middle class families with children by an average of at least $2,000, according to the o.m.b., but they give up $200,000 tax break to millionaires. perhaps most forgettable are the cost to our nation's invest n-education, early childhood education, head start, k through 12, and beyond. . the cuts in pell grants so hard to understand. the ryan republican budget even rejected the immigration reform with its promise of creating jobs, stronger small business, a growing economy and dramatically shrinking the deficit, as the c.b.o. said over a 20-year period, nearly $1 trillion in deficit reduction coming from the immigration bill. the chairman said we shouldn't be writing law in here, so we

shouldn't do the immigration ece and was countered by mr. cardenas saying we shouldn't be writing medicare law here either. i think the chairman agreed. the democrats are committed to creating growth with good-paying jobs, investing in our future, responsibly reducing the deficit. and we could not be better led in that statement of values for our country as to what is important to us than by our distinguished ranking member of the committee working with our democratic colleagues on the committee, the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen. thank you, mr. van hollen. >> thank you, leader pelosi. it's great to be with all of you today. and as leader pelosi said, this republican budget that we voted on in the budget committee yesterday and is expected to

come to the floor next week is very important. it's important because it tells the american public exactly what republicans in congress would do to the country if they had the power to impose their will on the country. this is a road map of what they would do and so people need to take it very seriously. we encourage every american to read this republican budget and then read the president's budget. because budgets are about choices, and if you look at the republican budget, it chooses to rig the rules of the game in favor of the very wealthy and privileged special interests at the expense of everyone else and at the expense of everything else, beginning with jobs. the congressional budget office indicates that their budget would slow down economic activity over the next couple years. that means less jobs. they have tax breaks that would encourage companies to ship american jobs overseas. we want people to be shipping

american products overseas, but these tax breaks ship american jobs overseas at the same time they radically cut investments in jobs right here at home in america. they dramatically cut investments in research and development, in innovation, in our infrastructure, which is important to keep the economy moving. they dramatically cut our investments in advanced manufacturing, and then they make very deep cuts in the area of education. you know, we all say that we want america to be the land of opportunity, and if you want a land of opportunity, you want people to be able to climb the ladder of opportunity. this republican budget systematically knocks the rungs off that ladder, beginning with a cut of $145 billion to the education part of the budget, and on top of that, $245 billion cut to our current

policies with respect to higher education. so fewer kids will be able to afford college. if you come from a college that can pay the bill, you're fine. but anybody else struggling to try to get to college, you're out of luck under this republican budget. when we should be investing in early education, they cut head start and early education and k-12 and special education. so they undermine the whole notion we should be investing in our future to help grow our economy and be competitive as a country. seniors, as leader pelosi said, seniors really get socked in this budget in a number of ways. first of all, seniors with high prescription drug costs will immediately see their prescription drug prices skyrocket because they reopen the prescription drug doughnut hole that was closed by the affordable care act. they reopen it so seniors fall through. that amounts to $1,200 more per

year on average for a senior with a high prescription drug cost. they're immediately going to require seniors to pay co-pays in order to access preventive care services, diagnostic services. they move, again, to the voucher plan, this time within their budget window. and so all those things are going to have a dramatically negative impact on seniors. on top of that, they cut medicaid by over $750 billion. i'm not talking about expanding medicaid under the affordable care act. just the traditional medicaid. they cut it by one quarter of their budget window. 25%. if you're a senior in a nursing home, this will put the squeeze on you. in fact, 2/3 of the medicaid budget is spent on the elderly and the disabled. let's look at middle-class

families. as leader pelosi said, they're going to get socked. you know, dave camp went through a reality-based exercise of tax reform. it's as if dave camp disappeared from the planet in this pudget, because whatever you think of his -- budget, because whatever you think of his proposal, what it demonstrated was you could not achieve the republican budget goal of cutting the tax rates for millionaires by a full 1/3 without increasing the tax burden on middle-class families, right? if you drop the tax rate from 39% to 5%, that's a full 1/3 -- to 25%, that's a full 1/3 cut in the rate for a millionaire. if you're going to do that in a deficit neutral way, you have to reduce a lot of money. what dave camp showed, you can get to the top rate of 35%, which was what was in his budget, which by all accounts did not shift the burden of taxes among different income groups, but this republican

budget once again goes back to this ideological goal of cutting to 25%. and that does result in increasing middle-class families' taxes by an average of $2,000. it's simple math. that's tax policy center and o.m.b. and just to make sure, we want ed to find out if that was the republicans' attention. an amendment said, ok, let's ake sure we maintain the progressivity of the tax code and you shouldn't increase the tax burden on middle-class families. we had an amendment. they all voted no. so they voted to protect tax breaks of millionaires and they voted against an amendment to say we're not going to increase the tax burden on middle-class families. finally, the safety net. look, this is a very cruel cut

to the safety net. we had a debate about food and nutrition programs to try and help families that are struggling to get out of poverty and get into the middle class. they absolutely devastate that safety net, tear it up. all under this pernicious idea that somehow you're going to be helping people by taking away food and nutrition for their kids. and the last point i want to make has to deal with their false claim of balance. so they go through this exercise of protecting tax breaks for special interests and very wealthy people, and in order to do that they sock it to kids' education, they hurt seniors, they squeeze the middle class all because they want to claim to have a balanced budget at the end of 10 years. but they don't because in the same budget, they claim to totally get rid of the

affordable care act. but they don't totally get rid of the affordable care act in their budget. they get rid of all the good parts, the benefits, the tax credits that help people afford insurance in the exchanges, they get rid of those. they get rid of the provisions that say you can stay on your parents' insurance policy until aged 26. they get rid of those. they get rid of the provisions that say you won't be denied because of pre-existing conditions. they keep every penny of medicare savings and they keep every penny of the revenue from the affordable care act. that's $2 trillion in their budget. you take that out, they don't come close to balance, so it's a fraud to claim at the same time that they have a balanced budget and they're getting rid of the affordable care act. the heritage foundation pointed out that their budget includes all the revenue, right? and we know, we just have to look at it, that it includes the medicare savings even though they demagogue against

that. so i hope no one will print that they have a balanced budget unless you print at the same time that the republicans have changed their mind and now they're accepting all the revenues and all the savings in the affordable care act. because that is the only way they come close to balance. they don't even balance with that. they have another gimmick in there. they don't come close without it. this is an exercise of hurting the very wealthy in order to pretend to achieve a goal they don't really achieve in this had budget. so we're looking forward to the debate on the floor, because as we said, this shows the country exactly what republicans will do and we think it is very out of touch with where the overwhelming in order -- majority are. >> there was a hearing yesterday about the commerce

department ceding control of the united nations -- >> can we stay with the budget for a moment? because i have some things i want to bring up -- >> i want to talk about the mccutcheon ruling. >> that's something we have been talking about. >> you criticized it. can the d.n.c. and the democratic party take this ruling that the republicans can -- seek more money from your biggest donors, joint fundraising, why can't the democrats use this to your advantage like the republicans? >> this doesn't make it right. we have for a number of years now tried to empower small donors to diminish the money in politics. i think that's what the public wants to say. by the way, i want to mention that in the dare disclose our champion is congressman van hollen. he has been early on this, pushing for disclosure because

that makes all the difference. the chamber of commerce told us if our members had disclosed they wouldn't give to these secret p.a.c.'s. with mccutcheon, they're giving this money to big parties that will be disclosed, but my understanding of the decision is that we can't ask anybody for anything more than we've asked them in the past. they can give to many more -- giving is unlimited, but what we can ask them for, which is the maximum that the law allows, $32,400, or $5,200 to candidates, that doesn't change. but this comes at a time when for a number of years we have been working at the grassroots level, many groups have been involved in all of this common cause. the league of women voters. everybody knows that this has to change. and if we're going to let more men, in my view, one of my

antesis -- decrease the role of money, increase the number of civility, you'll have more women running for public office and that's probably the most wholesome thing we can do for our country. just because the ante is raised for everyone does not make it right. and it was a very bad decision but totally consistent with their backwards thinking and undermining our democracy, which this court did in citizens united. >> is there a concern that more megadonors seem to be more conservative and more pro-republican? >> i am not thinking politically about this. i'm thinking about our democracy. is this supposed to be a money war? that's what turns off the public. nothing again is more disillusioning to the public than the vast display of money spent in campaigns and largely on the part of the exploiters in terms of the environment -- workers, workers' rights, all

of those things, they don't talk about -- we don't want to degrade the environment. they misrepresent what their view is, confuse the public, that's a victory for them. exotential ry threat of how we do our campaigning and how we run our government and that is something that should be roundly objected. there is nothing we can do about it. it's the supreme court. we can organize against it and we can have a message of reform that says this is unacceptable and we can, again, pass the democracy bill that mr. sarbanes is advancing that empowers small donors to give a better way for campaigns to be funded based on small donors rather than just unlimited money from donors. how can they talk about this if

this being the first amendment and the voice of the people when they have snuffed out the voice of the people with this -- with these decisions? yes, sir. >> how do you juggle, though, organizing against this when at the same time democrats are using the same tactics that republicans are in terms of -- >> the fact is you have to raise money to win the election. you're not going to unilaterally disarm, but if you can win the election, then that's where you differentiate and you go forward with initiatives to change the laws under which our campaign funding proceeds. it's difficult. you can't win unless you have the resources. n unlimited, constant spigot from the god knows where unlimited money. it's just plain wrong. it's just plain wrong. many of us -- i'm former chair

of the california democratic party. i'm a grassroots person. our v.i.p.'s were volunteers in politics and that program included people who gave us $5, $10, like that to grow the campaign war chest that we needed. but this is outrageous. it's really outrageous, especially when you see that the very same people who are putting up all this money are the very same people opposed to raising minimum wage, are the ery same people who don't want clean air, safety, all these hings that are our responsibility. one said that the bread box and ballot box cannot be separated. this is absolutely so. the well-being of the american people are affected by what happens at the balance objection box and if there's just unlimited money poured into it -- and just to your point, this isn't about democrats doing it, republicans, let's just get rid

of this. let's offer an alternative to the public instead of celebrating that more money can be poured into it. i am surprised around here -- surprise is not even a word in my life, but when senator mcconnell -- it was a few years ago that he said, it's not that there's too much money in politics, there isn't enough. for him to say it, really, it's stunning. the american people expect and deserve to have elections where they can make a choice. they expect to have government where the people's interests are served and not the special interests. you go down this path that we have now without a fight in the public arena about reform and the skepticism the american people have in government will only increase, and that's not a healthy thing for democracy. yes, ma'am. >> i want to ask you about the

