce (OH);
       Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce (CA), Loudoun County 
     Chamber of Commerce (VA), Louisiana Association of Business 
     and Industry (LA), Louisiana Hotel & Lodging Association, 
     Louisiana Restaurant Association, Louisiana Retailers 
     Association, Lubbock Chamber of Commerce (TX), Maine 
     Innkeepers Association, Maine Restaurant Association, Maine 
     State Chamber of Commerce (ME), Marshall Area Chamber of 
     Commerce (MN), Maryland Chamber of Commerce (MD), Maryland 
     Hotel & Lodging Association, Maryland Retailers Association, 
     Massachusetts Food Association, Massachusetts Lodging 
     Association, Michigan Chamber of Commerce (MI), Michigan 
     Grocers Association, Michigan Lodging and Tourism 
     Association, Michigan Restaurant Association;
       Mid-America Grocers Association, Mid-Atlantic Hispanic 
     Chamber of Commerce (MD), Minnesota Grocers Association, 
     Minnesota Lodging Association, Minnesota Rental Association, 
     Minnesota Restaurant Association, Miramar Pembroke Pines 
     Regional Chamber of Commerce (FL), Mississippi Hospitality 
     and Restaurant Association, Missouri Grocers Association, 
     Missouri Restaurant Association, Mobile (AL) Area Chamber 
     of Commerce, Monroe Chamber of Commerce (LA), Montana 
     Chamber of Commerce (MT), Montana Lodging & Hospitality 
     Association, Montana Manufacturing Council (MT), 
     Murphysboro Chamber of Commerce (IL), Myrtle Beach Area 
     Chamber of Commerce (SC), Nebraska Chamber of Commerce & 
     Industry (NE), Nebraska Grocery Industry Association, 
     Nebraska Hotel & Motel Association;
       Nebraska Restaurant Association, Nevada Hotel & Lodging 
     Association, New Hampshire Equipment Rental Association, New 
     Hampshire Lodging & Restaurant Association, New Hampshire 
     Restaurant & Lodging Association, New Jersey Food Council, 
     New Jersey State Chamber of Commerce (NJ), New Mexico 
     Restaurant Association, New York Hospitality & Tourism 
     Association, New York State Food Merchants Association, New 
     York State Restaurant Association, Newberry County Chamber of 
     Commerce (SC), Nome Chamber of Commerce (AK), North Carolina 
     Chamber (NC), North Carolina Restaurant & Lodging 
     Association, North Carolina Retail Merchants Association, 
     North Country Chamber of Commerce (NY), North Dakota Grocers 
     Association, North Myrtle Beach Chamber of Commerce (SC), 
     North Shore Chamber of Commerce (MA);
       Northern Kentucky Chamber of Commerce (KY), Ohio Chamber of 
     Commerce (OH), Ohio Grocers Association, Ohio Hotel & Lodging 
     Association, Ohio Restaurant Association, Oklahoma Grocers 
     Association, Oklahoma Hotel & Lodging Association, Oklahoma 
     Restaurant Association, Orange County Business Council (CA), 
     Oregon Restaurant & Lodging Association, Oshkosh Chamber of 
     Commerce (WI), Overland Park Chamber of Commerce (KS), Oxnard 
     Chamber of Commerce (CA), Ozark Empire Grocers Association, 
