>> i would be happy too because i think that we are definitely a like mind and the registry needs to be open and i would point out one thing that actually took digging to determine because the issue of it was a close back in 1995 or 1996 whatever it was at this time. but the faa actually had already had the appropriations bill passed and it was not covered during that shutdown. because there were appropriations that congress enhanced at that point. that being said, the issue that you're raising is a very legitimate one in terms of the importance today. we have just signed a letter to secretary fox asking that he re-examine the classification of the characterization of the registry as those that should be accepted. because as you look at the curative effect, it might be harder to argue that there was

immediate safety gratifications. but as this builds up, we believe very strongly that not only do you have genuine safety concerns of not being able to transfer, some of the older ones as well, and there is a big economic impact to let the funding that is going to be there, financing that will expire and we have 10,000 a month that we really do need to provide the registrations for. then there are security issues and the congress required that these are not just new, but that everyone reregister things every three years so that we would know who is up there and who has the ownership of these and it's an important issue from homeland security homeland security standpoint. so there are a number of ramifications that argue strongly for opening the registry and trying to deal with what now is a big backlog of aircraft that meets the

registry. again, we would like very much to see this happen and we believe it would be possible to re-examine that in light of the growing problems that are there as the shutdown continues and also the sequester had already cut back the staff there and we had a backlog before this even became a problem. so again, anything that you can see clear to doing on that front, i think the aviation community would very much appreciated. >> hopefully we won't be in this position much longer, but if we are, hopefully we will follow your advice and some of the colleagues here in the clear these people to be accepted because they have important missions that they are performing in so many respects that are important. mr. chairman, thank you. >> thank you, ranking member john thune, and thank you so much. i really did sort of learned a

sub people lesson for being here. i know that you are in leadership and you have to be here in terms of votes. half of the economy of yours being wiped out, it is something that most people do not experience as broad bodies of state. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you very much. this is a very important hearing. it kind of really makes it pretty clear what is going on. so what is happening is that the tea party controls the house of representatives and they don't like the government. and so they want to shut it down and then as people start to complain, they say that we should reassemble the government as people identify that part of the government that helps the

american people. so far they have past eight or nine separate bills to send it over to the senate. and they say, oh, people like this bill. and people want to make sure that they have made a difference and are taking care of that. the people want fema to be funded and piece by piece they keep sending the bills. this reminds me of the story of a little boy in russia who hated a certain food. and his mother, one night she decided that i'm going to show you why you should like this food. so she takes out the dough. and she starts to make the dough. she says it's just like a pancake. the boy said yes, just like a pancake.

and she took out the meat and she chopped up for me. and she said, you like me. she put that in. and then she took it up and put it in the soup and said, you like soup. i like soup. and then she put this in the middle of it. and the boy said, i hate that. i hate it. so what is happening with the tea party republicans is that they keep going and the government, piece by piece, we are showing them what the government does. you like national parks, i like national parks. and piece by piece, we will have the whole government reestablished. after it had been shut down for three months. once it is put together, the republican and tea party members will say that i hate this, i hate the government.

and so what do we say to people about this? where the consumer products safety commission has furloughed 96% of its employees right before christmas. no one is inspecting toys being imported from china that may contain dangerous levels of lead or other life-threatening defects. no one is posting reports to the online consumer product database that i worked to ensure that the news of serious injuries are made available to mothers and fathers as an early warning system. no one is investigating actual deaths caused by consumer products to ensure that additional lives are not lost. just the last couple of weeks, an explosion killed a worker in the dc metro, a bus in tennessee crossed a median and struck a tractor trailer, a plane crash

in arizona killing four people. the national transportation safety board, i am investigating many of these incidents and the national highway transportation traffic administration has furloughed 56% of their employees. more people are killed in highway accidents every day than by tobacco or anything else. 56% of the employees. no one is investigating automotive safety defects or death and a serious injury and we are also losing the consumer that a lot about the furlough, 96% of its staff, just 28 people are left to monitor a 300 trillion-dollar market. how many people are being ripped off? all across our country and all across our nation. are there any fewer bad as right now?

no. what keeps them from doing bad things to good people in a the cops. and as each day goes by, it's going to be like this. you like pancakes, you like soup. you like meat and you like to consume the products safety commission. you like the commodities future trading commission and piece by piece the republicans will have eight bills, 20 bills, 30 bills that they have to pass as the public comes to understand what is in our government. so to a certain extent, that is why the polling is backlog and we see what the government does and they are increasingly understanding that the affordable care act will understand that every poor child in america has health care. so they are saying that they are willing to have the nih get refunded but still keep the

government shutdown was the affordable care act is repealed so the poor children can't be covered for coverage? i do not think that is what it's all about. do you have all been talking about this and it is explained more fully with what it is that we need the government to do. government is the government is playing a role that individual families can't do for themselves and that is why we have a government. it is the stuff that we all decide that we have to do and must do together. that's fine, the tea party republicans in the house have decided that this is not yet important enough. but the american people believe it is important. they haven't decided yet that the national transportation safety board were at the traffic administration is important, but they will. as each day goes by. when they understand how people's lives are permanently

offered because there was no fat. so i thank you so much for everything you have been doing and i would ask mr. chairman, that the shutdown is harming american science and that is who we are. we are the innovation and that is what 3% of the population does for the next generation and we are shutting down all these other science-based animation programs and china and india are looking at us but what are you doing. and that is what we are afraid of. and we don't have to be afraid of that. but we should we respect them. they are coming at us and that is the shutdown in our country

or those on much longer, it calls for every young person saying why should i go into those fields or spend my life doing that when i can do other things that actually rewards the much better. so i have here mr. chairman, a letter from the director and the oceanographic center. she notes that the costs associated with a government shutdown includes the hard documented cost in the science community with funding interruptions i can have a lasting impact on science experiments and long-term observations and research personnel and i would ask the chairman that that letter be concluded in the record in its entirety. >> so ordered. >> i thank you, mr. chairman. may i continue? >> you may.

