is cutting trillions of dollars in social services and medicaid. raise the minimum wage, take the american people off of social needs, assistance and stop the tom foolery of turning this country -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker. by direction of the committee on rules i call up house resolution 530 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 95, house resolution 530, resolved that upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill h.r. 2575 to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to repeal the 30-hour threshold for classification as a full-time employee for purposes of the pler mandate and the patient protection and affordable care act and replace it with 40 hours. the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the

committee on ways and means now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. the bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill as amended and on any amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except, one, three hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means and, two, one motion to recommit with or without instructions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one hour. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, for the purposes of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from new york, ms. slaughter, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. burgess: during consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks . the speaker pro tempore:

without objection. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, house resolution 530 provides for consideration of a critical piece of legislation passed out of the ways and means committee and designed to address a critical flaw in the affordable care act, which is causing workers to lose hours at their job and thus lose wages to help put food on their tables and feed their families, pay their utility bills to heat their homes in the winter, cool their homes in the summer. h.r. 2575, the bipartisan save american workers act of 2014, fixes this flaw by changing the newly created labor rule in the affordable care act which defines full-time work at 30 hours per week and places that definition back where the american public has always believed it to be, 40 hours per week. the rule before us today provides for three hours of debate. three hours of debate. that's triple the standard hour of debate that most bills before this body receive.

this is done in order to fully discuss this important labor issue affecting so many americans. to maintain this targeted focus, the exact kind of fix that the president claims he's interested in discussing with republicans in order to make his law more workable, no amendments were made in order. this allows the house to fully debate this crucial issue without the possibility of unrelated issues being brought in to the debate. indeed, this bill is so targeted, dealing with one single provision in the affordable care act, it does not repeal the affordable care act, a charge that i have no doubt that we'll hear several times over today. but in fact, we simply change a definition in the bill. moreover, during the markup of this legislation, in the ways and means committee, no amendments were offered by either the majority or the minority. as always, the minority is afforded the customary motion to recommit on the bill.

mr. speaker, as a result of the affordable care act's requirement that businesses with 50 or more employees provide health insurance coverage to those employees working 30 or more hours a week, employers across the nation, from schools to universities to municipalities to restaurants are being forced to cut workers' hours or face unsustainable employment costs to their businesses and organizations. as we're seeing, and indeed as many on this side predicted prior to the controversial and contentious passage of the affordable care act, the bill fundamentally changed the labor law in this country, creating a new standard, a new standard called the 30-hour workweek. a standard 30-hour workweek, a shorter workweek even imposed by the country of france. worker hours are being cut, a country that's always prided

itself on the work ethic of its citizens, will decrease over time. this is what an onerous government regulation can and will do, suppress innovation and disadvantage our businesses. many members of the democratic party have been outspoken and clamoring for an extension to long-term unemployment benefits which would extend government assistance to all unemployed citizens. yet, there is something that can be done today that will have the actual practical effect of putting more money into people's pockets. we've heard this story from every state in the union that employers are dropping workers' hours from -- even from 39 hours per week to 29 or fewer hours. potentially 10 work hours a week that workers won't see in their paychecks which could mean hundreds or more dollars that men and women won't have to feed their families or pay their bills. increasing workers' hours

increases the money that people have in their disposable income. the affordable care act fundamentally changed labor law in this country, and the repercussions of this might not be felt for years to come. this is indeed the prototype of the dangerous slippery slope. what other labor laws will have to be reinterpreted when we define full-time employment at 30 hours per week? do people intend to impose overtime rules on employers who employ people for over 30 hours per week? yet another regulation which would only result in businesses cutting more hours. what will the national labor relations board reinterpret knowing that the very fabric of labor law is now based on a 30-hour workweek instead of that previously established standard of 40 hours per week? prior to the passage of the affordable care act, employers were already overwhelmingly providing health insurance to their workers working 40 hours

a week. making the change contained in mr. young's legislation will cause the least amount of disruption in the labor market, and i would submit in the economy today, making the least disruptive change in the labor market would be desirable. the congressional budget office estimates that the affordable care act will reduce the total number of hours worked by about 1.5% to 2% during the period from 2017 to 2024. this is almost because -- entirely because workers will supply less labor. because of this, the congressional budget office projects a decline in the number of workers of about two rising by about four million in 2024 as a result of the affordable care act. the latest congressional budget office figures shows that the affordable care act will

increase spending by almost $2 trillion, double the estimate from 2010. the joint committee on taxation states that taxpayers will be on the hook for another trillion dollars over the next decade. americans earning as little as $25,000 a year will pay more because of the law, even after accounting for the $1 trillion in premium cost sharing subsidies. mr. speaker, let's be clear about what is happening here today. this bill before us does not repeal the president's takeover of health care in this country. it does not undermine the affordable care act. it does not take health insurance from a single person in the country. it is a fix, a fix to a fatal flaw contained within the law. a fix similar to the seven fixes that have passed both houses of congress and have been signed into law by the president. does anyone miss the 1099