     Palm Desert Area Chamber of Commerce (CA), PennSuburban 
     Chamber of Greater Montgomery County (PA), Pennsylvania 
     Chamber of Business and Industry (PA), Pennsylvania Food 
     Merchants Association, Pennsylvania Restaurant & Lodging 
     Association, Portland Chamber of Commerce (TX);
       Rathdrum Chamber of Commerce (ID), Rensselaer County 
     Regional Chamber of Commerce (NY), Retail Grocers of Greater 
     Kansas City, Rhode Island Hospitality Association, Rochester 
     Business Alliance (NY), Rocky Mountain Food Industry 
     Association (CO/WY), Rome Area Chamber of Commerce (NY), 
     Roseburg Area Chamber of Commerce (OR), Rowan County 
     Chamber of Commerce (NC), Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce 
     (UT), Santa Clara Chamber of Commerce & Convention--
     Visitor's Bureau (CA), Santa Clarita Valley Chamber of 
     Commerce (CA), Schuylkill Chamber of Commerce (PA), Simi 
     Valley Chamber of Commerce (CA), South Baldwin Chamber of 
     Commerce (AL), South Carolina Restaurant & Lodging 
     Association, South Carolina Retail Association, South 
     Dakota Retailers Association Restaurant Division, South 
     Padre Island Chamber of Commerce (TX), Springfield Area 
     Chamber of Commerce (MO);
       State Chamber of Oklahoma (OK), Tempe Chamber of Commerce 
     (AZ), Tennessee Grocers & Convenience Store Association, 
     Tennessee Hospitality Association, Texas Association of 
     Business (TX), Texas Food & Fuel Association, Texas Hotel & 
     Lodging Association, Texas Rental Association, Texas 
     Restaurant Association, Texas Retailers Association, The 
     Business Council of New York State, Inc. (NY), The Chamber of 
     Reno, Sparks, and Northern Nevada (NV), The Greater Cedar 
     Valley Alliance & Chamber (IA), The Greater Hartsville 
     Chamber of Commerce (SC), Thibodaux Chamber of Commerce (LA), 
     Tucson Metro Chamber (AZ), Upper Tampa Bay Chamber of 
     Commerce (FL), Utah Food Industry Association, Utah Hotel & 
     Lodging Association, Utah Retail Merchants Association;
       Valley Industry & Commerce Association (CA), Vermont 
     Chamber of Commerce, Vermont Retail and Grocers Association, 
     Virginia Chamber of Commerce (VA), Virginia Hospitality & 
     Travel Association, Virginia Hospitality & Travel 
     Association, Virginia Retail Merchants Association, 
     Washington Food Industry Association, Washington Lodging 
     Association, West Chambers County Chamber of Commerce (TX), 
     West Virginia Chamber of Commerce (WV), West Virginia 
     Hospitality & Travel Association, West Virginia Oil Marketers 
     and Grocers Association, Western DuPage Chamber of Commerce 
     (IL), Wichita Metro Chamber of Commerce (KS), Wilsonville 
     Area Chamber of Commerce (OR), Wisconsin Grocers Association, 
     Wisconsin Hotel & Lodging Association, Wisconsin 
     Manufacturers and Commerce (WI), Wisconsin Restaurant 
     Association, Wyoming Lodging & Restaurant Association, 
     Wyoming Restaurant & Lodging Association, Yuba-Sutter Chamber 
     of Commerce (CA).

  Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Why wait? We know we are headed off a cliff 
here. This is a fiscally irresponsible provision within the Affordable 
Care Act. Who would imagine that we would try to insure 500,000 
additional new workers at the expense of up to $105 billion in cash 
wages? It is unfair. We ought not try to finance health insurance for 
some Americans at the cost of hours and wages for other Americans.
  And finally, the Save American Workers Act will remedy these defects 
in the current law, resulting in zero workers who work 40 or more hours 
being put at risk of a possible massive cut in their hours and wages 
down to 29 hours. And it will enable those who work 30 to 35 hours to 
no longer be at risk of cuts in their much-needed hours and wages.

                              {time}  1530

  For those reasons and so many others, I just encourage my colleagues 
to have an open mind here and work with us for the good of the country 
to improve our Nation's health care laws.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. CLARKE of New York. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to oppose H.R. 30, 
the highly irresponsible Save American Workers Act. This legislation 
weakens employees' access to health insurance, threatens employer based 
insurance coverage, and increases the budget deficit by 45.7 billion 
dollars due in part to the resulting increase in the number of 
uninsured.
  I have always believed that access to quality healthcare is a right, 
not a privilege! The Affordable Care Act's current 30-hours per week 
threshold for classification as a full-time employee was designed to 
discourage employers from circumventing penalties that support the 
successful implementation of the law. Raising the threshold to 40 hours 
per week would limit access to employer-provided insurance coverage, 
and thereby impede a person's right to access healthcare.
  Some businesses argue that the Affordable Care Act's classification 
of a full-time employee adversely impacts a business' hiring and its 
ability to offer other employee benefits. However, the facts just don't 
bear this out.
  According to the San Francisco Federal Reserve, when the Affordable 
Care Act's provisions are fully implemented, the overall increase in 
the incidence of part-time work is likely to be ``small, on the order 
of a 1 to 2 percentage point increase or less.'' Other organizations' 
analyses have also found little evidence that health reform has 
increased part-time work. In fact, since President Obama took office, 
the overall full-time employment rate has consistently increased, so 
much so that the current U.S. unemployment rate is 5.8 percent.
  The Republican majority is offering the American people a solution in 
search of a problem. This bill does not save American jobs, nor does it 
help the American worker. Rather, this bill relegates American workers 
to the second class status of the ``uninsured'' and in doing so denies 
them, what I believe, is their right to affordable, quality healthcare, 
which is something that all Americans deserve.
  Mr. SCHOCK. Mr. Speaker, nearly 160 million Americans receive health 
insurance coverage from their employers. Before Obamacare, employers 
were free to tailor their benefit plans to meet the needs of their 
workers. Once Obamacare was enacted, however, employers with more than 
50 full-time employees were required to offer government-mandated plans 
to their employees or face steep tax penalties. In many cases, this 
penalty could range from $2,000 to $3,000 per employee.
   Obamacare mandated that a ``full-time employee'' is someone who is 
employed an average of 30 hours per week. As the administration has 
written new regulations to implement Obamacare's mandates, the costly 
administrative complexities have forced many employers

[[Page H138]]

to shift more workers to part-time status. According to a 2013 study by 
the University of California, Berkeley, as many as 2.3 million 
workers--or roughly 2 percent of the American workforce--are 
``vulnerable'' to lost employment and reduced wages due to Obamacare's 
mandate. In Illinois, an employee earning the state's minimum wage of 
$8.25 an hour stands to lose up to $330 a month if the definition of 
full-time employment remains at 30 hours.
   Additionally, Obamacare's 30-hour rule has caused great harm to 
school districts, colleges and universities. As many as 225,000 workers 
in the education sector are at risk of seeing their hours cut, hitting 
bus drivers, teachers' aides and cafeteria workers the most. Meanwhile, 
the rule creates a new burden for institutions of higher learning that 
seek to hire adjunct faculty to meet the demands of their students' 
course requirements. Not only will these additional burdens place 
limits on the services that institutions of higher learning offer to 
their students, but in many cases will cause the schools to 
dramatically raise tuition.
  Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 30, the so-
called Save American Workers Act. I continue to have high hopes for 
bipartisanship and working across the aisle, but am very disappointed 
that the Republican majority brought up another partisan bill to 
undermine the Affordable Care Act, just when this landmark law is 
finally delivering for Americans. In fact, we just saw real evidence of 
the success of the law--the uninsured rate dropped to 12.9 percent in 
the fourth quarter of 2014, down from 17.1 percent in 2013.
  The Affordable Care Act is not perfect, but H.R. 30 is not the way to 
fix it. While it might seem like common sense idea to raise the 
threshold for ACA employer coverage to 40 hours a week from 30 hours a 
week, this misguided legislation would give employers a greater 
incentive to cut workers hours. Experts at UC Berkeley estimate that 
this policy would result in 6.5 million workers being vulnerable to 
cuts in their work hours. Furthermore, this legislation would increase 
the deficit by $45.7 billion. We need to build off the successes of the 
Affordable Care Act, not roll them back.
  I hope the 114th Congress can come back soon to consider real reforms 
to our health care system that increases access to care, reduces costs, 
and decreases the deficit. H.R. 30 does none of those things, so I urge 
my colleagues to join me in opposing it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 19, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. BECERRA. I am opposed.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Becerra moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 30, to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:

       At the end of the bill add the following:

     SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS.