vote today in the senate intelligence committee. they're expected -- >> anybody else on the budget and i'll come back to other questions. budget. >> yes. >> are you sure? >> last night there was an amendment to boost the amount of advanced appropriations that v.a. would be eligible to have. does that take on -- it was rejected, of course. so the other amendments were. is that a significance of what happened at fort hood? >> i think it's significant under any circumstances. i think what happened at fort hood underscores the fact that we have to keep faith with our military and our veterans and that was what that amendment was all about, keeping faith, because we wanted to make sure if we ever have a situation again where there's something like a government shutdown that

our veterans' benefits can be completely paid and as you may recall back last october when republicans shut down the government in order to try and repeal the affordable care act, they hurt the entire economy but they also put in jeopardy support for a lot of different groups, including our veterans. and so we were disappointed our republican colleagues did not support this amendment. it also included president obama's proposal for jobs, a jobs plan for our veterans. i had a lot of very important elements for our nation's veterans, and it did not -- they voted it down. it's one more example, i think, where people's priorities lie. if i could just say one word on mccutcheon, because this is further rigging the rules of the game in favor of the very wealthy special interests and millionaires which is exactly

what the republican budget does. this is opening up the doors for people who could write $1 million check. how many americans can write a $1 million check to political campaigns? not very many. and i can assure you that a lot of them are spending that money to try and stop things like increasing the minimum wage, to try and block our agenda of empowering the middle class and in order to protect the tax breaks that millionaires and special interests enjoy. so all it does is tilt the field, the playing field further in their favor and add insult to injury, republicans have blocked us from requiring that when these outside groups spend money in elections that they tell the american public who they are. and the reason that's important is because people need to know what special interests are trying to spend money to influence elections and try and get the kind of legislation

they want out of the congress. and republicans want to keep that secret. they don't want the american voter to know who is spending that kind of money. and that's just wrong. transparency is important to our political process, to our democracy. and they want to keep that secret and i think the american people want to know what they're trying to hide. >> if i could just make -- add to that. in fact, some of the notorious -- you know who they are -- brag about how much money they are going to spend and have spent, it's important for people to know how much they're spending. it's another thing they have fake names they put on ads. we want the public to know who these people are in real time when they see the ad and the rest. and i don't say this about the fundraising, because i say it from the point of weakness. democrats can raise money.

people care about our values, our interest in science and technology and protecting the environment and innovation and the rest. they understand the difference between democrats and republicans. but it's not a fundraising that is about the exploiltation of any of those situations. and whatever it is, we shouldn't have it on either side. on the veterans, i'm very proud when we had the majority, working with our veteran service organizations, did have the advanced funding as part of our agenda right from the start. i was very proud to be invited by the head -- american legion to introduce the commander of the american legion to the joint house senate hearing last week on the senate side. and we talked about how important that was. but unfortunately it did not pass in committee yesterday. enhanced, shall we say. sadly in fort hood, both of those were active duty

personnel. that doesn't mean we should -- the problem goes beyond veterans in terms of what we need to do. we look to the military to present some solutions. any other questions? >> going back to the mccutcheon -- >> i go to chad because i left him with commerce and -- >> this is a reform question. >> thank you. >> there's concern if the commerce department creads control over this portion of the internet in countries like russia or whatever could take over and that could -- we talk about first amendment here -- could trump internet freedoms in some places and potentially even here. to what degree do you think that is a potential, particularly when we see actions like vladimir putin and how he approaches things? >> i thought the system as it

was running was doing a fine job. we all learned about it years ago how the names and the domain and all of that. i think there's some answers that you raise that need to be answered and the justification that jurisdiction needs to be made. i had the same questions you had when i saw that they were doing that. from the practical matter as well as from a political, shall we say, in terms of the countries that you named, i think it deserves real very thorough study, real attention to it and to their justification. yes, sir. >> yeah. now mccutcheon is law of the land, how does this change how democrats approach elections? mean, how -- you said it

opens up the spigot even more. how do you combat that? how do you still get your message out? succeeds, america succeeds, our agenda for women in the workplace, raise the minimum wage, pass the pay equity act, equal pay for equal work, paid sick leave, issues that relate to child -- early childhood education, quality, affordable childcare, we don't want them to be political issues. we want them to be issues discussed if the campaign and that we will convince enough people that whoever wins the election, these will be on the agenda. combains as a debate arena as well as a political fight, and part of the success that i always told in my years as chair of the party, you can win the election but you have to win the campaign on the issues that you are presenting. they must be advanced.

so that's where we are. we are into mobilization at the grassroots level. we're doing that with a message of fairness and opportunity and freedom for the american people. job creation. good-paying jobs here at home. and again, managing all of that. does this give us a little more opportunity for some people who might be more inclined to help one committee or another? i don't know. it remains to be seen. but we're on that path. we've outraced everybody. we have no power, no gavel, no nothing but we do have the house republicans and that is an urgency that the grassroots community understands and our donors understand and our members understand and that's why we've outraced the congressional committees. i just want to get back to the budget because the fact is for the good of the country, this

debate is essential how we go forward. these are two different paths. the contrast could not be greater. you hear -- you see what they're doing at the expense of whom. another chart will show you what the democratic proposals will do and what the president's proposal will do about investments in the future. about innovation and education. innovation springs from the classroom, and the list goes on. so we're very excited about that. that's why we're here. and for a long time, all of those issues were bipartisan issues. our jobs initiatives, make it in america. don't do tax incentives to send jobs overseas. have tax incentives to keep good-paying jobs over here. a. b, builds america's infrastructure. that's always been bipartisan. that's always been bipartisan. c, listen to our communities on how we protect our communities,

have clean, safe environments for our children to grow and thrive. and d, dare. dispose, amend, reform, empower to, again, strengthen our democracy. so again, everything that is in that budget is central to the decision that the american people have to make. the question that will be called on the congress of the united states is, whose path do they choose? the path that is for them and about the american people or a path of special interests, that shifts jobs overseas, gives tax breaks to millionaires at the expense of america's workers, socks it to our seniors and undermines our children? we never would have much as, shall we say, the big outside money coming in, but we'll see how big outside money will be disclosed giving directly to the republican party which has

not been doing very well in the congress in terms of their fundraising. but in any case, i'm very, very proud of the work that chris van hollen and house democrats have done. i think the hearing yesterday was just fabulous. i mean, the difference was so clear. the fact is, though, we're under the dome. this is like a cone of silence. we have to take it to the public. and i'll end what i always say, president lincoln said public sentiment is everything. the public has to know. there are more ways of telling people something than just by spending money to do it. so i thank you all very much. have a good day. >> question about the c.i.a. >> that's coming out today. >> they're declassifying -- >> i promised to get back to you. >> back in 2009 you essentially said the c.i.a. misled you. >> yes, they did. >> this report gives evidence to that claim and there's proof that there was a misrepresentation of the

interrogation program, what kind of consequences should there be for the c.i.a.? >> well, you know, here's the thing, the c.i.a.'s made up of many very patriotic americans who take risks to protect our country. good intelligence presents conflicts, that's one of the hopes that we have, and it has been our experience. so some of what was done at the c.i.a., in my view, came from a -- shall we say -- higher paid rate. came from higher ups to direct them to do what they were doing. we'll see what they did. i am not surprised by it at all. they hold a meeting, controlled the report on it, add facts after the -- not facts -- add mythology or whatever, their view, after the fact. absolutely no review of consensus of the meeting. and then they -- and then they do what they did to the --

alleged to have done to the senate committee. what will happen, if it passes out of committee which i suspect chairwoman feinstein has the votes to do, then it will go to the c.i.a. for a classified vetting, am i correct? i'm not finished. it goes to the c.i.a. for some classification vetting. and then it goes to the president. and the president, like that, can declassify. it's a funny thing because when some people -- some declassification took place that should not have taken place during the bush years, the vice president was responsible at the -- with the license of the president was like, wait a minute, the rest of us are sworn to all kinds of secrecy and we didn't -- not to jeopardize sources but there's another experience -- >> have you urged the president to declassify? >> i had a private conversation

with the president on this particular aspect -- >> should he? >> of the c.i.a. it all depends on what they come up with. i used to make a joke when i was on the committee. you go upstairs, where it used to be, and you see the "washington post," classified. everything is classified. that's an exaggeration. think the more declassification, the more transparency, the better. and by the way, the sooner the better. and when people in their performance know there's going to be declassification, it might affect their performance. but, again, i want to pay tribute to all the members of the c.i.a. who worked so hard, do their job for our country and not to paint everyone there with this brush that we are seeing criticism of some in the c.i.a. really, if you're going to serve in congress and you are going to have responsibilities

over -- of oversight over the c.i.a., you shouldn't be at the mercy of their characterization of your oversight. and they have a lot of power. they have a lot of power to undermine anyone who criticizes them. so i congratulate senator feinstein for her courage and for her thoroughness, as she's known for, to move this along. thank you very much. bye-bye. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> if you missed what leader pelosi and congressman van hollen had to say, check our website at c-span.org. we'll transition live to a briefing with house speaker john boehner and republican leaders talking to reporters about veterans' issues. this is just getting under way. >> for him to verify he's married for them to claim his benefits and guess what, he's been married 49 years. meanwhile, at the v.a. there's no accountability, only business as usual. the facility in dayton, ohio,

many were exposed to hepatitis b and c. while this was under investigation, the director of the hospital collected a five-figure bonus. and then he was promoted. i thought i'd seen the worst of government, but this goes beyond the pale. if you're presiding over a drauks that's failing our veterans, you shouldn't -- bureaucracy that's failing our veterans, you shouldn't be promoted, you should be gone. soon, the house will act, to talk about -- to talk more about this, the chairman of the house veterans' affairs committee from florida, jeff miller. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. thank you for everybody that has come today in support of this piece of legislation. and also senator marco rubio, thank you for being here. this is very important. first of all, we need to say for the 300,000-plus people that work at v.a. every day, they do their job for the right