regulation that paperwork regulation which was repealed early on after the passage of the affordable care act? does anyone legitimately miss the class act, which was repealed on the very last day of the last congress? i think not. had i not reminded you of those two parts of the bill, i doubt you'd remember them. the 37 unilateral fixes that the president and his secretaries of health and human services and treasury have made on their own with no input from either legislative body, this is no different from those fixes. it's a fix to stop the legislation that will cause people to lose their work. if all sides cannot agree to fix the provision within the affordable care act that is prevepting people from working, then -- preventing people from working, then it is simply empty rhetoric to claim that

he president or anyone else is going to fix anything. i urge people to vote yes on the rule and yes on the bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady is recognized -- as much time ms. slaughter: first, let me i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: thank you. mr. speaker, i rise against the 52nd closed rule and the 52nd attempt to dismantle the a.c.a., the affordable care act. once again, the republicans are standing on the wrong side of history. in 1935, president franklin d. roosevelt proposed an ambitious program called social security. in order to ensure that america's seniors had a measure of financial safety in their own -- old age. and yet as it was being debated

in the halls of congress, republicans and their allies in the business community tried to portray social security as something far more sinister. representative daniel reid of new york predicted that americans would feel the slash of the dictator, end quote. while daniel hastings of delaware declared social security would, quote, end the progress of a great country, end quote. republican congressman john tabert even said of the proposed law, quote, never in the history of the world has any measure been brought here so insidiously designed as to prevent business recovery and to enslave workers, end quote. 30 years later, these same arguments have been used to decry the creation of medicare as the beginning of socialized medicine and it was strictly with the votes of democrats that the legislation to create medicare was passed out of the

ways and means committee and the rules committee before being brought to the floor. in other words, mr. speaker, we've been through this same story many times. and a cynical person might believe that one of the reasons that the a.c.a., the affordable care act, has been fought so hard, this is the third time republicans have failed to do any program that would help americans either achieve independence or security in their old age, and since every one of them voted against it, it is in their best interest that it fail. now, all those claims that were made were absolutely untrue, and today despite the current majority's attempts to portray the affordable care act as another law that will steal personal freedoms, destroy the economy, hurt american workers, the facts are once again proving them wrong. instead, it is quickly becoming clear that the affordable care act will stand alongside social security and medicare as the

enduring commitment to the welfare of our american citizens. mr. speaker, when we passed the affordable care act in 2010, our nation had reached the deficit of a crisis that was decades in the making. in fact, presidents dating back as far as harry truman, including republicans like richard nixon and democrats like bill clinton saw the urgent need to reform our health care system and expand coverage to every american. yet, each time that a president tried to act, their efforts failed. as a result, by 2010 our nation was spending $17.-- 17.6% of the gross domestic product on health care. and yet a record high number of 49.9 million americans had no care at all. now, with the health care crisis more acute than ever, president obama and democrats in congress decided we had to act. in fact, the percentage of

g.d.p. that health care was consuming was rising beyond the 18%, causing a serious threat to our economy and thus began one of the most comprehensive legislative debates in history, a debate that included the views of both democrats and republicans, since they occupy all committees, and a debate conducted in full view of the american people. the house held nearly 100 hours of hearings, 83 hours of committee markups. we heard from 181 witnesses, 239 amendments from both democrats and republicans were considered in the three committees of jurisdiction and 121 of them were adopted. finally, the bill was available for 72 hours before members were asked to vote on it on the house floor, but despite this thorough and collaborative process, not a single member of the republican party on this

floor voted for the historic law. true to their pattern of decades. today, thanks exclusively to he votes of democrats, americans' access to health care is going up. and cost, more importantly, the cost of providing health insurance to our citizens is slowing down and we've seen the slowest growth in the rise of health care in these last two years than we've seen in the last 50 years. we all know that 7.1 million americans registered for health insurance through this year through the online health care exchanges and more in state exchanges and we don't have that number yet. rand put out a report this week stating that 20 million americans are benefiting, including the number of children under 26 who are on their parents' health care bill -- insurance. this weekend, the "los angeles

times" said at least 9.5 million previously uninsured americans now have health insurance because of the a.c.a. and for those of us who have been carrying health insurance an been lucky enough to have it om our employers, our -- our policies has cost $1,000 more because of what we were having to pay for uncompensated care for those who had no health insurance that alone with one -- is one measure that's going reduce the cost of insurance. in the face of this success, it is not surprising that the majority has come here today with a 52nd attempt to undermine the affordable care act. after unanimously opposing its passage, spending millions of dollars campaigning against it, the majority is firm -- has firmly planted their feet on the wrong side of history. their only way forward is to dismant they will a.c.a. as quickly as possible and prevent the american people from see manager benefits under the law. mr. speaker, even though the majority may claim that today's legislation attempts to fix the

affordable care act trks a fiscally irresponsible attempt to undermine the law. first, the legislation is not paid for. which flies in the rules of all the republicans in the house. the bill costs $74 million and there is no hint at all of how that's going to be paid for. in fact, the rules committee last night, as it may, waived the rurals of the house that require pay-for despite denying countless similar waiver requests in the past. and according to an analysis by the congressional budget office this legislation would increase the deficit by $74 billion and force one million people to lose their sponsored health care coverage and increase the number of uninsured. it is not true that under this piece of legislation no one would lose their health care. over the next few hours we will surely hear many claims about how much we care about the american worker and i have no doubt that each claim contains a measure of truth.