>> to agree that the federal government shutdown has increased our risk of serious injury or death because responsible for the product defects and environmental pollution. >> just. >> yes, sir. >> i've got four yeses and a note. we have lost a lot of products because the federal government is holding hostage the federal government. in the shutdown has increased market manipulation and the reason future marketplace because of the markets are not work? >> yes, i do stimac is it possible that once the regulars

get back to work committee will never have the time or ability to access or analyze the large backlog of data awaiting them to ensure that they identify any wrongdoing and take steps to prosecute? >> yes, especially the shutdown continues. >> yesterday the founder of market research noted that the markets have been wilder since august of 2011 and trading is running rampant. including next time there is a dispute with a budget dispute? >> yes, this is another example for more robust funding for cftc to be self-funded and the in the way that other financial regulators are. this includes consumer protection and privacy closing its doors for extended periods of time. is anyone able to investigate children playing on their children's ipads and i've had some cyberstalkers that could

occur? >> there is not. >> which is the aggregate the government and we can see what it's doing on a daily basis. i thank you, mr. chairman, this is very important in thank you, senator. i repeat that i am so glad that you are here. >> just. >> senator begich has a question. >> one will be very short. it is a tough question. the ranking member has assets. we are in the crossways of a big issue and i want to assist the senator and the answer to his question. my friend from alaska, the coast guard wasn't in any of those bills. so your permits and your ability would not be solved to be in all fairness, i don't want to put you in the wrong view, i'm happy to answer these questions.

the assumption is that magic happens and people get funded. but if i voted for every one of those, they would still not be out crabbing today in the satellites would not be up in the air and that is a fact. >> again, to be fair, the faa concluded that with the bill. >> oh, i agree with that. >> understood. >> a lot of people don't like noah because they don't like this. but the fact is that half of their budget is satellites. so to be fair, across the board. across the board we are also still struggling with the effects of the sequester. >> absolutely be met and that will be also tremendously difficult for all of these agencies. and i can testify. >> we have to jump pass this and get the sequester done. the last thing while i have you, one of the questions that i had was also the other issue of

aviation. the other piece of the equation which i know that alaska is moving this when the schedule changing occurs. that takes work with the faa and that is not happening now. because as we move out of that summer season, we moved into the scheduling plan is that also your understanding? >> i am not as detailed on that as i would like to be. it certainly one of the difficulties with the air traffic control situation is why you have the controllers in terms of day-to-day operation and you don't have all the work that goes behind them planning the changes that have to take place. so there's a lot of work that does not seem critical at this time. >> very good. >> mr. chairman, to my friend from south dakota, i agree that we should have those at the proration bills. the government is actually open. every time we have done those, the government open.

so i think that that is a great point that these, in a way, you will call them like many appropriation bills. but usually when you do these bills come in the government is open. >> senator cantwell. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ma'am, could you comment on the instrument landing system and how that works from and in variable weather conditions point of view and your knowledge about how the faa works. i am concerned that the coast guard -- you know, on their mission, say that they have somebody that needs to be rescued as actually having to fly out on a different path just because they don't have their instrument landing checkmark certification by the faa. is that something? >> certainly it is very important from the standpoint of navigation and it is something

that they operate at varying levels of technology and that you have to be constantly maintained and certified. but i do not know the specific on the coast guard's need in this regard. i can certainly try to look into it. as a matter of fact, we are not as close to that day in and day out with the interplay requirements of the agency like the coast guard and the faa. this would take me back five years plus. i would be happy to talk about this. >> my understanding is that we have gotten this from an operational perspective, even though i would consider that preservation of life, the fact that these coast guard flights are rescuing people and flying them. if it is on an instrument landing system, then that would be added to your list of the system issues at the faa that aren't being processed. or kept up wet. so that, you know, you have the

coast guard operating the slides and potentially taking people out even though they are supposed to be lifesaving flights because we don't have that certification during shutdown. >> this is very short and your you are right to focus on the fact that the ongoing certification goes down tremendously in terms of the manpower to publish those things. there is going to be a greater backlog. including what will be utilized if this goes on as well. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. any other questions? >> mr. chairman, i would ask just one more. >> okay. >> i do not disagree out all that this should be handled as a normal permissions process. we try to get this across the

floor and did not pass it. but i guess my point is this. i understand what you're all saying that you can't have everything and not a good outcome. and it strikes me and i would throw this out there as a question and isn't having some funding better than having no funding? >> some of the things that have been mentioned, i'm not sure that the budget wasn't just straightforward funding. and i don't think that they pick out individual pieces of it. i think that it was an nih funding but last year's level. and wouldn't it be better to have that, according to the senator from massachusetts, they are our tea party republicans in the house that don't like some russian dish. [laughter]

[laughter] >> that's right, you are dating yourself there. >> and i get that. but they have a clean funding bill in the house and they haven't moved it yet. i don't think this can go on forever. something that can pass, the votes necessary to pass this year, but in the meantime, what we can do is do some of the things that they send us and we have done some things. we did pass this and i think we ought to fund this and i offered a unanimous consent request about it on the floor and it was rejected. so i'm simply saying is that, and i guess that's the question. and i heard crickets when i asked this, but isn't it better to have some funding the no funding. >> okay. >> i will answer that.

>> okay. >> not if you're the person that is not getting funded. >> i agree. >> if the block -- and the one family has a great christmas, it doesn't seem like a very good christmas. >> i'm not talking about the whole enchilada but ms. weintraub, and what the gentleman said that we can't, if we don't get everything, then we can perform the functions that are required of us. so i am saying that is no better to get some level of funding to fund some of the things that we can fund rather than not? >> i would rather have people with some of these essential areas that strike me as having a pretty important priority. and there is nothing that we in the senate can do today other than encourage our colleagues in

the house to do something with what they have over there in front of them. all we can do is what we can do, and i just think that we have an opportunity to take advantage of it, to fund some of these essential products. >> if i could please ask. the problem is with what the captain just that. if we voted for those, the livelihood is collapsed. and we are picking winners and losers what we should be doing is looking at the totality of government. and say let's put it back to work and have these debates with what we need to curb back in the government in the example is a very interesting one. use three win in the five of you don't. as of it has of the priorities of the house has set and we also suggested amending those bills and sending them back over there. but we have to be careful in who

the winners and losers are here right now. product safety is not, the faa is, national safety is not. the coast guard, noaa, is not. so i see the two and a half winners. and that means that the economy and not the government employees, but the private sector people and families that he supported, and they are not waiting around twiddling their thumbs, the crabs will move on. or die off. just like the caught in about two weeks. they are not waiting for magic to happen there. the income never comes back. >> i do not disagree. >> in reclaiming my time, if we put a bill on the floor again, and i would vote for an amendment that you would offer that would fix that particular

situation for the captain that you just mentioned. we are limited to what we can do in the senate and all i am simply saying is that in the bill that we have some back to the house, we have them amended and we have sent them and we have tried to send them again. and that has been the unanimous consent request that we have had on the floor. so until they take that up and do something with it, we pick them up and pass them them by unanimous consent like we did the active military bill, we restored important functions of the government and there are certain things that are very important their priorities in my state and your stayed not to be acknowledged as well. >> so certainly you are right in opportunity. >> i think you're right in amending those bills. >> we did the dod bill. but because the rush of the

crisis is due to us forgetting. so we had to do another rush. so my point is that the crisis standpoint, i have run businesses and been a mayor is the worst type of policy because you miss things just as we did when the bill came to the open house. envelopes, we forgot something. i don't want to do that because who is next? i am with you that we should figure out that this priority is mine. >> we can all amend them, we have appropriation bills and vehicles on the floor right now. >> my amendment would be to open up the government. >> the senator from washington can offer that amendment and it would probably pass and goes back to the house.