reason. but the problem we've been having with the department of veterans affairs as of late, there's no transparency and there's no accountability. i just left a hearing with a deputy secretary, sloan gibson, about delaying providing information to the committee so we can do our oversight information. we have requests for information into the department that dates some 660 days that we have received absolutely no response. then we talk about those people that have been involved in issues where there have been preventable deaths at hospitals around the country, and it's easier for those people to receive a bonus than it is for them to actually be fired. and what we're trying to do with this piece of legislation is very simple. it's to give the secretary the tools that he needs in order to make very important decisions. the safety of our veterans is paramount. service to our vicious is paramount, but we cannot continue to promote people who have not done their job and give them bonuses even when

there have been preventable eaths at their facilities. >> good morning. first, i want to thank speaker boehner, chairman miller, senator rubio for their hard work and support in reforming this mismanaged department. i'm happy to be carrying this bill of h.r. 4031, the department of veterans affairs management and accountability act of 2014. the words veteran and backlog should never be used in the same sentence. these brave men and women and their families never hesitated when they were called upon to serve this country and there was no excuse for delayed benefits and care. this is simply unacceptable. the recent news that at least 31 deaths at v.a. medical centers nationwide were completely preventable were only the tip of the iceberg of

the mismanagement of this department. we must do everything in our power to make sure this never happens again. this is a very straightforward measure. it provides greater accountability in the v.a. by giving the secretary the authority to fire those top executives for these historic failures within this department. our veterans and our families deserve nothing but the best. i look forward to working with my colleagues to see this bill passed into law. >> thank you, mr. speaker, and congressman miller and joining us in being part of this effort. i think they expect a government that's both accountable and effective but i know no americans that deserves this better than the men and women who sacrifice and risk their lives in the service of our country. these are men and women who are sometimes away from their families for months and years at a time, who face mortal danger in defense of our liberties and freedoms and the liberties and freedoms of others, who undergo tremendous

sacrifice of their families. we promised them a set of services for the men and women who serve us. and this is the department that's responsible for delivering these services. as congressman miller outlined a moment ago, the caseload we're getting in our offices in florida, a significant amount is related to veterans affairs and to the inability of this department to effectively and accountably deliver the services that these men and women have earned through their service to our country. what this bill does is pretty straightforward. it allows the secretary, it allows the secretary of the department to be able to fire and hold accountable senior executive officials within the department when in fact there's breakdown in accountability. it's the exact same thing that exists in the private sector. it exists in our congressional offices, but it does not exist in a government agency of this importance. let me reiterate what's already

been said. the vast majority of the 300,000 men and women who work in this agency work hard and do a great job. like any organization, there's going to be breakdowns and when there are, people need to be held accountable especially at the senior management level. and the people we entrust running this agency should have the power to fire and discipline those who have let down the men and women who have served us in uniform. i hope as the house acts on this measure that in the senate my colleagues across the aisle will see the importance of it and act quickly as well. >> good morning. my name is pete, the c.e.o. of concerned veterans for america. i'm honored to be here. our group is honored to be here and we're very appreciative of all the representatives up here. speaker boehner, for shining a light on it which is badly needed. chairman miller to be focusing like a laser beam.

senator rubio for carrying it in the senate. we appreciate your leadership in doing so i don't know what it is about florida, but you guys got our backs here on this issue and we really appreciate it. representatives with a lors key and mcmorris rodgers, i want to thank you for the speech last week. and the people that worked on this, american legion, vets, folks that have been stall warts on this issue for a long time and we're honored to stand next them to demand accountability at the department of veterans affairs. on behalf of this group standing behind us that's been on the hill the last two days holding meetings, i'm here speaking on behalf of millions of veterans in this country who feel like second-class citizens in their own system. we're here for all those veterans who file a claim and then wait and wait and wait. when they call the v.a. hotline and sit on hold for hours or they ask for a medical appointment and they don't get it for months or unfortunately

they're supposed to get care and they don't get it and so they die waiting for care at the department of veterans affairs. it's unacceptable and we believe it's time for transparency, a time for accountability and time for just results at deapt that's woefully underperforming. the -- we -- that's why we fully support h.r. 4131 and putting our full weight behind it because the status quo at v.a. is unacceptable. people who attempt to access care are met by an unpen trabble, unaccountable and woefully ineffective bureaucracy. it would give the folks at the top, the v.a. secretary, the simple tool to fire poor performers. and this is not about the -- as many said, this is not about the massive bad employees at v.a. most employees at v.a. are fantastic employees. what it does is let the secretary get rid of the wrong tone. so far from being an attack on dedicated public servants it

would empower and attract the very best. in closing, the key question before this congress on this issue of v.a. accountability is simple. who will you stand with? the veterans who are being underserved or bureaucrats and managers who cannot be fired? and we think this group and this congress, the answer to that is kris cal clear. mr. speaker, thank you -- crystal clear. mr. speaker, thank you for having us today. >> good morning. my name is lewis, national legislative director for the american legion. in 1918, when world war i ended there was no national veterans hospital system. compensation authorized for disabled veterans, widows and orphans were inadequate and delayed. veterans' programs were in the hands of too many agencies and were neglected. that's why the american legion worked closely with congress for the next 10 years to establish what is known today as the department of veterans affairs. the american legion is a

partner with v.a. to make sure it is operating effectively and efficiently which is why we support chairman miller's bill, h.r. 4131, and senator rubio's bill, senate 2013, the department of veterans affairs management accountability act of 2014. the fact will give the -- this act will give the secretary of veterans affairs the freedom and the authority to manage his or her department as they see fit. the american legion supports this bill just as we support v.a. and secretary shinseki. the american legion was here when the v.a. was created. we've seen 23 veterans appointed as secretary and we'll be here for the next 23. on behalf of commander dillinger, the 2 1/2 million members of the american legion, we want to thank the house veterans' affairs committee chairman miller, senator rubio for their leadership as we work toward making sure that the

department of veterans affairs is well supported, well managed and well funded so it can carry ut the mission of carrying out -- supporting those. i say that the american legion, our hearts and our prayers go out to those at fort hood and the families and the victims and we will continue to be with you and support you through this ordeal. thank you. >> i'll take a couple questions. yes, sir. >> mr. speaker, the obvious question on accountability is, do you believe that secretary shinseki should be replaced at this time? >> no, i think the secretary needs to have more authority to manage his own department. it's as simple as that and that's what this bill is here for. >> we have been 13 years in afghanistan. why is it taking so long for --

[inaudible] >> well, i'm going to turn it over to the chairman and his committee. but the chairman and his committee have tried to bring transparency and accountability out of this department, but we continue to get stonewalled, roadblocked. there are some serious problems over at the v.a., and this is just another tool to try to help the secretary better manage his department. >> our committee has on our website trials and transparency and basically it has all of the outstanding requests for information we made to the department of veterans affairs. almost 100 of them right now. that's our backlog that we're trying to wait for information. the longest of them over 660 days. unfortunately, we continue to get stonewalled as we try to request information to do our constitutional duties as members of congress, oversight of the second largest agency in the federal government with a budget of over $160 billion on

an annual basis. i think what's important is that the secretary have the tools that he needs in order to do the job. unfortunately, what we've seen time after time, dayton, ohio, is a perfect example. i've been to that medical facility twice. they had serious problems there with sanitation issues in regards to a dental employee. we found out that that employee was transferred to another facility somewhere in the country, and that's what v.a. likes to say is disciplinary action. they would allow someone to detire, give them a demotion and move them to another facility. we're finding time after time that people involved in things as preventable deaths, they are getting bonuses, bonuses in tens of thousands of dollars, and we're going to keep shining the light on the department of veterans affairs until the administration -- and i don't think it's the secretary. i think it's people at the mid

level that are not providing him the information that he needs to make decisions, but we're going to make sure that he has all of the tools that he needs to do his job. >> the army secretary said this morning that the person was undergoing treatment for a variety of issues. should congress address this issue? >> well, there's no question those with mental health issues should be prevented from owning weapons or being able to purchase weapons. in the so-called doc fix that passed here, there was funding for a pilot project dealing with mental health issues and weapons from both senate side and house side. there are two programs being funded in there. the bill went to the president yesterday. this issue we need to continue to look at to find a way to

keep weapons out of the hands of people who should not have hem. >> [inaudible] folks are not getting the proper mental health treatment and sometimes people still in he military are being -- inaudible] >> listen, for our active duty members, they ought to have access to high-quality care, just like what we're asking for for those who are now veterans. and so d.o.d.'s got one set of issues but frankly the v.a. has another set of issues. what we're trying to do here, though, is focus on the serious problems at the veterans administration. we're spending $160 billion a year of taxpayers' money and it

ought to be spent wisely to help those who have worn our uniform. thanks, everybody. >> wrapping up this briefing with house speaker john boehner and republican leaders on legislation to address veterans' issues. by the way, you can see all of this again if you go to our website, c-span.org. check the c-span video library. and live now on capitol hill, the senate armed services committee is holding a hearing on the budget request of the army for 2015. last year the budget was $125 billion. this year the proposal request is for $120.5 billion.

army secretary john mchugh and army chief of staff ray odierno also taking questions on the shooting at fort hood where four people died, 16 wounded. mental health issues are part of the discussion as they were in that briefing with house speaker john boehner. you can see the hearing as it continues our campaignon network, c-span3. quick reminder, the house will gavel in in 10 minutes at noon eastern. members will continue working on a bill that would change the provision in the health care law by defining a full-time employee from one who averages 30 hours a week to 40 hours per week. again, the house will be live at noon eastern. we'll have it here on c-span. right now, though, discussion on the republicans' budget proposal which calls for the repeal of the nation's health care law from today's "washington journal." urnal cont. host: jim mcdermott back at our tables this morning. he helped republicans unveil

their budget yesterday. plan ton laid out a save 5 trillion over the next decade. what do you like about this proposal? [laughter] that is an interesting place to start. the fact that he put his philosophy out there so people could see who he is -- he is somebody that has himself on track to become a presidential candidate and he wants people to like him and support him. it is good for him to put something like that out there. we have a fix on where he starts from. i think most of the things in there, you would have to concede, are not going to get through the senate. it is good for him to put it out there and say this is what i believe. host: you did not answer the question. anything you like about it? guest: frankly, no.

that you cannot find additional revenue to deal with some of the problems we face, that is the end of this country's continuance in leadership in the world. we leave and health care research, we are cutting the national institutes of health. our transportation situation is awful because we cannot get money in the gas tax. you have to talk about additional revenue. you cannot continue to cut. the national institutes of health used to fund 90% of their grants. now they are down to five percent of their grants. worldn not leave the without health research if you're not willing to spend the money. to -- we haveught the ability, but we need government infusion of money to start a.