because after all, those american workers are our constituents. but words, no matter how moving, are only as powerful as the action this is a are take ton back them up. it is the vote we take, not the speeches we make, that will show how much we care for the well being of the american people. will we continue the progress being made under the affordable care act? progress that's providing millions of americans with access to health care for the very first time. or will we vote to try to undermine the progress with the bill before us today? i urge my colleagues to vote no on today's rule and the -- and the underlying legislation. the facts become clearer every day. the affordable health care act is delivering on its promise of lower cost, greater access to life-saving health care for millions of americans and millions, mr. speaker, for the first time, have health care

because they had been born with a pre-existing condition which no longer hampers their having health care. it's time the majority stopped playing political games and started supporting this historic law that will benefit americans now and for years to come. as i have pointed out many times on the floor in the rule, running the house of representatives and the congress costs $24 million a week. this is again another week where we do nothing to earn that. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. let me yield myself 30 seconds for response. the president did come up for a big photo op in the rose garden and talked about seven million. mr. burgess: discounted in that is the six million who have lost their health insurance in november and december of last year who have reclaimed their insurance.

the president can have a press conference but they cannot provide our committee with the actual detail on the number which is we have been asking for for months. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. collins. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. collins: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from texas for yielding. i rise in snovert rule and the underlying bill, the save american workers act. four years of obamacare's passage, its implementation is a patchwork of delays and red tape. the arbitrary delays this administration has granted help only a small section of workers and businesses. part time workers have been among those most deeply affected by obamacare yet this to istration has failed extend benefits to them. i will stand on the side of -- -- thist says, if

is 52 times to try to repeal something that's wrong. i'll stand there 52 more times. this underlying bill seeks to help moms an dads an businesses understand what we've always known. obamacare's 30-hour full-time definition shows how little they know about returning a -- -- running a business. 24e vast majority of employers have uh understood full time as 40 hours a week for nearly a century. it's time to replace the definition of fall-time employee with one that makes sense. as an original co-sponsor of the save american workers act, i stand with all those in the n georgia's ninth district whose livelihood has been impacted by the definition of a full-time employee. these include flofse city of gainesville which is limiting workers' hours to eliminate the employer mandate. reduced hours make a budget on the household budgets of those

serving the city of gainesville. while many have had enough to make ends meet in the past now they must find other jobs or other ways to make ends meet. this is time for the adnorgs op i writing off these realities. those who stand by obamacare need to spend some time face to face with the workers whose hours have been cut, it's time to look into the eyes of a mom and dad who can't spend as much time with their children because they have to take on another job to make ends meet. i hope my fair-minded colleague will come together to support the legislation to help those who deserve it most, america's men and women. the gentlelady from new york is right, it's about our votes, not our speeches, and the american people can look to the republican majority and see who we stand with. we stand with the people who have been hurt, who are suffering, who are working extra

jobs. it is about those moms and dads. it's not about the exemptions and special privileges given to sprend of this administration on the dilas -- given to friends of this administration on the delays on a whim and a notice. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to my fellow new yorker, mr. bishop. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. bishop: i wish to speak with respect to the previous question. i urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we could vote on h.r. 1010, a bill that would raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour over a three-year period. frankly, mr. speaker, i don't get it. i don't understand what the problem is we're the people's house. 70% of the american people, more than 70% of the american people, have indicated that they support an increase in the minimum wage and this is -- this isn't a

partisan issue. majorities of republicans, democrats and unaffiliateds all support an increase in the minimum wage by overwhelming numbers. there's study this is a indicate that if we increase the minimum wage we'll pump $35 billion into the economy over the three-year span of phasing it in. that's $35 billion of economic activity without spending a kime dime of federal money. that active -- that economic activity would create 85,000 jobs. so again i say, i don't get it this congress ought to be about creating jobs. here's an opportunity to do that without spending a dime of federal money yet we can't even get a vote. while we're here in this chamber, the so-called ryan budget, the republican budget resolution, is being marked up that budget resolution seeks to cut $135 billion out of the snap program over the next 10 years.