>> and until that happens, nothing gets funded. what we can do here in the senate is all we can do. >> i would like to make a statement. >> i was waiting for this. >> i think that the problem with what i think is part of this, which is you have a problem and we will fix it, but the real effect of it and understandably felt the real effect of it is to lessen the pressure on the house to do with the house yesterday. and which the house doesn't want to do. as we we can take care of that in the senate. but by rejecting some of these, the government isn't like it is a whole but agencies that don't talk to each other in a vast underprice which works together.

and that the future will be stable. so you buy off one group or another group and it all sounds good. but what really is doing is undermining the government which we have a hard enough time doing anyway acting as a whole. for the american people. for and by the people that put us here. we have to make the whole government back into order and we have to fund it all. and that does not even get out my vast frustration of sequestration. that has to be eliminated. the doctor is going to have a much better magazine to put out when people just start saying

that, you know, it's like the people who study to go to be geriatricians in medical school. and what always happens is it's a terrific thing to do because they're our country's aging very, but they last about two years. and then they switch to a much more well-paying anesthesiology or something of that sort. because they just, you know, the pay is not like it should be and older people are harder to work with and all of that kind of thing. you have to have a holistic effort where everyone is in or stitched if not in every function, at least in their psychology that we are back as a whole government and that we put down what i really think is a hijacking effort.

by the tea party folks and just pointing out to senator thune who i enormously admire and he knows it. but there is something out now that came out this morning and this one now indicated that something like 35% of all republicans see themselves as tea party members. they identify themselves as tea party. and i don't think he or i leave that. but it is part of what i am talking about. we are into a generation for a decade of dividing each other and cutting each other and separating ourselves from each other. not understanding what the common purposes are here or what it means that i'm really excited to get to work because instead of having to say that the big deal today will be a live quorum.

or some judge that gets voted on. we are not even approaching that. and i fear for the institution of governance as a whole. people have lost so much confidence. first they have lost the confidence in congress and we are the 5% that is lucky. but if they lose this in the future, your people, they have to have confidence in the future. because they have big debts for long-term efforts. then they will make a heck of a difference. every one of our folks have testified this morning. ..

>> people don't hang around. i agree. they don't wait to sort out

the problems. they will move on and get the jobs the matter the field of interest. i don't think any of us can say we get out of bet every morning anxious to read to work. i spent 50 years in public life starting with the peace corps loving every single day because of something called public policy. why do i love this committee? it has smart people on both sides and has the enormous range of responsibility. it is important to affect families and their self-esteem. we are losing self-esteem because of not facing up to

problems. but to separate itself from government it is not the favorite outlet something that can be there for them when it is needed. it is a whole effort to it is the opposite of whatever the suit is from russia. [laughter] my dear friend senator mark d.. riata? in this will be settled one way or another. be political or unpleasant or pass the part where it can be done logically now we try to put each other in a position where we cannot do the right thing. that is a horrible way to run the country. it is a horrible thing to do to the american people. it is horrible.

all i have to do is not inspected the coal mines i could stage a entry just like maria. i like it when she gets angry. [laughter] but i am on my soap box but this is a holistic solution or a catastrophic results for the united states of america and i don't want that. this hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> you said the position has not shut down -- change with the shutdown? >> the president has had constructive conversation with house and senate republicans also good conversations with the senate democrats. his position it is unacceptable to demand a ransom from the american people from not defaulting will not change now or in six weeks or at any point during his presidency. nor does he expect any successors will take a different position. what has always been true is this president is willing to sit down and and work out common sense budget agreement with republicans

that embodies both his objectives in republican objectives in a compromise that achieves not everything he wants or the republicans want but through a compromise what the people deserve. >> you are waiting for the white flag? >> you want to turn this into a game of winners and losers. but the president made clear the other day it is a situation the government is shut down. one party in congress is threatening to defaults and some of the loudest voices our encouraging defaults. he wants a situation where we can discuss and debate our differences with an agreement that reflects a willingness of both sides on

behalf of the american people with the american economy. although we're not there yet and not in agreement there are indications over the last 24 hours from republicans with the willingness to explore that possibility. >> how is the government

shut down affecting you? >> make your video and upload and see what others are talking about >> [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> then meeting will come to order. first of all, i want to think the witnesses for appearing today on the potential negative consequences of the health care lost all this this. little over one full week since individuals could begin to enroll in the public exchanges created by the president's health care lot and now be

helped, predictably has not been encouraging he promises it would reduce health costs to provide coverage to individuals and small-business but instead they have said it is increasing the cost of health care significantly and in some cases well over 50 percent. however while some of the outcomes such as this i would think they're not the subject of today's hearings. we're here to discuss the other unwanted outcomes of the health care lot namely what effect it has on the employment opportunities of small business. as the committee has examined the employer mandate of businesses of 50 or more employees offer insurance or pay a penalty is a disincentive for businesses to grow. this outcome is made worse

by a the law seemingly arbitrary definition of a full-time employee working 30 hours or more per week. while most americans to find an employee working 40 hours per week, the health care law creates its own definition of 30 hours per mower. the consequences of this definition are all too predictable. few hours for employees. according to a recent survey small-business owners, nearly 75 percent had to take some type of action to avoid the employer mandate including moving more full-time employees to part-time status to reduce the hours to less than 30. while most of the american public continues to put job creation as the number one policy concerns the law

creates the perverse incentive for employers not only to refrain from hiring but also reduce the hours of the current employee. the witnesses will explain the challenges of the definition of full time and talent will create the way to provide for their workers and affect the business know i will refer to the ranking member for her opening statement. >> despite over for the thames by my republican colleague to repeal of de-funding the affordable care act it is still the lot and it is moving forward to achieve the objective to finally give the almost 50 million men women and children quality affordable health coverage. last week the most long-awaited portion went into effect as exchanges opened across the country these will mean lower cost

in expanded coverage for individuals ian small firms across the country. we should all be pleased that finally millions of americans that have lived or dread with an illness or accident could put them into financial ruin will finally have access to good coverage they can afford. but today this could impact small businesses across the nation. the health care law defines a full-time employee at 30 hours this was intended to increase the number of workers to whom coverage would be offered. there has been a debate on both sides of the unintended consequences for workers for this committee heard claims that they are cutting the hours of the work force to avoid offering coverage on those employees. some labor organizations

such as the teamsters also have expressed reservations about the possibility of perverse incentives created by the 30 hour threshold. of course, the law is not perfect. we may need to make changes since the exchange is just opened last week we may have a clear picture of this impact of this provision if we waited until we have a good sense of the proportion of people who bought insurance on the individual exchanges and when the small business exchanges our more established. i am concerned about this will impact employees and small businesses also the misinformation can blame being put on the law. this specifically spread to deter americans from seizing the benefits of the affordable care act. one of today's witnesses will discuss whether reduced worker hours are solely because of this are the economy and we must determine if they are a

direct impact of the revised definition or of some type of combination like sequestration or a slow economic recovery. with a current and future impact of the definition of the labor market as with any other major law there has been much speculation and it is important we consider the proposals to work to improve rather repeal. it is a starting point to examine the issue so we can address it immediately. i am open to making sensible improvement with the affordable care act. but when the opponents are willing to shut down the federal government to risk the full faith and credit of the united states to destroy or savage irish it is difficult to have a real

conversation about what is working and what isn't. i hope when the politics died down we can have that conversation in the small business committee has an important role to ensure that this new law proves that it is affordable for employers and employees alike. thank you to the witnesses for appearing today in the of the corporate to this hearing. >> first of all, if committee members have an opening statement prepared i ask players submitted to the record. i will now explain the timing. each witness has five minutes to deliver your testimony. the light starts as green was one minute remaining it will turn yellow then it will turn red at the end of your five minutes a and try to keep within that time limit but certainly we will be lenient if you go over.