-- to start it. host: here's what chairman ryan had to say yesterday. [video clip] >> we owe the american people a responsible, balanced budget. expandced budget will opportunity by creating jobs and by supporting our military, it will help keep our country safe. , it neverent's budget balances, ever. our budget, on the other hand, balances in 10 years. it puts us on the path to paying off our debts so that our children and grandchildren inherit a debt-free future. we stop spending money we do not have. we cut waste and make much-needed reforms to save $5.1 trillion over the next 10 years. this steep,may call but look at it this way -- on the current path, the federal government will spend 42 in

dollars of the next 10 years. this budget will spend $43 trillion. on the current path, spending will grow 5.2%. under our budget, 3.5% a year. nearly $43 trillion is enough. increasing spending by 3.5% instead of 5.2% is hardly draconian. host: congressman? anything, the words can be wonderful, but ultimately, you have to get down to the details. what he is proposing is getting rid of medicare. let's use one example. a premium support system -- that is what they have, for the last walk-through four years have attacked. if you pay your share, we will

support you with a subset -- a subsidy. what he is saying is we will give that to the senior citizens. we will take away medicare and let them spend their own money on buying health insurance and we will support them with premium support. he is throwing the senior citizens into the same problems or situation that we have in obamacare across the country. i do not think that is in the seniors' best interests. when you get to be that old, you do not want choice. you want certainty. you want to know that when you get sick, you want to know if you will be covered. figuring out which insurance , that is not what seniors want. host: isn't he putting forth an idea that would help with what you were talking about? that is our spending situation, trying to tackle the big problems. where weere is an area

do agree. cost is something we're going to have to control and health care. gdp every year. the french spend 11% and they get better results. it is clear that we're spending a lot of money that is not useful. is -- who should take the cut? the beneficiaries or the providers? we have created a system in this -- mrs.where medicare sebelius cannot negotiate prices on pharmaceuticals. you have created a system where you have a lot of waste. pharmaceutical companies are setting the cost. we could change things like that and get some reductions. 40% to 60%s get a cut on their cost of pharmaceuticals, whereas seniors

pay the full fee. host: here's a headline -- i theer if this will help. obama administration will release data about health care services provided by doctors who participate in medicare in what officials hail as a major step to making the health care system more transparent and accountable. patients will be able to see how much doctors are charging for which services. a major step forward. if we start putting that out there and there starts to be a public discussion about it, you will have a change in the way that you pay for health care. we want people to have good health care. we want to pay for quality. not for how much can i do. right now, you are paid for how many things you can do. you get paid more. what we really want is maybe we should do less for you, but do

it more carefully, you would get a better result. we are trying to shift from quality to quantity. host: how would this data help americans? guest: you have to get a consensus of people understanding the problem. they know it is going up and they do not know anything about it. the whole concept of a democracy, the reasons we have public schools is because they need the beginning that they had to have an educated electorate. people have to be educated about their health care. the only way you can do that is put information out there and let them begin to discuss it. it is not going to happen overnight. changes like this do not happen overnight. they will happen because people now know. the new york in times -- what is next for health care after this first enrollment period has closed?

he says 15% of the 7.1 million people fail to pay premiums, that would reduce the number to 6 million. the government said they will need a couple of weeks to tabulate data. why is that important? guest: you can go on amazon and decide you're going to write a book. if you don't put in your credit card number, you haven't bought the book. you can count the book taught when you put the order in. if you don't pay for it, it is not bought. host: what does that due to the delivery of health care insurance or health care if you have signed up for healthcare.gov? guest: if you signed up but haven't paid,

>> and we are leaving this discussion at this point to go live to the u.s. house now where members are gaveling in to start work on a bill that would change a provision in the health care law by defining a full-time employee from one who averages 30 hours a week to 40 hours a week. a vote on final passage is expected this average. the senate, by the way, is continuing work on a bill extending unemployment insurance. you can see live coverage of the senate on our companion network, c-span2. and now live to the floor of the house here on c-span. the speaker: the house will be in session. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. god of the universe, we give you thanks for giving us another day. lord, you have promised to be with all people wherever they are, whatever their need. we reach out in prayer for the homeless, the poor, those

anxious ability the future, those who are ill -- anxious about the future, those who are ill and those to whom freedom has been denied. bless the members of this people's house. inspire them as representatives of the american people to labor for justice and righteousness in our nation and in our world, mindful of your concern for those most in need. for all the riches of our human experience, o'lord, we give you thanks. -- o lord, we give you thanks. make us aware of our responsibilities as stewards of your divine gifts and allow taos faithfully and earnestly use our talent in way this is a bring understanding to our communities and our nation and peace to every soul. may all we do be done if -- for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker: the chair has

examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands aproved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from south carolina, mr. wilson. mr. wilson: everyone, incluringd guests in the gallery, please join in. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to 15 requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. today's debate over the save american workers act, which will attempt to fix another unintended consequence of obamacare, reminded me of the recent c.b.o. report which estimated that regulatory changes created by obamacare

would remove the equivalent of 2.3 million americans from the full-time work force. putting aside the tremendous human cost of this loss, let's simply consider the economic damage done to our nation. journalist kevin williamson compare red moving 2.3 million from the muffle time work force to burning down 1,000 factories and further noted that, quote, that 2.3 million workers exceeds the current work forces of mcdonald's, i.b.m., hewlett-packard and general electric combined, end quote. the save american workers act will likely proceed to the senate today where it will join a queue of 30-plus other house-passed bill this is a would help the economy and create jobs. americans want to work. why won't the senate do its job and consider those bills? i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition?

>> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise today to urge my republican colleagues to bring the senate's bipartisan compromise on extending unemployment insurance to the house floor for a vote. our economy is recovering but not fast enough. we need to continue helping our businesses create jobs that pay living wages, but in the meantime we can't forget about those who lost their jobs in the down ton. many of them have families to support while looking for jobs in a tough economy. an analysis by moody's found that for over $1 spend on unemployment benefit the economy generates $1.64 in economic activity. mr. mcnerney: that is money that gets spent on basics like food, so the grocery store clerk gets paid, the farmer who glose food gets paid. it doesn't take a ph.d. to do the math. speaking of math, the senate deal is paid for, unemployment

insurance doesn't add to the deficit. for all these reasons, i call on my republican colleagues to bring this to the floor for a vote today. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: bok, the gentleman is recognized. mr. wilson: madam speaker, according to a hoover institute study, 2.6 million americans are at risk of receiving smaller paychecks because roaf deuced hours as a result of obamacare's harsh regulations on small businesses. it is obvious the president's broken health care promises have made lives more difficult. what do we tell single mother who was been forced to pick up an adecisional job because their hours have been reduced? and what about the college students paying their way through school but struggling to achieve an education because their paychecks will not cover expenses. at a time with record unemployment and a record number

of people not seeking work, the government should not make it more difficult for employers to hire workers. later today, the house will vote on a bill which i have gratefully co-sponsored that provides relief for millions of americans who received smaller paychecks tpwhifes president's health care takeover which destroys johns. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. welcome immediate hall episcopal school of south carolina. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition without objection the gentleman is recognized. -- seek recognition? without objection the gentleman is recognized. mr. higgins: the social security administration has proposed the closing of four new york regional offices including the amherst office in my western new york community. since 2010, 96 field offices have been consolidated into 46 without a uniform closure

process. in response i've introduced h.r. 3997, social security administration accountability act which brings transparency to the social security field office closure process this legislation requires the social security admgs consult with local officials and the public before deciding to relocate or merge offices. in my own community, after the notice of proposed closure of the amherst field office, we learned from the buffalo fire department that the new office has insufficient capacity and would be a fire hazard. if this bill were already law this would have been discovered before a proposed closure was announced. i urbling my colleagues to join me in protecting our communities from hastily planned and ill-conceived social security field office closures. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute.

mr. desjarlais: i rise to commend blackman high school boys and girls basketball teams for winning state championships last week. the boys' team defeated oak with y a score of 60-58 an exciting comeback in the final minutes and captured their first championship since 1965. the girls' team, the lady blazers, captured the school's first state championship in any team sport a week earlier. i pesslerble i -- especially want to acknowledge the lady bladesers' crystal dangerfield for her work on and off the court. named number seven college prospect for 2015 by espn she was tennessee's gatorade player of the year this year. the prestigious accomplishment recognizes a student's athletic achievement, academic success and overall character. ms. dangerfield fits the bill

with volunteer work with her church and active involvement in the local literacy outreach program. i know the city is incredibly proud of these young men and women. i wish them continued success in the future. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: over the past six months, this nation's premiere anti-hunger program, snap, has been cut by $26 billion. that's a cut of $30 a month for a family of' three and hundreds more will see a cut of $90 a month because of separate cuts. but those pale in comparison to the ryan budget. his budget which will be voted on in the house next week, cuts $137 billion from snap. $137 billion. that is simply devastating.