in order for that cut to be affected, if it were to take on the force of law, millions of people would lose their snap eligibility. but get this. if we raise the minimum wage, it's been estimated that we would save $4.6 billion a year, in other words, roughly $50 billion over 10 years, in snap costs because people would be making more money and thus be -- thus have their eligibility for snap reduced. isn't it preferable to help people earn more money and reduce their dependence on federal programs? if my time has expired, i'd like another minute. ms. slaughter: i yield the gentleman another minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. bishop: wouldn't it be vastly preferable to reduce federal expenditure farce safety net program by virtue of lifting the economic status of the people that receive them? isn't that what we should be doing? trying to lift people up and give them opportunity as opposed

to taking away from them benefit this is a they very badly need and benefit this is a they need because the jobs they have are such low wage jobs? and all we're asking for is a vote. we simply want a vote. the previous speaker said that we were sent here to vote. that's right. we were sent here to vofmente this is a very simple, straightforward provision. it used to get passed with bipartisan support. all we're asking for is a vote. if members don't support the measure, vote against it. let the american people know where they stand. if members do support it, they should have the opportunity to vote for it and hopefully giving us that opportunity, we will pass it so we can help lift people up without spending a time of federal money. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from new york reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: at this time, i

recognize the chairman of the rules committee for six minute, pete sessions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for six minutes. mr. sessions: you know, really, today's legislation is simple. it's about protecting american workers from job destroying regulations contained in the affordable care act. as written, obamacare establishes a definition of full-time employees as anyone working 30 hours per week and require this is a business provide each of these workers with employer-sponsored health care or to pay a penalty. mr. speaker, what we're here for is not the minimum wage today. that is another time and i'm sure that as other bodies debate this and as the administration trots around the country, opportunities to sell their end of that, the american people will get that message. but today, is about a group of people who are arbitraryly

losing and having -- arbitrarily losing and having diminishes from 30 hours down to 20 hours their job directly as a result of obamacare. mr. speaker, yesterday in testimony before the house of representatives, there was discussion about a hoover institute study that was done by dr. chen. dr. chen specifically went and looked at the impact that affordable care act was having upon employers and employees. and this really was put into context when we realized that this is a net $74 billion change in the law. $74 billion that the administration was counting on american people paying into the affordable care act to support this by diminishing the amount of hour this is a a person works. so what did dr. chen say? dr. chen took just one piece

part of our marketplace, education. here's what he said. the final reason i argue that 30 hour -- the 30-hour rule must be addressed is because of the negative impact it is having in this case on school districts, colleges, and universities. and i quote from him. the analysis of vulnerable workers referred early was that we focused on 225,000 workers who have a history of working in the education industry. and they found out that because of the 30-hour rule, that over 100 school districts across the country, including dozens in indiana, which is where the study took place, would have either cut workers' hours or outsourced jobs to avoid the affordable care act's employee mandate. what we're saying is that the

federal law that is not a mistake, it is on purpose, was specifically designed to bring $74 billion to the affordable care act by diminishing the hours that the american worker can have. and when we bring this to the floor, they're arguing, oh, my gosh, republicans, they want to have a $74 billion higher deficit. it could not be further from the truth. this is money that comes from american workers, $74 billion, and this commonsense legislation that we're handling today will say that we are going to turn back the clock to where there will not be a penalty for having a 40-hour workweek in america.

today president obama and the democratic party want to reduce the number of hours and american worker will have and make $74 billion off, diminishing what would be in their pockets, to move it directly to the federal government. no doubt, no doubt you will he see other democrats come to the floor just as he we saw the gentleman from new york arguing not about the substance of this bill but about talking about why he we ought to do a minimum wage bill. and yet their same arguments are we should have a government that allows people to keep more money in their pockets. mr. speaker, that's what we are doing today. we are with the commonsense bill on the floor of the house of representatives, the gentleman from indiana, mr. young, carefully, thoughtfully went and sold this across this body. a bipartisan bill to say that the $74 billion impact on the middle class of this country in

particular, universities, those in education, those workers who needed jobs will lose in essence 1/4 of the hours that they worked because of the affordable care act. president obama, then nancy pelosi, and harry reid who jammed this bill down the american people's throat and now republicans are taking on one at a time. this is our 51st slice at explaining to the american people why this is a bad bill. mr. speaker, the $74 billion belongs to the american worker not to bigger government. the $74 billion is exactly why the republican party is here today. i want to thank the gentleman from texas, mr. burgess, whose work not only on the rules committee but also the energy and commerce has meant that he has taken his private sector

experience as a doctor to washington, d.c., and having a doctor in the house as doctor burgess has done makes a huge difference. that's why the republican party is on the floor today saying let's pass this piece of legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cohen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for two minutes. mr. cohen: thank you. appreciate the opportunity to talk. the affordable care act hit a significant milestone yesterday. over seven million people signed up for health care. i was very proud of it. i voted for the affordable care act. i suffered a debilitating illness when i was 5 years old and my father was a doctor, but beyond that just knowing human beings and the need for health

care, it was so important to me to see that people got health care. 50 million americans don't have it. it was a great day when we gave the opportunity to these seven million people, plus many people that got medicaid extended to them in states where the governors were responsible in accepting money to provide health care to people who needed it, and other states are not getting it, and the children who are staying on their parents he' health care until they are 26, you're talking over seven million. when you add in the children, and the medicaid folks, it's a lot more people. it's a day america should be celebrating about. and it boggles my mind to see the other side bringing for the 5 or 52nd tsh-51st or 52nd time a bill to repeal what an effort to give 10 million americans or more health care. we should be celebrating. what you do to the least of