       (a) In General.--The amendments made by section 2 shall not 
     take effect if they could be expected to result in any of the 
     following:
       (1) Prohibition on loss of work hours or wages.--A 
     reduction in hours worked, and subsequent loss of wages, in 
     order to skirt requirements to help pay for employee health 
     care costs.
       (2) Ensuring fiscal responsibility and a lower deficit.--
     Any increase in the Federal deficit.
       (b) Protecting Health Insurance for Veterans and Wounded 
     Warriors.--The amendments made by section 2 shall not apply 
     to veterans or their families.
       (c) Being a Woman Must Not Be a Pre-existing Condition.--
     Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize an 
     employer to--
       (1) eliminate, weaken, or reduce health coverage benefits 
     for current employees;
       (2) increase premiums or out-of-pocket costs;
       (3) deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions; or
       (4) discriminate against women in health insurance 
     coverage, including by--
       (A) charging women more for their health care than men;
       (B) limiting coverage for pregnancy and post-natal care; or
       (C) restricting coverage of preventive health services, 
     such as mammograms and contraception.

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I reserve a 
point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk continued to read.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, 
H.R. 30. This amendment will not kill the bill or send it back to 
committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final 
passage, as amended.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, H.R. 30 is nothing more than a sucker 
punch to the middle class. People who live off of their inheritance 
aren't hurt by H.R. 30. People who live off of their investments aren't 
hurt by H.R. 30. Even people who are destitute and need our help to 
make it through the day aren't hurt by H.R. 30. The only people who are 
hurt are workers who earn a paycheck. They are the losers under H.R. 
30.
  Now, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if you have been watching or 
listening to this debate to say to yourself, I don't understand a thing 
that went on. One said orange, one said apple. One said tomato, one 
said tomato. One said it helps, one said it hurts.
  That is what the debates are all about: Americans get to make 
decisions. We start this new Congress having made decisions as American 
voters, and you would think that we would then come to Congress as 
representatives of the people to try to now move forward together. If 
we can't agree it is an orange or an apple, let's figure out what we 
can agree with.
  Whom do we typically turn to to tell us what we should at least agree 
with if we still think it is an apple or an orange? We typically turn 
to the nonpartisan, neutral body that guides this Congress that is 
named the Congressional Budget Office. The Congressional Budget Office 
doesn't represent Democrats and it doesn't represent Republicans. It 
represents the American people and is here to guide Congress, this 
House, to make sure we are making decisions based on the facts.
  What are the facts according to the Congressional Budget Office--not 
Republicans, not Democrats? According to the Congressional Budget 
Office, this bill would increase the taxpayers' burden by $53 billion 
over the next decade because this bill is unpaid for. This bill would 
result in 1 million Americans losing their employer-sponsored coverage. 
That is not Democrats saying that or Republicans. That is the 
Congressional Budget Office.
  This bill would increase the number of people who obtain their 
coverage by government-sponsored health care because they would have 
lost their employer-sponsored health care. And that is why the American 
taxpayer would have to foot the bill of close to $53 billion.
  This bill would also, according to the Congressional Budget Office, 
increase the number of Americans who end up with no health insurance up 
to 500,000. That is not my number; that is CBO's. I think it is higher, 
but CBO says 500,000. I will be guided by CBO.
  CBO tells us as well that there are some five to six times as many 
American workers who are at the 40-hour-a-week threshold than there are 
Americans who work at about 30 hours. So when this bill says that now 
the threshold will be 40 hours, any employer who decides to cut 1 
hour--the time of this debate, 1 hour--from the paycheck of an American 
worker has escaped responsibility to provide health insurance for all 
those workers under their employ--1 hour. Six times more American 
workers are working 40 hours a week than 30 hours a week. That is why 
H.R. 30 costs the American taxpayer money. That is why it is bad for 
Americans and their paychecks.
  Now, Americans really don't care much about these debates. At the end 
of the day, they want to know we are doing something and getting 
something done. They want to know we are working together to solve some 
problems. They want us to boost job growth. They want us to boost an 
economy that works for all Americans, not just the privileged few. We 
have some pretty good news for them over the last few years. Nearly 11 
million new jobs, 57 consecutive months of job growth, the longest 
streak in our country's history. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act 
which is being debated today, 10 million more Americans today have 
health insurance, and that means health security that they didn't have 
before.