budgets are moral documents and the ryan budget is immoral. what kind of nation are we if all we do is continue to take food from the mouths of the hungry? we can't keep balancing our budgets on the backs of the e-- of the poor, it's time to say enough is enough no more cuts to snap. we should protect the vulnerable and least well off in this country instead of punishing them for being poor. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from indiana seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. brooks: i rise today in support of my hoozeier colleague todd young's excellent bill, we're a country built on hard work where people want to work but right now the affordable care act is stopping people from working the hours they need and want to work. by redeed de-fining a full-time employee as someone who works 0 of more hours a week, the

affordable care act has caused workers' hours to be reduced and vital industries across the nation. 2.6 million workers are losing because of this provision. america is losing because of this provision. a school employee from my district in elwood, indiana, recently shared with me the pain of lose 10g -- the pain losing 10 hours from her workweek has caused. she said it doesn't make sense to me, i'm trying to be a self-supporting purpose and i was doing good. it could be better but i was doing ok. how am i supposed to make my house payment, let alone food? this must be repealed, we must restore the traditional 40-hour workweek. let's pass the save american workers act of 2014. if we do, our employers win, our workers win and our nation will win. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from maryland seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is

recognized for one minute. ms. edwards: i rise today to call on just 25 republicans to join 195 democrats to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour and raise wages for tipped workers, whose $2.13 an hour wages haven't been raised in 23 years. he current minimum wage at $7.25 has failed to keep pace with the cost of living, leaving families struggling to fill the gap. even if you work 40 hours a week at minimum wage you live below the poverty line. you rely on taxpayer funded programs such as nutrition assistance, energy assistance and housing assistance. in short, the profit lines of multinational corporations are being subsidized by taxpayers. who fill the gap between the mandated minimum wage and what constitutes a fair wage, what people need to live on this has an even greater impact for women who often work for only 77 cents on the drar for african-american women, 64 cents on the dollar

for latinas, 58 cents on the dollar. 70% of low-wage workers in this country are women. and so essentially we need to raise the tipped minimum wage, raise the regular minimum wage, it's the fair thing to do, i call on my republican colleagues, just 25 of them, to raise the minimum wage. thank you and i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek in addition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is ecognized. >> i appreciate madam speaker for yielding. it's throwback thursday. mr. duffy: i want to look back at april 15 20, 11. the house republicans passed a budget that plansed. march 29, 2012. house republicans led the charge to pass a budget that balanced. march 21, 2014, we passed a budget that balances in 10 years. just last night.

we passed a budget that is again going to balance in 10 years. the bottom line is we can't do it by ourselves. if you look to the president who introduces budgets that never, ever, ever balance, look to the democrats in the senate, they don't even introduce budget well, can't get this job done. we have americans who are young that want opportunity, that want jobs, they don't want to pay higher taxes. if we don't balance our budgets, they're the ones who are going to pay. but the poorest among us who look to government far little bit of help. if we have a debt crisis, we won't be there to help them. let's work together, let's balance our budget, let's be sustainable in government spending. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentlewoman is recognized. >> madam speaker, yet again, we

have been present with a budget that stands at odds with the morality of this nation, the ryan budget attempts to balance our budget on the backs of the middle class and low income families while bowing to special interest groups and giving billionaires unnecessary tax cuts. ms. hahn: this out of touch budget leaves hardworking families in my district in california and across this country in the cold by cutting more than $135 billion from the food stamp program. paul ryan's budget also eliminates the affordable care act and break ours promise to seniors by fundamentally ending the medicare program as we know it. with one in three women struggling on the brink of poverty in this country this budget would effectively push them over the edge. americans deserve better. the congressional progressive caucus, the better off budget, in stark contrast, restores critical safety nets such as snap benefits and unemployment insurance. program this is a many american families relie on to make ends meet.

this budget also protects and strengthens medicare and medicaid without cutting benefits for our seniorors. it's a budget i stand by because it's right for the country, for working families, for seniors and for our future. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from snorbling seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. i come to the house floor today to express my support for the save american workers act. this legislation will repeal obamacare's definition of full-time employment as 30 hours a week. every american knows that full-time is 40 hours a week and it's time to reverse this ill-advised provision of obamacare. redefining full-time as 40 hours a week will have a big imfact. constituents like colden of attica, new york, and richard of clarence, new york, have shared with me their stories of lost wages and lost hours due to this provision of obamacare.

testimony at the small business hearing i chaired on this matter was clear, the 30-hour testify nation of full-time must be revised. mr. collins: obamacare is turning our nation into a part-time economy. it discourages economic growth and results in the erosion of our nation's middle class. the save the american workers act will do just what the title says. it will put hardworking americans back where he they want to be. working and supporting their families. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? >> i request permission to address the house, ask unanimous consent for one minute and revise and extend my remarksment the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, last month after proposed cuts to the iowa national guard, i asked iowans for their comments and stories about the impact the guard has had on their lives. today i'll turn those responses in to secretary hagel and the pentagon to make sure the pentagon hears not just from but

from the iowans that have seen the tremendous good done by the iowa national guard and i want to share some of the responses. mr. braley: donna who has a nephew in the guard told me they are an investment in our safety and security, but also an investment in many young people. huge employer. nancy from dubuque wrote, not only do they fight for our country overseas, they do so much for our country. such as helping with the floods, the aftermath of 9/11 in new york, the national guard is an important part of our safety at home and abroad. these are just some of the hundreds of responses i received and i'm submitting many of these for the record. the iowa national guard serves the longest deployment of any combat unit in iraq. they came back and helped deal with the most powerful tornado in the united states that hit my district in 2008 and the worst flooding in our state's history, and that's why he we shouldn't cut their funding. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek

recognition? >> address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: with unanimous consent, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, most people agree that a 40-hour workweek is considered the average for a full-time american worker. however, obamacare defines full-time employment as being only 30 hours a week. the legislation before us will restore the commonly held 40-hour standard workweek. unless we take action many businesses in my district will reduce the hours of their employees or will be unable to hire new workers. mr. marchant: this willer hurt many hardworking americans who want to work more to provide for their families but will be able -- won't be able to do so because of the changes in obamacare. washington should not place barriers in front of job creation. washington should not discourage people from working more to

provide for their families or furthering their careers. we can change this. i urge all of my colleagues to join me today in supporting the save american workers act. madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition. mr. yarmuth: request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. yarmuth: madam speaker, there's only one way to finish a season on a 20-game winning streak, and louisville's butler high school girls basketball team just it it. taking into kentucky state championship and cementing the school's legacy as a powerhouse in our commonwealth. with a deep 10-player rotation that perfected its stifling press by tournament time, the bear rest used defensive pressure to drive the offense. romping through the sweet 16 on the play and steadying hand of senior daniel lawrence. in the championship game the second-ranked bear rest shut down elizabethtown high school,

dismantling the offense and holding their opponents scoreless in the final five minutes and 27 seconds. great defense wins championships, the saying goes, but it also helps create unbreakable bonds among deem mates. this team truly functions as a unit both on and off the court. maintaining a cumulative 3.7 g.p.a. in the classroom while taking the louisville invitational tournament championship earlier this year and adding the school's fourth state title last month. madam speaker, i'm proud to congratulate coach larry and the butler high school girls basketball team on an amazing championship season. go barretts. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek rick nation? a -- recognition? >> madam speaker, i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. kildee: thank you, madam speaker. we are at that time of the year where we are dealing with another set of budget decisions. a budget is supposed to be a demonstration of this congress' and our nation's values and priorities.

a plan that helps lift people up and ensure that everyone, if you play by the rules, you've got a fair shot at success. but budgets require tough choices. the ryan budget passed out of committee yesterday unfortunately chooses to make things more difficult for hardworking middle class americans in order to subsidize big takes for big oil companies and multinational corporations and the wealthiest americans. yesterday i introduced a very simple amendment to the ryan budget in budget committee. one that would simply say this, if you make more than $1 million , which is a very small percentage, 97% of the small business owners make less than that, if you make more than $1 million, you pay your fair share. warren buffett famously observed that he pays a lower tax rate than his own secretary. my amendment would have said, if

you make over $1 million, you pay at least 30%. unfortunately that amendment failed on a party-line vote. i hope we have an opportunity to offer that amendment here on the floor. i urge my colleagues if they have the chance to to so to support that. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i rise, ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: madam speaker, the day before yesterday i lost a dear friend. carlton moore was a former city commissioner and president of the naacp. to his mother and family, i offer my heartfelt condolences. i had the good fortune of itnessing carlton's entire career. he served with distinction in our community and was a

businessman par excellence. he was a visionary, and fortunately many of the things that were his concepts did come to fruition. my community, florida, and this nation has lost a warrior for truth and justice. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio seek recognition? ms. kaptur: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. kaptur: madam speaker, i rise today to mark the annual remembrance at the national katjian memorial in baltimore, maryland. this sunday, polish americans and other liberty lovers will gather after a remembrance mass is said at holy rosary church in honor of the victims of the massacre in 1940 the soviet secret police were directed by

dictator stalin to murder over 22,000 of poland's most important leaders, including military officers, religious leaders, educators, and intellectuals in and around the catian forest in russia. in 1951 a u.s. house of representatives select committee was tasked with conducting an investigation into the genocide and concluded that the soviets were responsible for this mass murder. in 2010, after decades of denial, and despite protests from its communist members, the russian parliament approved a statement that ultimately acknowledged stalin's complete responsibility in perpetrating these heinous crimes. while we honor the memory of the polish victims at this time every year, it is especially important this year as eastern europe crimea and ukraine once again face illegal aggression of their territorial sovereignty from russia and its leader. let the world of nations continue to work in conjunction with the polish government and victims' families to uncover the complete truth of what happened he at the forest in nearby

killing fields. our world holds a moral obligation to honor the victims and reveal the whole truth to enlighten future generations. madam speaker, history must record fully these mass crimes against humanity and heal the fishers of turny to prevent such grave atrocities into the future. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> at a time when our economy is sluggish and job creation is stagnant, the last thing american workers can afford are he reduced hours. yet because of the redefined 30-hour full-time employ definition in obamacare, that's exactly what many americans are facing. now in addition to higher premiums and canceled coverage, millions of americans are at risk of losing hours. many of them are women, young woms and dads, and those working hard to support their families and make ends meet. and now they are paying the price for the president's broken

health care law. the save american workers act will help them. it will restore the 40-hour workweek. it will help americans bring home their paychecks and it will provide relief to those who need it most. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. pursuant to clause 1-c of rule 19, further consideration of h.r. 2575 will now resume. the clerk will report the title. 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 and the patient protection and affordable care act and replace it with 40 hours. the speaker pro tempore: when proceedings were postponed on wednesday, april 2, 2014, one hour and 46 minutes of debate remained on the bill as amended.