these you do to me. health care is an essential basic element of life. if you don't have health care, you're not going to have a fruitful and long life. so i celebrate the passage of the bill and in bewilderment the fact that the republicans are proudly having a 51st or 52nd opportunity to attack what is a bill that gives health care to people. gives parents the knowledge that their children will get health care, children the relief that their parents when they have illnesses will be treated, and nobody will be shut out for not -- because they have a pre-existing condition. that women won't be treated because of their sex as a pre-existing condition and not be allowed to get health care. that the doughnut hole will be filled. this is a day to celebrate. up on our -- above the speaker's rostrum, daniel webster said, let's do something great in our

time here. we did it and we need to be proud of it. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from new york reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, may i inquire to the time remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas has 12 1/2 minutes. the gentlelady from new york has 1 minutes remaining. -- 16 minutes remaining. mr. burgess: i yield myself two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. burgess: a very important point of what we are doing here today. look, when a junior senator from my state stands up back home and says he wants to repeal every syllable of obamacare, i'll stand on my chair and cheer because i think that's the right approach. but that's not what we are doing today. we are fixing a problem as it exists in the body of the law that is redefining full-time work as 30 hours per week. we are fundamentally re-establishing that relationship that occurs with america's working class. i would submit that in political

could he magazine on march 26, 2014, there was an opinion piece written. how to fix the affordable care act. who was this opinion piece written by? it was written by members of the other body, democratic senators, who had voted in favor of the passage of the affordable care act in the first place. but they have proposals that they put forward in an opinion piece on how to fix the ffordable care act.

ms. slaughter: may i inquire if y colleague has more speakers? mr. burgess: your colleague always has more speakers as long as he's seated in the house but i see no one else waiting so we can proceed. ms. slaughter: then i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. slaughter: we heard again today that the affordable care act simply falls in the face of reality that since the bill was passed, 8.6 million new jobs have been created in the united

states and every time we see one they e ads where we see are oftentimes people paid to say that. or that they have unfortunately been mistaken. today's rule grants three hours of debate on a bill going nowhere because we don't have anything else to do. we all know the senate will never take up this legislation and if it did, the president's already said he would veto it. so instead of wasting three hours of debate on a 52nd attempt to undermine the affordable care act, i urge my colleagues to hold a vote to reform our immigration system, renew unemployment benefits or raise the minimum wage or create jobs. this economy would be roaring if we could pass bills here. we have 48 bills ready to go. that would create new job this is a we can't put on the floor

because of our single occupation here of trying to dismantle the health care act. if we defeat the previous question today and i hope everybody will vote no on it, to give us a chance to do something that cries out to be done. mr. speaker, if we defeat the previous question, i will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up legislation to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. the american people are calling for an economy that works for everyone, not just those at the top. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote no to defeat the previous question, vote no on the underlying bill, and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from texas is ecognized.

mr. burgess: i yield myself the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. burgess: the issues of jobs created in the last five years, let me do point out that the state of texas has been responsible for the creation of about 1/3 of those jobs and it's because of our robust oil and gas business in the manufacturing sector in the state of texas that has been responsible for that job growth. so when the president comes in front of the joint session of the house for the state of the union address and wants to talk about the jobs created since he became president, my belief is he should say with the next statement, may god bless texas, because texas is responsible for that job growth and nothing to do with the affordable care act. let me talk briefly about why we are here today. of course, the gentlelady mentioned about the passage of the affordable care act. she mentions the detailed analysis that was done by the democrats who were then in the

majority, how they point of order over every word in the -- how they poured over every word in the legislation. let me read from section 1513 of the consolidated patient protection and affordable care act. the number of full-time employees for any month otherwise determined include for such month a number of 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 120. period, end of sentence. what does that mean, mr. speaker? . it's about a 55-page rule based upon what i just read to the house. it's a long he recitation. it contains a lot of things.

but here's the bottom line. four employees who average at least 30 hours of service per week during a measurement period who thus must be treated as full-time employees during an associated six month stability period. that's the bottom line. i don't know how we went from 120 per month to 30 hours per week but they figured it out at the department of treasury at some great expense i suspect because here is this rule that came to the american people on february of this year when the actual law was passed almost four years prior. nevertheless, we have the rule and people are welcomed to read it in the federal register. it was published on wednesday, february 12 of 2014. two days before valentine's day. we love you, america. mr. speaker, this bill before us today, the rule that governs the debate on this bill before us today, keeps that fundamental

contract with employers and their workers. the full-time employment will be 40 weeks. if you accept the definition from the department of labor that it's now 30 weeks, and an employer is trying to reduce costs of providing employment, they may make thelogical assumption that if someone only works 28 or 29 hours, then they are not full-time. therefore they do not need to be health insurance. what we have done is we shifted that entire equation and rob people of 10 hours of employment every week. that is a significant change in their take-home pay. mr. speaker, today's rule provides for consideration of a critical bill to ensure that americans are not forced to work fewer hours than they otherwise would without these labor laws included in the affordable care act. i thank mr. young for his thoughtful legislation working

across the aisle to offer a bill that both republicans and democrats have accepted in the committee by passing it to the committee with no amendment. he had bipartisan co-sponsors and public support. i urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying bill. for that reason i will yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. ms. slaughter: on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered, members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by five-minute votes on adoption of house resolution 530, if ordered.