the first witness is mr. keating serving as a chief economist at the small business entrepreneurship council a non-partisan advocacy organization headquartered in vienna virginia among his expertise is taxation regulation u.s. economy and other small-business issues. in addition mr. keating also serves as an adjunct professor in the business school at dowling college in no kill new york. think you for appearing today you may now deliver your message. >> thank you very much chairman and ranking member and members of the committee thank you for having this hearing today on the potential effects of the of patient protection affordable care act with employment. i in the chief economist with the small business and

entrepreneurship council. a few points from my written testimony and some quick points from a business owner who i spoke with yesterday for what he would like to relate to the committee if he were here. it is important to consider the impact of obamacare within our pour economic performance with employe negroes. a quick run down the economic recovery is that about half of where we should be during a break every year perching 2.2% in with the historical average 3.4% and it is four-point 5% so we're badly underperforming. that leads to problems on the job front in to the

labor force participation rates that guided attention recently is at a low we have not seen since august but a large number of people are simply giving up and not bothering to look if we had one more in the historical norm it would be 12th percent roughly spherical given the mandate for 30 hours per week is full time we have to look at 30 hours those that are working registers 7.9 million of of peak set in 2010 and paprika

better that the rege registered 2006 and is important to recognize a genetic shift with full-time pursues but ginneries druggist two-thirds of the employment gains come from part-time jobs. that is a striking number of what normally happens to does speak to the issue how they're treated under an end as we will know the couple of very few live catfish trend to see a whole host of lowe's in the number of flare for parents -- the

number of terms of the stops surprising reseal lack of job creation with small businesses in this recovery. i highlight several polls of small business owners with their response to obamacare. with one gallup poll said they held up on hiring new employees and 38 percent have pulled back and one of the five have reduced employees in the same number have cut hours in response to the law. we have a new poll coming up the shows 76 percent of small businesses are unlikely to higher. finally speaking with mike frederick who has 67 employees said he relayed several frustrations

including with did large administrative costs he has one person that works on this day and cannot add anybody else also adding a 30% increase of premiums this year with the real possibility to cut staff to less than 50 workers. in a time of slow economic growth than troubling trends , we hope policy-making would be directed to boosting incentives such as broad in deep regulatory relief but unfortunately we pointed is the exact opposite direction. i've the portrait any questions you may have. >> i would now like. >> mr. chairman it is my honor to introduce our next

witness steve herman from our district and founder of supermarket solutions the vice president of supermarkets inc. only one of the locally owned in the area it has expanded in central missouri with full-time employees and 100 part-time and seasonal. like so many others the affordable care act is affecting his ability to grow the business and i am proud to introduce him i am listening halifax's small business. >> could a morning in to think before that interjection untapped of the teleacross the country is the national trade association representing but

they pulled out manages 44,000 direct jobs paying over $30 billion of wages siam vice president of paul supermarkets i feel i have been in this area for 45 years i started working in the family's supermarket up 14 years old and like many independent grocers i fell in love with the business early on in gained in appreciation for hard-working and customer service. we operate three supermarkets in the state of missouri. we have weathered many economic storms and have never lost sight of the two most important things our customers a and their employees. but we're facing a challenge unlike we have ever seen of the affordable care act but

it has created new beers for the industry working 30 hours per week but it to expand the number of employees over health care by defining it as if at least 30 hours of service per week. this new definition bow rethink those who pay higher they're likely to have. >> not only do they do what it means but it changes the american workforce by interfering with the ability to earn a living. those that need additional money cannot pick up the additional shift to earn extra money around holidays.

we employ a large number of associates but also others that hope throughout the year in these part-time workers include kids in college, the spouses to help to supplement and those for their retirement unfortunately many cannot prop provide part-time associates they're like family which is why we are proud to offer a wide range of benefits to full-time associates including whether to present of the health care premium after the deductible is met. to have access to health savings account and contribute to that. we employs 75 full-time associates and 100 part-time through this restores nearly all full-time associates that is our hope we can continue to provide quality benefits in the future although is increasing the difficult. does not without significant

cost over the years have health care costs have increased we were card to offer benefits including to meet the changing times this year alone health care cost were three to thousand dollars, including in-house administration but that will increase again next year. we operate on razor-thin profit margin it is a mere 1.six 5% in petty's relief to count a to make the difference about profit. 92% of respondents indicate they offer benefits to some employees that is a testament to the commitment they have to their associates. we want to provide quality benefits to full-time employees recognizing the hope the employee is a productive employee but many businesses cannot afford to provide coverage thus they have to make tough choices

in many part-time employees will face reduced hours and paychecks and independent grocers need to manage businesses in the work force to meet the demands of the customers. the burden placed by this law hipper our ability to do that to make it more difficult to succeed and we pride ourselves on charitable organizations say community groups but pressure could impact our ability to continue that support at that level but my recommendation congress should do all it can to remove barriers or artificial threshold to inhibit our ability to hire workers a create good jobs for the most effective ways to pass legislation would be unrealistic definition of a full-time employees so we can focus to be a employer of choice in the community we serve. i've accordions ring any questions. thank you. >> our next witness is the

owner and president of 42 holdings that maintains the headquarters in fairfield new jersey he operates college hunks moving junk. they employ full-time and part-time college hunks. >> although i made no longer be a hunks mother does and that is all that counts. chairman, a ranking member and members of the subcommittee thank you for inviting me here today to testify on the effects of the health care law new definition of full time employee i am president of 42 holdings and a member of

the international franchise association and a former cadet of united states air force academy in former to permit the new jersey state police and i operate interstate moving company and own 15 franchisefranchise s of called digit hunks moving junk new jersey in cleveland in national. we offer residential moves office relocation joke removal donations pick up some labor services. i am the proud business owner. we offer the cerebus that the committee needs, a flexibility to secure jobs of multiple states throughout the country. as a franchise small-business owner will livelihood and ability to provide for my team members depends upon the economy and

the strength of federal policy. while well-intentioned the affordable care act proposes a serious threat to my businesses' ability to continue providing a fine come enthusiastic had worked atmosphere and quality jobs for people who want them a and deserve them. for decades u.s. employers abuse authority over work week as the standard of culture but the affordable care act requires employers to provide coverage to full-time employees and defining factor as 30 hours will cause many employers like me to simply alter the employees' hours in order to run a successful small business. this puts all of us at a loss. employers must implement new methods than some members will receive fewer hours and reduced take-home pay.