the gentleman from indiana, mr. young, has 54 1/2 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from new york, mr. rangel, has 51 1/2 minutes remaining. without objection, the gentleman from arkansas, mr. griffin, will control the time of the gentleman from indiana. and the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, will control the time of the gentleman from new york. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arkansas. mr. griffin: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. griffin: madam speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 2575, the save american workers act. this act would restore the traditional 40-hour definition of a full-time job. washington may think that it knows best, but that's simply not true. this provision of obamacare is a perfect example of how the law hurts the very people it was intended to help. in arkansas, we try to apply a

little common sense. we all know 30 hours isn't full-time, but that's what obamacare says. no one seems to know why. we had a hearing in ways and means committee and many of those who testified were puzzled as to why 30 hours was chosen. even in france a full-time job is 35 hours a week. because of obamacare's mandates and taxes, employers are cutting workers' hours and replacing full-time folks with part-time folks. this is real. we have seen this in arkansas. let me give you some examples. arkansas state university reduced workers to a maximum of 29 hours per week. area aging of western arkansas cut hours for hundreds of home health aids and drivers, too, 28 hours per week. a technical college, limited hours for adjunct faculty

directly impacting students' education choices. just yesterday i received a letter from the arkansas hospitality association, they say obamacare's 30-hour rule will hurt roughly 100,000 hospitality workers. these are folks who are working hard, playing by the rules, and trying to make it. all they want is a fair shot at success. that's what they deserve, but obamacare has taken that away. according to research by the hoover institution, this obamacare rule puts 2.6 million workers making under $30,000 a year at risk. almost 90% of these workers do not have college degrees. over 60% of them are women. these are good, hardworking americans, but they may lose their hours or even their jobs thanks to obamacare. wasn't this law supposed to help people get health insurance?

but what are they getting? they're get nothing insurance and less pay. incredible. incredible. i want to thank my colleague and my good friend, mr. young, for introducing this important bill and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bipartisan solution that will help workers keep their jobs and higher wages. madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i yield myself such time as i shall consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: the gentleman who has just spoken has it backwards. what would hurt american workers is not the affordable care act. millions have signed up to be covered. what would hurt american workers is this bill. i said yesterday, and no one has

refuted, this bill would mean that a million people, a million people, according to c.b.o., would lose their employer-based health insurance. by definition, these are people who are working, because they would lose their employer-based health insurance. that's what c.b.o. has estimated. no one has refuted it. it would increase the number, according to c.b.o., of uninsured, by half a million. no one has refuted this. c.b.o. also says that it would dd $74 billion to the deficit. again, this is c.b.o. and no one on the republican side has refuted this. this would put five times more

people at risk of adverse effects than would be true under any other circumstance. so essentially, off bill that would cost people -- a million people,ing their employer-based health insurance, would increase the number of uninsured by about a half a million, and would add $74 billion to the deficit. so instead of talking about unemployment insurance, instead of talking about minimum wage, instead of talking about immigration legislation, we have a bill up today that would have these adverse consequences and pass a bill that will never go anywhere in the senate and because we aren't acting on these other measures, they're spreading out debate on this , when it wo days when

leaves here, it goes nowhere and would be vetoed by the president if it ever passed the senate, which it never will. so this is worse than an exercise in futility. this is an exercise in doing harm when a.c.a. is bringing benefits to millions and millions of people. it's deeply unfortunate. madam speaker, i ask that the balance of our time be managed by the gentleman from washington, mr. mcdermott. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. mr. griffin: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from oklahoma. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for two minutes. >> i thank my colleague from arkansas for bringing this to the people's attention.

it's almost funny, when the president wants to take something that's the heart beat of america and that's our work ethic, and redefine it by saying that 30 hours is considered full time now. what are we teaching the generations coming behind us if we say you can work less and still be considered full time? the backbone of this country was created by entrepreneurs. mr. mullin: by individuals who got up and worked hard, worked long hours, and did what it took to be successful. now this president is giving the generation coming up behind us which is my kids, my five kids, and redefining what is called full time by saying it's ok to work 30 hours. because it's convenient to a piece of legislation that is bankrupting this country call odd ba macare. -- oba -- called obamacare. what are we trying to teach this

generation? are we trying to teach this generation that staying home and working fewer hours is ok? my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle said it's good for us to work less hours because they can spend more time at home but yet the people that this is going to affect, they want to work more. they're trying to pull themselves out of the situation they're in. my goal as a father is to teach my kids the value of work. we want to make sure our kids get a great education, i get that. but what is an education without a work ethic? and yet this administration, the one that is trying to say they're going to protect the youth is making excuses and excuses and excuses for them to just sit home and be ok with 30 hours a week. being ok isn't what drove this country to be the greatest country in the world. e're better than ok. we're above being ok. we're the best.

it's because of our work ethic. and this shouldn't be used as a political ploy just by this president. so i thank my colleague for yielding me this time and i urge my colleagues to support this. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. mcdermott: thank you, madam speaker. i will take such time as i consume. -- on a aker, a -- rainy september day in 2006, or 2008, actually, a constituent of mine, ingrid, was badly injured through a terrible fall in her home. she was rushed to the emergency room where she was cared for and her life was spared. yet ingrid came out of that experience stuck with a $23,000 hospital bill because she didn't have -- actually, she couldn't

afford to have health insurance. a few months later, ingrid was forced to sell her home to pay off that enormous hospital bill. today, a rainy day in april of 2014, there's a different story to tell. it's a rainy day in seattle, not here. the story of the affordable care act. the story of 7.1 million mothers and sons, fathers and daughters, who have a newfound sense of health security and peace of mind. 7.1 million. hardworking americans. in addition to the two million young adults who are protected by staying on their parents' plan, in addition to millions more who are now covered by children's health insurance programs and medicaid expansion. one of them is ingrid. ingrid's life is vastly

different now from what it was in 2008. she is still one of the hardest working people her friends and neighbors have ever met. she still loves the outdoors, drives a pickup truck. but today she's happy, healthy, overed because of the a.c.a. in this chamber, for the 52nd time tissue as this chamber, for the 52nd time, considers a radical extremist republican resolution to kill the affordable care act, i stand with millions of americans who have been covered because of the a.c.a. and the millions who still need health security. i stand in opposition to the idea that this nation is incapable of guaranteeing health security for all its citizens. republicans have no plan and i emphasize no plan to cover the american people.

speaker boehner, earlier this week, would not commit to rereesing -- releasing a republican plan until after the election. i mean, how transparent can you be? proof that this is political. so their introduction to this bill is simply surrender in the face of a health care crisis in america. how else can you explain the republicans' introduction of a bill that cancels the health insurance policies of one million americans? that sounds like surrender to me. how else can you explain a bill that raises the deficit by $75 billion. more surrender. how else can you explain a bill that puts five times the number of american workers at risk of losing our hours at work? how else do you explain a bill that does anything but dare employers to slash hours for

workers in order to avoid the responsibility to offer health insurance coverage? how can they say this bill solves a problem of employers cutting hours and refusing benefits when it really only makes it worse? it is surrender. unconditional surrender by the republicans. pure and simple. to force yet another vote on a bill that has no chance of becoming law. there isn't one chance in a million, one thing i learned in medicine, you never say never. but this is one i can say. it will never, ever pass the congress. a bill crafted purely to appeal to the koch brothers and the producers of fox news rather than forged to protect honest americans like ingrid. the latest republican bill also denies a confirmed truth. the a.c.a. is succeeding in its primary mission to expand access

to quality health care for each and every american. make no mistake. the a.c.a. is not going away. i've got news for you. it is not going away. it is here to stay. a mission before the congress now should be, in fact, must be, to move forward to further implement the a.c.a. and to improve the law where needed. i talked to bill frist about a year ago, former lead ore the senate, republican leader of the senate he, said, don't repeal, fix. that's what we ought to be about doing. but we're not doing that. in order to guarantee not just access for each and every american, but to lower health care costs across the board. if this rather perverse bill raises health care costs for everyone by increasing the number of uninsured. that's pure and simple surrender. surrender to an idea that our nation that is no longer capable

of accomplishing great things, surrender to the idea that america, the richest and the most advanced country on the face of the earth, can't guarantee that its citizens won't lose their homes when they get sick. that's what you're admitting by this bill. they will not -- you're saying they have to choose between food on the breakfast table instead of medicine on their bedside table. now that in my view is a situation that has no -- no explanation other than the fact that you have surrendered. you have given up the idea that america can take care of its own people. a choice that ingrid once had to make, that she will never have to make again. that's what's true about the a.c.a. she has health care coverage, that's what's right about the a.c.a., and this bill under

consideration, h.r. 2575, has nothing to do with what is either true or right. i urge my colleagues to vote no. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. mr. griffin: madam speaker, i think it's instructive to think about what this bill does in the context of the a.c.a. the obamacare defines full time as 30 hours. that doesn't surprise me, coming from this administration, but we all know that just because washington says it's so, doesn't make it so. 30 hours isn't full time. when we asked some experts who testified in ways and means, they had no idea where the 30 hours came from. they surmise that people were sitting around at the white house and just said, 30 is a good number. they could have said, 20.

how about 10. how about one hour a week is full time. we tried to change it. it was one hour. of course people that had insurance would have something -- would have their situation changed. but this is about what is full time and what isn't. the french consider 35 hours full time. can we not at least agree that in this country 40 hours used to be full time? . that's the issue. madam speaker, i want to yield two minutes to my good friend, representative davis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mr. davis: madam speaker, we are here yet again talking about another failed aspect of obamacare. it is simply unacceptable that a law meant to improve our health care system has not only failed

to do that, it's actually become a job killer for this country. the need to change the 30-hour workweek is personal. my dad started out working at a local mcdonald's as an hourly employee an eventually worked his way up to become a franchise owner. not only did my dad teach me that anyone achieve the american dream if they just work hard enough, he also taught me the policies, policies passed right here in this chamber have real life consequences. if this provision is not fixed, workers are going to see fewer hours, which means they are going to see smaller paychecks. studies show that there could be upwards of two million less full-time workers by 2017 and the potential to short workers out of $75 billion in wages. supporters of obamacare want the american people to believe we are just wasting our time talking about changing obamacare, and that we should just simply move on. i want folks in the 13th district of illinois to know i will not move on. i will not quit talking about

the complete failure of obamacare, and will i continue to advocate for commonsense fixes to this disastrous bill which will protect hardworking americans in my district. i also want to point out you're going to hear a lot of discussion from the other side of the aisle that will this will take hardworking americans off of employer-based insurance. i want to he remind my colleagues that -- i want to remind my colleagues that the architect of obamacare was reported a few weeks ago that he expected that the private insurance-based health care system, coverage system, would be gone by the year 2025. well, that means the employer-based health care system would be gone by the year 2025. he also said he expects 1,000 hospitals to close. i ask my colleagues, which hospitals, especially those like in my small town of taylorville, illinois, which is our largest employer, which hospitals will close? madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired.