[[Page H139]]

  The deficit has been cut by two-thirds, gas prices cut by half--good 
news. So you are probably not surprised to learn a couple of other 
things. During that same time, the economy has grown 12 percent, 
corporate profits have grown 46 percent, and the stock market 92 
percent. What is the missing element in all of that growth? Paychecks. 
The paychecks of the average American worker have stagnated over that 
time. Everybody else is doing well at the top, but the guys at the 
middle, they are hurting.
  What does H.R. 30 do? It sucker punches that same American worker who 
has to earn a paycheck--not the guy who has an inheritance, not the guy 
who has investments to live off of--the guy who lives off of a 
paycheck.
  My motion to recommit says stop that. We have our final chance to do 
that. Vote for the motion to recommit. Vote against H.R. 30, and let's 
work on behalf of Americans and their paychecks.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of the 
point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The reservation is withdrawn.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I don't know what to say. 
Paychecks. Guess what. It is happening across America today. Even 
before the employer mandate kicked in, businesses across America are 
cutting workers' hours down to 29. That doesn't help a paycheck.
  So think about what is going on in America today and look at what has 
already been happening, and this is before this costly employer mandate 
even took place. It is happening in every congressional district. We 
heard about cafeteria workers, firefighters, teachers, community 
colleges, retailers, restaurateurs, all of them being forced to cut the 
hours of their employees down to part-time work. If you want to help a 
person's paycheck, give them the opportunity to have a full-time job. 
That is what this does.
  It is really kind of amazing. I hear a lot of talk about the CBO and 
the Joint Committee on Taxation and the costs and the costs of this 
bill. Here is the bulk of the costs. What we are saying is don't impose 
these costly, punitive mandate taxes on hardworking taxpayers.
  So by removing these mandate taxes, yes, I suppose it costs the 
government some money. It puts that money back into the paychecks and 
back into the pockets of the hardworking taxpayers who give us the 
money in the first place. It says to businesses: Go ahead and hire, add 
hours, and increase wages. That is the so-called cost of this 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, we want more people working. We want the people who are 
in 30- to 40-hour jobs, hourly wages, high school educations, just 
getting started in life, we want them to keep climbing that ladder of 
life. This law puts a huge roadblock in front of people working. What 
this motion to recommit does is it is just designed to kill the bill.
  With respect to the veterans issue, we solved that yesterday with our 
Hire More Heroes Act, which we passed in a big, bipartisan vote. So 
make no mistake. This recommit is nothing more than a thinly veiled 
attempt to simply kill this bill.
  Look, if you want to impose this mandate, if you want to knock people 
into part-time work, and if you love ObamaCare, then vote against the 
bill. But if you want more jobs, if you want more hours, if you want 
more people working, if you want more people having better 
opportunities, and if you want to give some relief on these mandate 
taxes, then vote for this bill.
  This bill is the right way to go. And I have just got to tell you 
that, at the end of the day, we haven't even seen the full force of 
this punitive move because the employer mandate is just beginning to 
kick in. All of these things have happened in anticipation of this new 
mandate. We haven't even seen the worst of it yet. That is why we 
should pass this now and prevent this from happening and getting worse 
before this mandate kicks in.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 179, 
nays 244, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 13]

                               YEAS--179

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle (PA)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu (CA)
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle (PA)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu (CA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--244

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Delaney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts

[[Page H140]]


     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Duckworth
     Gallego
     Gosar
     Gutierrez
     O'Rourke
     Whitfield

                              {time}  1607

  Messrs. NEUGEBAUER, FRELINGHUYSEN, McHENRY, REED, WALKER, STUTZMAN, 
Ms. STEFANIK, Messrs. PALAZZO and EMMER changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay.''
  Messrs. BEYER, ISRAEL, CARNEY, GRIJALVA, ASHFORD, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, 
and Mr. SERRANO changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 252, 
noes 172, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 14]

                               AYES--252

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bera
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Delaney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NOES--172

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle (PA)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu (CA)
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle (PA)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Garamendi
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu (CA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Duckworth
     Gallego
     Gosar
     O'Rourke
     Whitfield

                              {time}  1616

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________