and approval of the journal. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 221.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 229, the nays are 194. the previous question is ordered. the question is on the adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the resolution is adopted. >> mr. speaker. i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 236, the nays are 186. the resolution is adopted. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 262. the nays are 157. with two answering present. the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentlelady from the virgin islands seek recognition? mrs. christensen: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a co-sponsor from h.r. 37167, helping families and mental health

crisis act of 2013. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. camp: mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 530, i call the bill h.r. 2575, the save american workers act of 2014 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 287, h.r. 2575, a bill 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. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 530, the amendment in the nay a substitute recommended by the committee on ways and means printed in the bill is adopted. the bill as amended is crd. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, each will control 90 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on h.r. 2575. the speaker pro tempore: so ordered. the gentleman is recognized. mr. camp: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the gentleman is recognized. mr. camp: mr. speaker, today i rise in support of restoring

americans work hours so they can see bigger paychecks and more opportunities. obamacare places an unprecedented government regulation on workers. changing the definition of full-time from 40 hours per week to 30 hours. as a direct result, americans across the country are having their hours cut at work and seeing smaller paychecks. at a time when the cost of groceries, gas, and health care keep increasing, -- mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. will members please take their conversations off the floor. the gentleman is recognized. mr. camp: as a direct result, mr. speaker, americans across the country are having their hours cut at work and seeing smaller paychecks. at a time when the cost of groceries, gas, and health care keep increasing, lower paychecks

are simply unacceptable. the bill we have before us today to save american workers act would repeal obamacare's 30-hour workweek definition of full-time employment and restore the traditional definition of 40-hour workweek. today we are voting to restore hours and wages and give businesses and their workers some relief from the burdens of obamacare. this is a critical step in creating an america that workers. -- works. i hear about the effects of obamacare from workers and employers across mid michigan. recently central michigan university was forced to cut back student employee hours. as one student said, i quote, students use that money to pay for finances and school, and i think it's going to become increasingly harder for them to pay for school when we can only work 25 hours, end quote. a faculty member at a community college in my district wrote to me recently and said, again i'm quoting, i hold two part-time positions. today i was informed i cannot continue to do both jobs because

of obamacare laws. beginning in august i will no longer be advising and will lose approximately 1/3 of my income. last year i bought a house. a house i now fear i will no longer be able to afford, end quote. by forcing employers to shift workers from full-time to part-time, 309-hour rule is destroying hardworking americans' ability to earn more during these tough economic times. at a time when the president is calling on congress to increase pages, it is his health care law that is forcing americans to see smaller paychecks. obamacare is putting full-time work an the potential to earn more wages out of the reach of millions of americans. those who are hit the hardiers are low-income americans already struggling in these tough economic times. according to a hoover institution study, 2.6 million americans making under $30,000 a year are most at risk of having their hours and wages cut as a result of the 30-hour rule.

of that, over 60% are women, and 90% to not have a college degree. the administration has made exceptions and delays for big businesses and political allies, why not american workers and job creators. the nonpartisan congressional budget office confirmed the bill we are considering today will reduce obamacare's unacceptable burden on job creators and increase wages for american workers. according to the congressional budget office, the save america workers act will increase wages for american workers by $75 billion. repeal $63.4 billion of obamacare tax increases, and reduce the number of employers subject to penalties related to obamacare. i applaud todd young for his work on this legislation. it's time to vote in support of americans who are facing higher bills and smaller paychecks. i urge my colleagues to join me in a yes vote.

i yield the balance of my time to mr. young from indiana. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. young: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. speaker, as the senate continues to push for a 25% increase in the federal minimum wage, they continue to ignore that millions of hourly workers face as much as a 25% pay cut as a result of obamacare. because of the 30 hours' full-time provision buried in the employer mandate, many employees face the prospect of being limited in their work hours. when they aren't allowed to work more than 29 hours, they simply aren't able to generate the income they need to support themselves and their families. it's worth noting that an employee who he sees their hours cut from 39 to 29 is losing 10 hours a week, which over the course of a month is an entire weeks' worth of wages. the employees work we are talking about are people who

most depend on getting ever hour and every bit of wages that they can. we are talking about custodians, cafeteria workers, and substitute teachers at your child's school. we are talking about the waitresses and bus boys at your favorite restaurant. the cashier who rings you out at the grocery store back in your district. and the guys on the assembly line who help make your car. in my district we are also talking about adjuncts professors. in places like ivy tech community college in indiana university. these are all americans who want to work but they are dealing with the unintended consequences, and i do believe they are unintended, of this health care law, obamacare. some of these provisions are limiting their hours and pay and this needs to be fixed. so i introduced the save american workers act because i want to help these hardworking hoosiers and other americans who are just trying to make ends meet. by simply he repealing this provision and restoring the

traditional 40-hour workweek, we can help make an america that works. now, i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill. i commend my colleagues on the other side who have already signed on as co-sponsors, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. on the n: my colleagues republican side in the house, they are so blinded by their ideology that they will not or cannot see reality or hear other voices. so here's the reality. seven-plus million people have n rolled in private plans through the a.c.a. marketplaces.