the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. mcdermott: madam speaker, i yield to the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen, four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for four minutes. mr. van hollen: thank you, madam speaker. thank you, mr. mcdermott. last night in the house budget committee we had a big debate. at the end of the debate we voted on the house republican budget. and during that debate there was a lot of talk about how we can reduce our long-term deficits. our republican colleagues in their budget said, they didn't want to close one special interest tax break to help reduce our long-term deficit. they would rather cut the budget that helps provide for our kids' education. they wanted to reopen their budget the doughnut hole so seepors with high prescription drug costs will pay $1,200 more per year. so they were willing to do all that, but they wouldn't close a single tax loophole. but they said they cared about reducing the deficit.

now lo and behold we have a bill on the floor of the house that in one fell swoop if it's voted on will increase the deficit by $74 billion. now republicans have a rule that they put into the rules of the house that says you can't do that. you shouldn't be increasing the deficit. there should be some offset. you should cut somewhere else. we think you should also be able to cut some tax expenditures for very special interests, but the idea is we shouldn't be doing things that increase the deficit. but those rules were waived for this. little special wand in the lules committee, we are not going to abide by the rules so $79 billion increase to the deficit. here's the really interesting thing, we had a debate last night in the budget committee about the affordable care act. and we made the point that the republican claim that their budget is balanced in year 10 is totally inconsistent with the claim that they want to get rid

of the affordable care act. here's why. in the republican budget, and we all hope it will come to the floor next thursday, in the republican budget they get rid of all the benefits for people in the affordable care act. they get rid of the tax credits that help more americans purchase insurance. they get rid of the provision that says you can keep your child on your insurance policy at age 26. they get rid of all that. but you keep very important parts of the affordable care act. you keep all the revenues. $1 trillion in revenues. you know what else you keep? you keep all the medicare savings. in fact, you have $2 trillion embedded in the affordable care act in your budget. and today's the smoking gun. because if you pass this bill, the budget that was claimed to be balanced yesterday in the budget committee is no longer in balance. you know why? you claim in year 10 under your budget, year 10 you would have a surplus of $5 billion.

but that only -- that's not true. because you can't at the same time claim with a straight face that you're getting rid of the affordable care act because the affordable care act provides, as i said, $2 trillion in your own budget. and in that year 10 when you pass this, $9 million disappears from the treasury in year 10. so today by your own accounting the budget that republicans claim to be balanced last night in the budget committee, today will already be unbalanced. that's just getting rid of a little piece of the affordable care act. if you get rid of all of it, then you get rid of all the revenues in your budget. and you get rid of the savings in your budget. and your budget will not hoply pal. he so -- will not possibly balance. so, mr. speaker, it is a fraud to claim they are in favor of

getting rid of the affordable care act. it cannot be true at the same time. so either republicans level with the american people that their budget's not balanced, and starting today it won't be by their own terms, or they acknowledge the american people that they have gotten rid of all the good stuff in the affordable care act, the stuff that helps people afford health care, but they kept all the savings. so the moment of truth is today. smoking gun is today. we had this big debate. i hope the budget committee members on the republican side will come down here and fess up. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. mr. griffin: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from iowa. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from iowa is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. king: also mr. young for his authorship of this bill. it's changed dramatically what i had to say when i came down here when i heard that the republican endeavor to re-establish the 40-hour workweek, which is a

practical thing that's good for people is a fraud. a fraud? people that have been the advocates for obamacare are using the word fraud? i won't yield. i heard what the gentleman had to say. the people that are the advocates -- the advocates for obamacare itself, which is a fraud against the american people -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from iowa will suspend. mr. van hollen: point of order, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state his point of order. mr. van hollen: what recourse if any do i have when the gentleman restated my point. the speaker pro tempore: the chair cannot give an advisory opinion. mr. van hollen: if the gentleman would yield we can clarify it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has not yielded. the gentleman from iowa is recognized. mr. king: may i inquire how much time i might have? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from iowa has one minute and 25 seconds remaining. mr. king: thank you, madam speaker. the gentleman used the term fraud. it is ironic that obamacare

itself has been so misrepresented to the american people that for the top three things that were stated by those who advocated for obamacare that if you like your policy you can keep it. if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. and by the way we are going to save these families $2,500 a year, there's not a single family in america that that promise has been kept for and that i hear the word fraud from the other side of the aisle. and it's not very far down to mount vernon where at least by legend it's alleged that george washington was asked, who chopped down the cherry tree? he said, i cannot tell a lie. i chopped down the cherry tree. well, calling the affordable care act the affordable care act is not true. george washington could not utter these words. he might be able to say the patient protection and affordable care act, that's tellly the name for it, but to utter those words and try to tell the american people it's affordable by anybody is not true, and i don't think george

washington can state that. so we are watching here as people have jobs where they get paid overtime, 56 hours a week, 45 hours a week, they are getting paid time and a half over 40 hours because that's the standard workweek. and now we see obamacare dropped it down to 30. employers did the rational thing. and we are hearing that that gap between 30 and 40 cancels insurance policies. it doesn't cancel any insurance policies, instead it gives people an opportunity to work, work longer, earn overtime, and for the employers and employees to keep their contract with each other, i strongly support this bill, h.r. 2575. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. mcdermott: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. r. griffin: madam speaker, i yield the gentleman from illinois two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, madam speaker. i rise in support of h.r. 2575, the safe american workers act. simply put this bill just re-establishes what most americans think is full-time work. 40 hours. it's what i grew up knowing, it's what my parents and grandparents grew up knowing. interestingly we have been talking a lot about jobs here in america. the president continues to call on congress to pass more jobs legislation. well, let's look at jobs in his home state where i hail from in illinois. the only policy institute since 2011 says illinois has lost 66,000 jobs just in retail food and beverage since 2001. -- 2011. ironically that is more job loss than job gains, jobs added in every sector in the president's home state. mr. schock: his unemployment in his home state of illinois

stands at 8.7%. a full two percentage points higher than the national average. among young people and minorities, it's even worse. among african-american men, the rate of unemployment is 19.6%. among hispanics, over 11%. and among young men and women, young people, ambitious people, a whopping 30% rate of unemployment. six years since the economy tanked. five years into the obama administration, four years after obamacare has become law, this is what we are left with. now, i rehe cently met with a manufacturer in quincy, illinois, who had me meeting with several hundred of his employees, mag pie manufacturing. people that they like, people who are doing a good job, people who are getting paid a fair wage, people who like their job, but people whose jobs are being cut back by 25% because of the

affordable care act. in true dollars and cents this is about $330 a month that they are losing in take-home pay. to put this in perspective, every time the president gets on air force one, it costs about 500 times that amount for every hour on air force one. i would suggest the best job congress can pass is a jobs bill that ensures people who have a job and like it can keep it. that's what this jobs bill does. i urge passage and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. mc- mott: madam speaker -- mr. mcdermott: madam speaker, i take some time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcdermott: a little history might be helpful here. there was a time in this country where people worked 60 hours a week, seven days a week, six days a week.

the only reason we have a 40-hour week at all were labor unions. who went out and struck and forced the process to get a 40-hour workweek. they also were the ones who created the health care system in this country after the second world war. there was no -- people didn't have health insurance prior to that. and labor unions said when the president said we can't have an increase in wages, and we can't have any increase in benefits, prices can't go up, labor unions said, let's have something called the been fit -- benefit package. the benefit package that was created in the middle 1940's, included health care and pensions. it came from the union movement. they are the ones that stood in the rain and the sleet and the snow on the pickett lines to get

these changes. now, we have a law that comes in and says, let's deal with erybody in this country, and the judgment of this congress s that an employer had the responsibility to provide health insurance for his or her employees if they worked 30 hours a week. that was considered full time. it doesn't change labor laws, it's for the purpose of this act that employers must consider their people full time if they work 30 hours. now, if employers don't care, if they say, let me figure out how i can cheat my people out of any benefits, i'm going to drop them down to 29 hours. well, you know, there are people

like that. but the law says if you do that, then you have to pay a penalty for everybody you didn't cover. so we tried in every way possible to make it possible to give people flexibility but this law will not work according to the american enterprise institute without a mandate that everybody be covered. and we're not changing labor law. we're not changing overtime rules. we're not changing any of that stuff. we're saying for purposes of this law, an employer must cover anybody who works 30 hours. if they don't care about their employees, they run a restaurant they don't want their employees to be healthy, knock them all down to 29 hours and let them come in sick. then you've got a restaurant where you're going in to eat lunch and the employees haven't been able to see a dr. that's what you're asking for. we're saying, everybody in this

country ought to have health insurance and they ought to have the access to go to a doctor when they need it. and so this business about we're somehow destroying the work ethic in this country and all that kind of nonsense is simply nonsense. that's not what this is about. this is about another way to destroy the act. and you know it, we know it, and the world should understand that this is the 52nd attempt to repeal the law, to undermine it so it will not work. i urge people to vote no and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. mr. griffin: i yield the gentleman from pennsylvania one minute. two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, madam speaker. just a few things, i rise in strong support of this legislation today, the save american workers act. let's face it, the health care law has redefined what it means

to be a full-time worker in this country. notwithstanding the comments of my colleague from washington, i must disagree with what he's been saying about it this bill does not in any way repeal the health care law. what it does do, it mends the law. it does not end it. many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said mend it, don't end it. this mends it. let's be clear about that in my district, let me tell you who is affected by this. mr. dent: they work in school districts like the east penn school district, the southern lehigh school district. those in favor say aye getting their hours redeuced below 30678 i have a major employer, opened a major distribution centering over 500 employees, over 50,000 people nation wade, more than half of their employees are part timemark of them are being reduced below 30 hours per week as a result of this law. this is a targeted fix. we know that these hourly workers are going to see wage reductions up to 25% as a direct

result of the law. there are consequences to this law. sure, it's not about some employers wanting to cheat their employees, quite frankly, it's about many employers not being able to afford the people they have. if they don't reduce their hour, many will be laid off. they'll have no wamings at all. that's the worst of all worlds. that's a real consequence of this particular law. we're all hearing it in our districts. by ethe way, we should point out one other thing too, the folks most directly impacted by this particular provision of the health care law are the young. are women. who are more likely to be affected by this. there's no question about that. i think we should be clear. those who are most directly impacted. there was a hoover institute study that pointed that out, that the young, the women, and those without a college education are most likely to be impacted by the los of hours, loss of wages that means less money in their pockets, we're having a debate about the minimum wage over in the senate