not to mention there still an eligible for employer sponsored health coverage. 72 employees in three years 20 are part-time. in 2014 we are planning on hiring an additional 34 part-time workers. many work three days a week. but 10 or 12 hour shifts daily. they're attracted to our culture because the position offered keep fit with their schedules with their school, a child care coverage, or their family needs. went of what our industry considers a busy time we have customers that will schedule the families moved. many part-time team members

will try to fit as many as by chefs is entering that time to make additional income for themselves. it is not uncommon for part-time team member who of the works 25 hours per week to double during that time period during 5460 to make the extra money. they currently offer health plan coverage to the full-time team members but in order to manage your health cost, i will be to limit the hours worked by the part-time team members for i have offered full-time members coverage even without the mandate and i have every intention to continue the coverage. however the increased cost of doing business to provide coverage to those of fluctuating schedules several may at the occasional status that means i have to scale back their hours per by consider itself lucky.

i have succeeded with the ambitious growth plan over the last three years but many small-business owners have not. natalie has the employer mandate discouraged creation and expansion and also damages existing jobs by the statutory requirement that discarded for the half a century of establish labor policy as 30 hours. culture is everything in a small business. it as they prepared for the implementation it is a short-lived solution. a major change of far reaching consequences that we have not yet begun to see for the purpose of the affordable care act is a common-sense solution to put the hca in line with other regulations.

think you for allowing me to testify today i look forward to answering any questions as a citizen i am in the conversation. [laughter] >> i will now yield to the ranking member so she can introduce the last witness. >> it is my pleasure to introduce mr. baker the co-director of the center of for economic and policy research to previously worked as a senior economist at the economic policy institute once served as a consultant for several bank. wellcome. >> thank kyo i appreciate the chance to address many. money ms. dean baker and i want to talk about the research of my colleague to

look at the impact of the hours of the employer sanctions on employment practices throughout the first half of 2013 period prior to when obama announced that sanctions would not go into effect during 2014 when they had reason to believe there would be subject based on the employment under a 2013. first i want to talk about the plausibility of the claims made of that hca that some are not plausible second devil reviewed the evidence or the analysis in i want to say what i imagined to be though volunteered aspect of the 30 our environment glove that hca. there has been a lot of claims how they see a because different problems with it is important 2.0 the

first time you have the direct impact of aca impact is 2013 people claim businesses were deterred from making hires it is difficult to see that as credible if you look at the way the labor force behave as we have a niche churning with roughly 4 million people leave their jobs the idea they would not hire someone in 2011 because they would be over the 30 person limit is not plausible is extremely likely the employer so that part is not very plausible. i am in a player myself but

you know, what to restock with the additional bill but there is research on the minimum wage increase the vast majority leaves little or no employment to fact that would be less than 10 percent of the pay of the worker to have that effect. i don't think they're very plausible but in terms of the evidence with key at the most commonly used survey regain employment data for this is very get the jobs numbers in the gap the percentage of workers between 26 and 29 hours per week with people below the cutoff we did see a small increase in the percent in

2013 compared at 2012 it went 61 hundreds up as 64 with hundreds that may confirm having the hours sure in to but it is those working less than 20 hours per week those working 35 hours per week or more is a larger percentage of the workforce there was not of big increase but it goes the wrong direction and for the change that aca has raised talk about the longer-term story would get the 30 hour cut off imagine overtime employers will respond hough

to look at why has the employer mandate there has been some research in the cut office 20 hours although after a long period of time to have immodesty fact of the bottom quintile to reduce full-time employment for the total workforce seven tents of 1% before anyone runs off it is important to keep in mind the vast majority that work part-time do so voluntarily. typically more than 80 percent that is not necessarily a bad thing for the sir raising children in to keep in mind there is nothing natural about hour workweek beaches we have

health kirk -- health care insurance that will preferred to have a worker overtime rather than hiring a second worker it is also not natural if we change that to make it easier for people to get insurance other day and their employer than that is more consistent with the free market. think you for listening. >>. >> aa my questions and tell the end. but at this point of a like to yield five minutes. >> mr. hermann what is your plan to retry to stay competitive with the change occurs restorers say in your area or mom and pop shop?

you are more engaged in the community activities been the chain people. whittier plans to stay competitive with competition into still maintain the service with the folks that you have? those that go to three separate stores or corporate entities where your plans to maintain your stores and compete? >> that is a great question. one thing that we look at is our employees are a family and a small community we take care of them as best we can. we may not be able to hire

on the potential to be the full-time employee but it may have to do more with less. looking at the 401k we may have to get rid of it but back in the '90s we matched wanted to present 5% of gross pay then you mention in the community the people who work with us is a 50% free and reduced lunch but where it is funded from is the church did the community. that helps to paint the picture of what we looked at bet existing employees are

family. but they want to do the best for our community. >> bet you did build a and we appreciated. would you like to into the same question how you will maintain your competitor of says mr. bienko was trying to squeeze the hours of your employees? you have a unique situation view will cut those dollars back to put more part-time people in their? what is your plan? >> it is us and trying to change in industry in the moving world and that has been our mission on a date

number one but what we try to do is offer opportunities for young individuals to get their career start not just a job start a hint even as young college graduates to begin the process in the move the world but with that we do have a part-time workers if we have to reduce those hours with the quality high end individuals we strive to hire will not work with us. in 2014 not taking with the job opportunities of three other cities it may affect that growth strategy with that have thus drawback of

those part-time employees. >> one of the things that mr. baker said that means one-third of the people don't does he want to work full-time this will force that to happen in but you had a unique, it that culture is everything in a small business? >> sometimes when you start out q do not have the ability to pay the highest wages for i have been a believer it is not the way to pay but the culture in the opportunity the present. our environment is all about coulter to provide an employee to get a start to

create a vision to give them the opportunity. many employees, as college graduates but they have never been given that backing were opportunity to say you have the opportunity to create something. even with four year college degrees have absolutely no idea where they want to be when they grow up. we have created a culture that drives to success. and that breeds success when you have others that are striving for the same goal of tracks better people. said to have a high amount of demand not fully capable to pay higher wages if you have -- if you don't have culture you die. >> thank you for your time we appreciate your testimony.