the a.c.a. is working. millions have new coverage under medicaid. up to 129 million americans with pre-existing health conditions, including 17 million children, in longer have to worry about being denied coverage. or being charged higher premiums due to their health status. 3.1 million young adults have gained health coverage because they can now stay on their parents' health plan up to age 26. that's the reality of a.c.a., and there's more. there's also the reality of what this legislation would do, and i want to emphasize this because i don't think it has been accurately stated today. it would force one million people out of employer-based

health insurance, according to c.b.o. one million people would be forced out of employer-based health insurance. it would increase the number of uninsured by about half a million people, also according to c.b.o. and so they are bringing this up at the same time that seven million people have enrolled in private plans through the marketplace. and when millions now have coverage under medicaid, so they essentially want to go in reverse in terms of health coverage. also -- and they don't face up to this. and i think it's also been misdescribed. this bill would add $74 billion to the deficit, according to c.b.o., when there is no offset. $74 billion?

and you're coming forth here the day after we receive the latest information about a.c.a., all that has happened beneficially, and you're now coming and saying, not people -- knock people off of insurance, knock them off of employer-based insurance and add $74 billion to the deficit? . if i am wrong i'd like someone to stand up and say so. also, there's been much discussion of the impact in terms of part-time employment, and i want to read in quotes what the c.b.o. said definitively in february. in c.b.o.'s judgment, there's no compelling evidence that part-time employment has creased as a result of the

a.c.a. so as we heard in testimony, a community college came forth and said they had reduced the hours of teachers in order to avoid paying health insurance? that's what somebody in the education field wants to come forth and say that's their policy? i suggest, instead of forgoing their responsibility as employers, they ought to go into the marketplace and see what they can do to bring more coverage for the people who are working hard. essentially, what you're doing here today is saying to many, many people who are working hard and who need insurance, this bill will knock you off of your employer-based insurance and increase the number of

uninsured by half a million while increasing the deficit by $74 billion? ideology is in deep line when this kind of a proposition is put forth. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. >> mr. speaker, this bill worth noting would decrease by $63 billion the number of taxes on our employers during the worst economy, some will say, since the great debregs. it will cause our wage earners around the country to realize an additional $75 billion in wage income. you know, i take fiscal impact, the fiscal condition of this country very seriously. i find it very hard to believe, though, that anyone, a member of this body, would desire to

pass a national health care law that is paid for on the backs of our hourly workers, those who can least afford to absorb lower wages, fewer hours, perhaps losing their job altogether and i think that's essentially the argument i hear from the other side when i hear the $75 billion figure put forward. mr. young: with that, mr. speaker, i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. buchanan, a distinguished member of the ways and means committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for three minutes. mr. buchanan: i want to thank the gentleman, mr. speaker. there's no issue today that's more important in this body than growing the economy and creating jobs. "the wall street journal" noted that there are fewer jobs today been this -- there has fewer jobs since 2007. the gentleman from michigan said we need to go in the marketplace. i've been in the marketplace for over 30 years as someone

who created jobs. this health care mandate that is 30 -- is a big issue. the 30-hour requirement is forcing businesses to reduce working hours and cut wages. i had a gentleman last week that's in our -- in my congressional district. he has 291 employees, three restaurants, he's mentioned to me numerous times that he's going to have to cut quite a few employees from 40 hours to 29 hours and he's even suggested in many cases to reduce his health care costs he's going to have to push it up to more people more hours because he can bring down his health care costs. the fact with health care costs in my district, anyway, is as much as $1,500 to $2,000 an employee. so it's a big issue. another employer in our area, one of our largest employers, is going to be moving hundreds of employees from 40 hours to

29 hours a week. so it's a very big issue in sarasota, my congressional district. with that i'd like to just ask my colleagues for quick passage. we need to move this bill quickly, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida yields back. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i yield myself one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. levin: look, the evidence is clear that more people would have their hours reduced if this bill passed than might -- if this bill passed. that might be true under the present a.c.a., and i said what the c.b.o. has said in terms of reduced hours of work. so once again, you're just now facing the reality. changing this to 40 hours will hurt all around. i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. castro.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. castro: thank you, ranking member levin, thank you for yielding to me. you know, we speak a lot in this body about the freedoms that as americans we have been endowed by our forefathers and that are enshrined in the constitution, whether it's the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, our second amendment freedoms, but i think we all understand and know and unfortunately too many americans know firsthand that when you're sick and lying in a hospital bed or when you're at home and can't go to the doctor that those freedoms many very little. how is someone who couldn't get ealth insurance, whose life is spiraling downward, who can't make their car or mortgage payment, how much are those freedoms worth when their life is spiraling downward because they can't afford health care anymore? the fact is the affordable care act, one of the greatest things that it's done, is allowed more

americans to be able to enjoy the freedoms that all of us here in congress fight so hard to protect for the american people. one of the troubling -- a few of the troubling things about this bill is that a million people, up to a million people would lose their health care coverage if this piece of legislation was enacted. it would cost $74 billion to the american people, adding to our debt and our deficit. what's also interesting is just about every bill that is allowed to pass through the house of representatives in this day requires a pay-for. in other words, the republican majority does not allow a piece of legislation to be passed unless it is paid for by cutting something else. what's different about this piece of legislation is that there's no question that it would cost $74 billion and yet there's absolutely no pay-for in this bill.

i would also note, and as was mentioned, this would cost american business some money, well, a few things. even many, many businesses don't define the workweek as 40 hours, they define it -- mr. levin: two minutes to the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. castro: so this is inconsistent even with how millions of american businesses define full-time employment. and i would also point out this , we know as our economy has started to rebound from the worst recession that we've had since the great depression that many american businesses are doing well, that wall street is tting all-time highs, that the stock market has soared and that's good for america. we don't begrudge any company that. but small businesses are already exempted from the a.c.a. requirements, so this is about more sizeable companies.

so in an economy where business is doing well, why should we say to all of these workers, people who are going to work every day, who have incredible work ethic, that are empowering our economy, that they don't deserve health insurance? i was in san antonio and i know we had long lines the last day to enroll in the affordable care act and people's faces lit up because for the first time in many of their lives they were going to be able to afford health care coverage. and many of them had their kids with them. there were teenagers there. there were senior citizens there. this is a milestone in people's lives, and this bill would take that away from a million people. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. young: thank you, mr. speaker. i know my good colleague spoke with a great deal of sincerity and earnestness when he talked about pay-fors. it's worth noting the attempt to pay for this affordable care

act, obamacare as it's popularly known, on the backs of our hourly workers strikes me as unconscionable. something that none of us ought to be contemplating which is why this is a bipartisan effort. mr. speaker, i now yield three minutes to the distinguished majority whip, mr. mccarthy of california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. mccarthy: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of h.r. 2575, the save american workers act. mr. speaker, working on an hourly wage is tough. i know this. i worked every single part of the job in a deli, one that i started 25 years ago. during an hourly -- doing an hourly wage is an opportunity to start, to progress, to be able to move up. but in today's world, it's a little different. today because of obamacare, you

don't have the opportunity to work the extra hours. you don't have the opportunity to expand. mr. speaker, i listened to another colleague on this floor say small businesses were exempt, up to 50. so now our law is saying, you have to stay small. you can't grow. you can't have that american dream to be something bigger. you know, mr. speaker, this affects business but it also affects the public sector as well. in every single district across this country, this is having a great deal of effect. in my own hometown in kern county, the board of supervisors no longer have seasonal workers. those are firefighters, those are seasonally, because they can't go beyond the time. y community college's district class for he extra the students. they asked why and they pointed to one bill, obamacare.

those are the stories you hear, the stories you know about. you know what, numbers don't lie. so what have the numbers shown since this law has gone into effect? department of labor. department of labor shows for low-wage workers in december, 2013, clocked the shortest workweek on record. only 27.4 hours a week. that is lower than during the recession. today we have an opportunity to change that. today we have an opportunity to unshackle that an individual can work more hours, that an individual that maybe owns a business to give people an opportunity. yes, the barrier will not be there to make sure you're only small, you can have the american dream, you can grow. mr. speaker, i ask all to join us in making a bipartisan bill where individuals have co-sponsored this bill to have america move forward. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair lays before the house the following enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 4152, an act to provide for the costs of loan guarantees for ukraine. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: it's too bad that we don't have a position called fact checker on the floor and so we could yield to the fact checker every time something is misstated. if there were such a position here, today that person would be immensely busy. for example, i think it's correct that student workers are exempted from the count, so to come here and talk about udents i think misstates the fact. and same is true of the story out the shift would hurt

workers when the truth of the matter is this shift from 30 to would indeed have a major impact in terms of people. let me read to you from the center on budget and policy priorities dated october 12, 2013. moreover, i quote, raising the law's threshold for full-time work from 30 hours a week to 40 hours would make a shift toward part-time employment much more likely, not less so. that's because only a small share of workers today, less than 8%, work 30 hours to 34 hours a week and thus are more at risk of having their hours cut below health reform's threshold. in comparison, 43% of employees

work 40 hours a week and another several percent, 41 hours to 44 hours a week. thus, raising the threshold to 40 hours would place more than five times as many workers at risk of having their hours reduced, end of quotes. that's the reality. . that's the reality. and to come here and say what would happen if we don't pass this bill is that more people would have their hours reduced than if we pass the bill. that's simply -- that simply is not correct. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. young: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from virginia, mr. cantor, the house majority leader. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia, leader cantor, is recognized for one minute. mr. cantor: thank you, i