>> if this point i will yield for opening question. >> i will do the same in leave my questions and toe the end but the first ever like to yield to the ranking member of our small business committee. >> thank you. mr. baker is there any empirical evidence that one-third of part-time workers is a consequence of the aca? >> no. the reason there was a big increase is we had the downturn that was much more severe with the collapse of the housing bubble in people

remember this that led to a large increase of the involuntary employment. so the rise of part-time employment predated the passage. >> basically your numbers concur with the federal reserve's beige of san francisco that found and concluded in their research that it is in line with historical norms they concluded with levels seen at the 1980 recession? >> exactly right. those that i cannot place off hand but basically every study looks at the data involuntary part-time has followed the same pattern given the weakness of the economy.

>> there have been two recent surveys and one of them down to those reported by a businesses were business uncertainty and consumer demand with this play more of a role in the employers' hiring rather than implementation of aca? >> of soviet this survey in particular states back to the '80s and we have reliable dated going back close at three decades and we ask the same question what are the biggest problems they face to consistently answer a lack of demand? >> so those hiring practices or decisions would be driven by economic uncertainty in

the lack of consumer demand. anything dapples money out of the economy. we had a reference to consider every prior recovery had significant growth mostly state and local levels. with seven or 800,000 every employees in redid at the start of government employs spent money like everyone else so that is clearly one of the factors that slows growth and slows employment. >> we have held hearings in this committee and i held a round table in my district with the money sector is and what we hear is they face a

shortage of the workforce of skilled workers. don't you think it could they offer the health care benefits with high skilled workers? >> they know that they value benefits if you can offer benefits it makes the job more attractive that is why most small employers offer health care benefits to their workers. >> in your written testimony you say the affordable care act for reducing job growth 2010 through 2012. but yet the sanctions are not to be in full effect

through 2014 but now the employer mandate has been delayed. before a million people lose their jobs every month is a possible there would not want to hire someone because they were afraid of the penalty in 2014? >> of course, it is possible because businesses and are to print your ears play and. when you run a business you have to figure your cost today and one year from now to estimate. to have living mandates and regulations that will impact the decision that is the reality of the business world. i was glad to hear incentives i try to hammer that home. economics is about

incentives so when you put the obamacare bill and ask her to of the unfortunate policy agenda against faster economic growth. we would want to what is the best dancer coming on to the economy? it is not tax increases. so this is very much part of the equation. >> also the lack of demand. >> we cannot take the economy just because it is bad to deal with it but why is it bad? why do we have such a deep recession now own a four years into a recession have one of the worst recoveries

on record? but a huge part in fact, the biggest part today that holds us back is the policy agenda in the anti-growth direction. >> mr. baker? >> of course, they do in businesses know the employees turned over. so that puts him over the limit so they can count on the workers leaving but the downturn we had a collapse of the housing bubble stripings the economy. we don't have the elixir but they warned of the housing bubble was easy to predict. there for a look at business investment that is back to

their pre-recession levels. to see what barack obama is doing with no effect. >> but government demanded is just like any other source when we pull out a source of demand so that slows growth with the housing bubble we will not replace them in any easy way that i can see. fed is not the way to go but i don't know any magic elixir but by my calculations of $1 trillion per year of lost demand. >> i yield back. >> i will yield five minutes

>> a.m. sitting here looking at a forceful to make it more affordable 78% to small-business owners said washington repealed 90 percent don't want to change from the current plan to what is required under obamacare. from a constituent that i got just yesterday or the day before. being in the steel business obviously talking about competition some if you are competing domestically but not with the international

competition. i am concerned about american competitiveness but the government hamstrings us with uncompetitive tax system and regulatory environment so he talks about how it affects his business is says we're already fighting for our lives to compete with various subsidies and tax breaks at the same time they add to our cost. it is obvious what it does for jobs in this country. . .

what kind of economic 101 teaches us. if you add government costs, whether it's taxes or regulation or so on, on to businesses they'll become less competitive, obviously. when you think about our economy is like today in term of the international marketplace, i think it's a serious impediment. the gentleman i spoke to yesterday who has a small manufacturing firm in wisconsin. he's not a domestic firm, shells the parts he make for all sorts of machinery globally. he's involved in the international competition.

and he is -- when he look at the premium increase he's calculating, that puts him at the serious competitive disadvantage, absolutely. >> all right. mr. baker, in term of the plausibility of people making hiring decisions today based on a law that the employer mandate won't go in to effect until next year. i've had people in my office -- i had a guy in my office two weeks ago who has a franchise business at two locations and 40 employees. he has declined to open the third. he'll go over 50 employees. so he's making a decision today based on opening a business that will effect potential employees. it's absolutely plausible people are going to make decisions based on this right now. i have -- for him and a former client that is in the -- from myrtle beach, south carolina, the tourism business

employing 1900 people. they are absolutely moving people from full-time to i'm. they haven't done it yet. the law hasn't taken effect yet. it will have an effect on the service economy in my area. do you want to comment on that? it was too small to show up in the data. in terms of the moving people from part-time to -- full-time to part-time over a longer term. i would be surprised if there's not some going on. the point i was trying to make it, perhaps i didn't make it clearly. we have a lot of people that choose part-time employment.

it would actually be consistent with what people desire. it's not something i would expect to see overnight. in the case of hawaii it didn't show up after ten years. it was after twenty years it was visible in the data. >> one more quick thing, in the budget committee i asked the head of the cbo the estimate from job less of obamacare is 800,000 full-time jobs lost as a result of implementation of the law. >> my understanding of the comment that was mostly people opting not to work because they would have the option of get -- employer-provided health insurance. >> thank you. unfortunately it does look -- votes have been called. we have a number of members that still have questions to go. what we're going to do is adjourn. it's a quick two-series vote. i'm guessing we'll be back in less than 30 minutes.

11 minutes now, you can add about 10 now. they hold over the first vote. we should be back in about half hour. we'll adjourn for right now for about 30 minute and recon -- reconvene after the votes. the meeting will come back to order. let see, it was a little more than 30 minutes. at any rate within we are back. i appreciate the witnesses all coming back and at this point in time, ierl yield myself -- i guess -- i'm a small business owner. i've been a entrepreneur for 40 years. i know, what is going on. i've also, in this role, i can remember asking the director of the irs in charge of implementing the laws.

i asked them a couple of questions. i'm curious either of you could answer these. as we're prepare for the employer mandate, while the penalty has been delayed, the mandate has not been delayed. it's been misspoken time and again. i hear people, both sides of the aisle at the administration saying the employer mandate has been delayed one year. no, it has not. the penalty associated has been delayed. the other thing to point out to everyone is that when you try to determine who qualifies and whether your company qualifies on the 50-employee level. it's the 12 month that precede the year. relative to being charged with the penalty, the buckets or the measurements starts in january. in less than three months. so when people talk about impact starting in january, you've got to put all your employees to the full or part-time bucket and

calculate the hours. do you it each month during the 12 months during 2014 and divide by 12 to determine whether or not in 2015 you hit the 50 employee threshold. i know, i said to -- i asked the head of the irs and we submitted question. i was promised a prompt response. i'm waiting still. it was several months ago. i said, mr. director, i'm asking for five or six days but not two months. but so as small business owners, he was the question. full-time employee who would say normally work, you know, 40-hours a week. 160-170 takes two weeks vacation. he only works 80 hours in august. he is full or part time in the month of august? would either of you know an answer to that? >> i believe it would be under the benefit plan. in our business we have paid

vacation. >> relative to the irs calculation of which bucket you put them in. he worked 80 hours. he was paid for 160. do you put them that month in the part-time bucket. he only worked 80. you count the 80 hours to do the fte equivalent, or paid does he go to the full-time bucket. the irs couldn't answer the question. he expects you to know exactly. the other asked him, i know it's difficult the burden is falling on to the small business owners and their hr departments. many workers might, in my one month, work over 130 hours. even if they are part time based on overtime and so forth. the next month they do. -- don't. they work 135 hours in january. they 97 in february. they work 161 in march. they work 82 in april. well, you know how you put them in the -- bucket each month. if it's over 130 they go in the

full-time bucket. you accumulate the hour and get the fte. now you are in 2015. they work six months and in the full-time bucket the prior year. in six months they were in the part-time bucket. do you have to give them health insurance or not? these are very -- this is the tough thing about the law. when the regulators set definitions, it's how do you implement it? and i'll say as we're in october, in the next -- , by the way, the mandate is not been delayed, just the enforcement of the penalty. the head of the irs in charge of implementation can't answer the question. it's not ready for prime time. i bring it up i'm a small business owner myself. we have those very situation. we don't know is going to be putting them in the buckets. i guess the other obvious thing is we'll see what happens as we move through.

but a question maybe for mr. keating. i've heard people talk about why 30 hours? why -- where did it come from? it's never been there. the suggestion has been two-fold. one was we'll have small businesses just provide health insurance to more people. the other more cynical one is it was a money grab that knowing this would subject them to penalties. it was a way of raising money to pay for the expansion of medicaid -- or maybe a little of both. i'm wondering, mr. keating, if you have a thought. >> it goes to my public choice economic how the inventive -- incentive in government. based on that, i would say it's a combination of all the above. to backtrack a little bit. when i -- get to speak on various panels about this law from an economist's perspective, and interestingly, often there are representatives from the sba or various government entities, and most of the audience are obviously small business owners struggling to figure it out.

they have very -- pointed questions about what it means for their business. i would say at least more than half the time the people from the government that are there representing it don't have the answers. and that says to the business owners, what? the folks implementing this don't know. how am i supposed to possibly figure it out. then it goes to the issue of how many employees -- how much time and energy goes in to trying to figure this out when, you know, i talk about my testimony we would hopefully want the time and energy and resources going something productive in term of expanding the business and creating jobs. >> right. and i think that goes back to the human resource cost response you're here not only representing yourself but also other franchised owners or is that -- so the question is -- i know a lot of franchisees have lots of part time workers. by and large, from what i've been told, the workers didn't sign up or didn't come in

looking for health care. they were there to supplement their north carolina, if they were. many are working 37.5 hours and have now, in fact, had their hours doubt 28, 27, and i just wondered. i know mr. baker was saying the data doesn't show it. the data always lag. our other franchisees sharing with you, as i've heard from many they affect -- aren't taking action to cut the workers under 30 hours. >> yes, mr. colins, if i can first comment on the previous question regarding the new laws and regulations and the controversy that it causes far small business owner. the irs can't figure out what to do or to get back to you on it. a small business owner, as you know, your time needs to be spent on the growth of your business not trying to figure out law and regulations each and every second that you detract from your core business value is a decrease in revenue and decrease in growth.

so i wanted to make a point on that we don't have the time or the opportunity to spend it on trying to figure out new regulationses that are uncomair to what we currently have. we have seen multiple franchisees and the ones i have spoken to myself that have decreased the hours or planning on decreasing the hours on their part-time employees. one of the biggest things about being a small business owner is that you have to plan three to five years in advance. if you're not doing that planning, no one else is doing that planning for you as the business owner. you need to be looking out for where your business, where your employs are going to be in three years not just one or six months. so you have to take in to account when you're doing your budgeting in 2013, as we're going through right now. we're not planning for '13. we're planning for '15, '16, and 17 taken in to account what is going to come ahead of us. it's not just about hiring new employees. we plan on having the

employees. those employees may change, but the system and the mandates don't change. we fled take that in to account and know that we are going to have x amount of additional employees. we need to be able to properly fund the employees and plan for them. >> another quick question, i know a lot of companies have health insurance plans that they and their employees thought were designed very well for their business from a cost perspective and so forth. in many, from what i've hearing, those plans are no longer available. unlike when the president said if you like your health care plan, you can keep it. well, you can't keep it if it's not offered anymore. i'm just secure -- curious of your college hunks. how many needed maternity care? >> zero. >> okay. and i have to assume, how many really needed prescription drug coverage? >> that varies. and the reason it varies is a

issue i talk to them about on a consistent basis. i want them to care about themselves and their health. i don't want them just to go because they have an opportunity to take a plan and that's an open door for them to look for each and every ailment they might have to search out for prescription medication. i want them to take care of themselves and become healthy individuals. we've had the conversation in the meetings we have each month. we bring guest speakers or have internal conversations. and the last conversation i had with them was based around taking care of themselves is their best opportunity to lower any cost they may have. so it does vary between the individuals, but inside our system, we are trying to cut back on that as much as possible.

>> i'm curious from the policy that you have versus now the policies you are being offered, which now have to include maternity care, they have to include mental health, they have to include prescription drug coverage. a health club moip. there are things mandated and not every work is looking for the benefit. now the day of an owner designing a health care plan to meet the needs of their employees is now been taken out in one size fits all. if you had to adjust to the minimum benefit plan required by the aca. >> we've been blessed to offer our employees our robust plan. and our plan already met the requirements of aca, so what we have done though is how are we going control the cost?

we have again to a captive. it's sort of reinsurance praments that allows small businesses to go out and gap -- group with other business. we're taking a risk. as with anything. health insurance is not about, you know, when you buy it you're taking risk. it forces us to go out there and take the risks to hope we manage it. it will be more administration costs, you know, and so we'll put this -- the health insurance is supposed to be a benefit. as a small employer i'm supposed to be able to go to somebody and get insurance and not have to worry about it. this has put us in a predicament we've got to also understand the health insurance law beyond what we need to.

>> one last question and i'll turn it over. but, you know, one question that has been raised, i wonder if you've heard this before, that is take the case of a company that has employees working 37.5 hours, they did not go to work there for health insurance. did not expect health insurance, but now they would be -- the company would be required because they're full-time offered or pay the $2,000 penalty. the company cuts them deliberately from 3. -- from the sole purpose of avoiding to provide health plan. the employee wants to work 37.5. the company would like that. they can't afford to give them health care and can't afford a $2,000 penalty. it's real life. i'm using a real-lime example. now lo and behold there's laws. it states very specifically if a company cuts the hours of a

worker for the sole purpose of denying a benefit, then they can be fine and brought up on charges. that's what it states. so you think about this case. employees not getting health insurance now. doesn't expect it. doesn't the president. it's true, though, the sole reason the hours are being cut is to avoid giving them a benefit. to me they are violating the law. in complying with the aca in to the extent of keeping their business open, they can't afford the insurance or $2,000. has anyone looked at that? i'll call it a conflict or very serious situation of the company actually breaking the law in complying with the aca? >> i have not looked tat myself. i haven't heard of that particular example. it goes along with other examples. talking, again, to business owners and listening dr they're getting, you know, i tell people, listen, what you need to do is unfortunately get a good accountant and lawyer and figure

it out. make sure you get the right advice. the very disheartening situation in addition to what you've laid out is other business owners that made decisions -- , i mean, splitting their companies thinking they could do that. you can't do it under the law. they're getting advise from the people that, you know, they're dolling out money to get advise from people and it's the advice they're getting. with that, unfortunately, is not unique in the sense that, again, who really has a handle on all of these issues and the costs? and this creates obviously all the uncertain they we've been talking about for a long time now. >> yeah. i think a couple of things that are misunderstood. you can't split your companies. you can't use temporary workers. a lot of vehicles said i'll hire temporary workers. they're not on my payroll. in that instance, not only do they cowrnlt for -- count for the business using them. but the person running the temporary service agency is also

. >> one of the comments you made you're working with the entrepreneurship group, how does the aca affecting start-up companies? most businesses start out as small business then grow to whatever size they get to. is this affecting a lot of start-up companies being able to get anyway the point is that so

you have -- you have a situation where people are losing resources that could be used to start up the business, number one. i think beyond that, you've got just this air of uncertainty. questions, costs what is it -- if i get the business up and running. what are going to be the costs on the regular that loir front in term of obamacare? you've got a plan to the business owners talk about and i talk about in my mba courses. you have to have a business plan and be realistic and lay out where you want to go. that's from the start-up stage. so low -- how does factor to the equation? the total benefits package if you're looking to hire people and bring them on board. how does it effect the equation? yes, i have not seen any --

i don't think we have that information yet. based on good old economic 101. it it's clearly a negative in the equation. a quick point. all of the things we're talking about here, the bottom line it's an additional negative. you debate how much it is for various businesses and rake from business to business. this this environment, where are we going down the path in the first place? >> i think figures that jumped out at me the one in your testimony. you mentioned 76% of the small businesses are likely not to hire in the next six months. and other numbers in here with regards to how many are pulling back the number of employees they have as well as cutting your hours. whenever you look at small businesses as being the driver of our economy, that just, i mean, that just immediately shows there's a blanket of --

over the entire economy with regards to generating jobs. and, you know, i think you probably could extrapolate from that there's not at lough new job creation going on out there as a result of this. unless there's a particular niche industry. >> the energy industry is great; right? yeah! i can talk about the energy industry. across the board, again, the numbers are clear in term of where we should be in term of job creation in term of the recovery and where we are. you can pick your survey whether it's the household or establishment survey. we're nowhere near where we should be. i put the survey in there for a purpose because, again, when you look at the economics of it. we ask does theory and incentive and so on. the reality when people are talking to small business owners this is what we're hearing. there are exceptions along the way that think it's great and the business is growing. it doesn't matter to them. that's fantastic.

i would argue the fact we had 12.2% growth with everything working against entrepreneurship and investment is pretty amazing. i think that's worth tipping a hat to to the resilience of the american business owner and workers. >> i think your point about the energy industry is probably where the growth has been. if not for that i think my numbers would be a flat gdp. i think the it 2.29 as a result of the energy industry going gang busters right now. a huge contribution without a doubt the employment numbers. >> one point before we close here. that, you know, mr. baker made the comment sometime ago that, you know, the businesses did not make any sort of plans and did not make adjustments prior to 2000 and begin of this year 2013. i can tell you from the businesses i've visited or when i go home over the weekend and

as well as the people that come through my offices. when you talk to them the folks they have been looking at this since it passed how they are going to comply. they talk with the attorney, the accountant. many have made business decisions not expanding or not hiring additional folks based on this law for a number of years already. just because the numbers don't reflect it today, they made the decisions in the last year, year before when they decided not to expand by any locations or not expand existing location. >> with that, mr. chairman. i thank you. thank you. at this point i would like to yield. >> thank you, mr. chairman. actually, i would like to mr. baker to respond some of the comments that mr. keating made. honestly, i disagree with the comment that being an entrepreneur in this environment with the new affordable care act

is a negative. i think it's a positive. i think there a lot of people that get snuck a job they don't want to be in because of the health insurance provided them. and are afraid and their families are afraid for them to step out and be an entrepreneur. and i think this law allows someone to strike out on their own and be able to afford quality health insurance without jeopardizeing their family or them. i think it's positive, it's resources now people never had before. there are a lot of people who stay with the job just for the health insurance and really have that entrepreneurial spirit inside of them. and have been afriday do so specifically because of the inability to get health care on their own. i didn't know if you want to respond. >> in particular, i would take up on the point.

there's been a considerable amount of economic research showing exactly the idea of job block you have people that have a job with health insurance oort they or family member has an existing condition. they know if they had to go to the individual market they would either not be able to get health insurance at all or it would be exorbitant. i was curious downtown few state exchange and look at the old -- and you can get the silver plans, you know, the middle plans for $600 a month. it varied by state. in other words, insurance i would consider affordable. it's not counting subsidize. it's more moderate income person you get subsidize on top of that. i would think i do have my own business and own research center but, you know, thinking of starting it out today it would make a defense to me knowing for whatever reason things went badly and i'm not getting insurance through the center. i had the option of get through the exchange an affordable

rate. i would be surprise if we don't see a burst of entrepreneurship. >> that's what i think as well. >> remind everybody, the mcin this country was broken. t an attempt to fix what was broken and actually a national 2008 study by the small business majority said that small business health costs would more than double by 2018 without any reform. so just remind everybody health cost were going up. it was a broken system. it's an attempt to lower health costs and bring it down. there are issues we're finding out today. and just on the small business majority. i don't know if you have connected with them, but i've held several workshop on the affordable care act with small businesses in my district, and the small business majority and they have offices throughout the

country are a good resource. i felt your pain when you said you don't have a kind of resources to figure the law out. and it is confusing to some extent. it's a good resource that, you know, they're there for small business. they are champion of small business. they are very good at helping kind of go through the amaze on this new health care law. you might check in to them. for both of you, it sound like you have different issues. you sounded like you were saying you're taking care of your employees now. you're going take care of them. they are like family. it's more about you're hesitant to hire more in the future. it sounded like for you're more concerned about having to offer health insurance for those who are working 30 hour or more. have