right now, why don't we talk about letting people work. let them work more hours than what this law allows them to. i support this bill and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. mr. griffin: i yield the gentleman from virginia one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. i thank the secret for yielding and i thank him for his leadership on this important issue. madam speaker, i rise today in support of the save american workers act, this important bill will restore the traditional 40-hour definition of full-time employment as it relates to the president's health care law. under the affordable care act, the 30-hour rule resulted in fewer jobs and reduced working hours for virginians and meshes, putting 2.6 million workers with a median income of under $36,000 at risk for losing jobs and losing their working hours. in viverage's fifth district we have heard from constituent who was seen their hours cut due to

this 30-hour rule. when hours are cut and wages are cut, the american people suffer. i urge my colleagues to support this important bill so america can get back to work, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. mcdermott: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. mr. griffin: i yield three minutes to the gentlelady from kansas, my friend, ms. jenkins and ask unanimous consent that she control the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from kansas is recognized for three minutes and without objection will control the remainder of the time. ms. jenkins: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i would like to thank congressman young for introducing this important legislation and chairman camp for making it a top priority. we've heard from employees and employers alike about the negative consequences of the employer mandate penalty an more specifically we've heard

firsthand that defining a full-time employee as one who works no more than 30 hours per week hurts the ability of employers to hire workers and grow their businesses and it hurts the efforts of low wage workers trying to enter the middle class. madam speaker, i request that this letter from the society of human resource management in support of h.r. 2575 be entered into the record. thank you. even though the president has unilaterally delayed the employer mandate twice, employers are already reacting to the employer mandate by reducing their employee hours. i spoke with one business own for the my district this week who told me that although he will not reduce the hours of current employees, he has not hired a single employee for more than 30 hours of work per week in over a year. ity adecisionally he told me that the number of his employees

working 40 hours per week has naturally declined by 25% and that he will continue to replace these full-time employees with part-time employees. it's also concerning that the employer mandate penalty is disproportionately affecting americans who can least afford it. women. young people. and low wage earners. a study done by the hoover institution concluded that americans most at risk of having their hours redeuced are the 2.6 million americans who currently work over 30 hours that have an income slightly above poverty level. 1.64 million of these folks are women and another 1.56 million are young people. i'm proud to support this throtion restore certainty to our employers and -- support this motion to restore certainty

to our employers and to define a full workweek as 40 hoursful i have -- hours. i reserve the plns of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. mcdermott: i yield to the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for four minutes. thank you.uer: i understand my friend and colleague, mr. van hollen, was on the floor talking about the disingenuous approach here and the discontinuity between what we're talking about today and what we did yesterday in the budget committee. it's an unusual approach to

public policy where there is a claim that they are, under their budget if they're able to enact it, going to completely eliminate the affordable care act, but they're going to keep all of the taxes and they're going to keep the adjustment to the medicare advantage program that was so -- such a focal point in their campaign attacks last year. it was bad when democrats did it with the affordable care act but they're going to keep all of those changes. last week, we had, by a legislative slight of hand, a short-term fix for the sustainable growth rate. that's the adjustment that is made on an ongoing basis on physician reimbursement under medicare that's gotten wildly out of whack. it was something that i voted against when it was first enacted, it's an annual charade

that goes here where we support -- where we force people in the medical space to come to washington, d.c. to plead against draconian cuts. we actually had been working in the ways and means committee and the commerce committee on a bipartisan approach that would actually solve this problem permanently and then last week we had an approach that was advanced on the floor of the house by our friends from the majority side that turned its back on the carefully negotiated bipartisan solution that we were close to being able to move forward, patched together another one-year extension that was going to continue this abuse of people in the medical space, having the threat of dramatic cuts hanging over them, and what happened? we had vigorous debate on the

floor of the house where it was pretty clear that this was not going to pass. where we had the medical association and a number of medical professionals just opposed to the so-called doc fix because of the way that it was being done, because of the short-term expedient, because cherry picking items to make a long-term solution even harder and subject them to that same treatment. it was clear to a number of us that it was very questionable whether that would pass. it looked like there would be enough votes to defeat it on the suspension calendar, it would require 2/3 of us to vote in favor of it, reserved for noncontroversial issues with this certainly no -- which this certainly no longer was noncontroversial and what happened? the republican leadership put somebody in the chair, they went

ahead and effectively orchestrated a voice vote that nobody knew was coming, i know there are republicans that were outraged about that treatment. and now, what are we looking at today? we're looking at another effort to undermine the affordable care act, we have people talking about problems with changing the definition of part time employment, people having their working conditions changed, for something that, excuse me, is not going to be enforced for larger firms until 2016 and for maller firms until 2017. mr. mcdermott: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. blumenauer: so they are conjuring up a problem here that

maybe people will use it as an excuse for things they want to do, but nobody is forced to do this at this point. it's not going to take effect for years. their proposed solution to probably nonexistent problem is to blow another hole in the ? dget of over $70 billion and oh, this isn't paid for. it was a requirement to pay for the doc fix, but this little -- this little maneuver, $70 billion worth, isn't paid for. the hypocrisy and the double dealing here really frustrates me more than i can explain. if we would be able to deal with things in a straightforward fashion, let people know what they're voting on, try to solve real problems, rather than trying to undermine the affordable care act, we'd all be a lot better off.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired this gentlewoman from kansas is recognized. ms. jenkins: thank you, madam speaker. i would like to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from tennessee, my friend and colleague on the house committee on ways and means, mrs. black. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized for two minutes. mrs. black: thank you, madam speaker. i would like to say thank you to my colleague for yielding. madam speaker, obamacare's arbitrary 30-hour full-time workweek puts about 2.6 million workers, american workers making under $30,000 a year at risk of having their hours and wages cut. 63% of those adversely affected by this arbitrary 30-hour rule are female workers, according to the hoover institute. it's no wonder that a majority of americans oppose this law, and certainly no wonder that a

majority of women oppose it. for all the talk about the supposed war on women, it's obamacare that's waging a war against female workers. that's why i am proud to stand in support of women across this country to repeal this arbitrary 30-hour full-time workweek. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from tennessee yields back. the gentlewoman from kansas reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. mcdermott: madam speaker, i yield four minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. becerra. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for four minutes. mr. becerra: i thank the gentleman for yielding. first, the facts. not the facts from this side of the aisle, not the facts from the other party but the facts that we get from the nonpartisan congressional budget office, which is in

charge of telling all of us, congress and the rest of the country, what does legislation that's proposed by democrats and republicans actually cost, what will it actually do. they're the nonpartisan referee that we are to rely on to give us the facts without getting into these political battles. and what do the folks at the congressional budget office say about this bill? one, it will increase the deficit by $75 billion. two, around a million american workers will lose their health insurance coverage that they get through their employer today. three, around five times as many workers in american will be at risk of losing hours at work as a result of this bill, should it become law. ok, so those are the facts, not from democrats, not from republicans, but from the nonpartisan c.b.o. now, let's talk about these

facts a bit more because i think folks are probably a bit confused. what the heck is going on? we are going to lose hours at work, what's going on? essentially it's this -- we got to figure out how we make sure that employers that currently offer insurance to their employees, health insurance to their employees, don't say, i don't want to do it anymore so i'm going to stop offering it. how can i do that? i can make sure i keep my employees employed for less hours than is required by law. this bill says, if you -- if you have that threshold, the number of hours you have to work be 30, well, a whole bunch of employers will say, hey, i can game the system if i drop the hours my employees works at the job to less than 30, that's true. the problem is this. the vast majority of americans don't work 31 hours, 32 hours a week. they work 40. a lot of americans in fact work 42, 44. they work overtime. and so what the affordable care

act did was made sure that most employers who currently offer employer-covered insurance to their employees continue to do it, because very few employers are going to say, i can game this system by dropping my 40-hour worker to 29 hours. that's a lot of quality hours, unless you let these folks sit on a couch. what happen if you raise the number of work hours to 40 hours? well, that's why the c.b.o. says, about a million americans will lose their insurance coverage. because if you work in a 40-hour workweek, employers would say, gosh, it would be tough if i dropped you to 29 hours, i can offer you 39 1/2 hours and therefore i won't give you insurance. that's why it would cost about $75 billion to do this legislation, because guess what, if the employers are no longer offering you insurance and you still have to go to the doctor for your child and you can't afford it anymore because

of no insurance, guess who has to pay? the folks in the gallery, those of us who pay taxes because they'll go to the mrm room and go to the medicaid program because their employer cut them back a little bit. if we want to make sure that americans get to work, then let's separate the myths from the facts. remember four years ago, death panel. if the affordable care act, this new health law takes effect, death panels are going to decide if your grandmother gets to live. how many death panels have you told your family he or she will have to die? ok. i ask anyone in this audience, you have a doctor, do you have insurance, you know your doctor, ok, ask yourself this question, what's the name of your government doctor? you have a doctor, did you know your doctor works for the government? you're going to say, no, i've known my doctor for a long time. he or she doesn't work for the

government. if you believe the myth, yes, your doctor does, because, remember, this was a government takeover of health care. it was a myth. in fact, this affordable care act's law requires you to use private health insurance coverage to get your health care through private doctors and private hospitals. but what it does is requires you to do it and it requires employers to do it as well. it didn't say you have to go to a government doctor or a government hospital. yield 30 more seconds? mr. mcdermott: i yield the gentleman an extra 30 seconds. mr. becerra: i thank the gentleman for yielding. once you separate the facts from the myth, americans, we reward you for your work. if you're an american and you get health insurance through your employer, we don't want your employer to game the system and put the burden on you now. and so what we want is to make it affordable for the employee and affordable for the

employer. this bill makes it unaffordable for the employee moving forward and it makes it quite honestly unaffordable for the employer as well because you're losing your good workers. we need to defeat this bill and try to make the affordable care act work for everyone. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. members are reminded not to efer to people in the gallery. the gentlewoman from kansas is recognized. ms. jenkins: thank you, madam chair. i'd like to yield three minutes at this time to our colleague from michigan, mrs. miller. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from michigan is recognized for three minutes. mrs. miller: i thank the gentlelady for yielding the time and, madam speaker, helping those without health insurance to get coverage certainly is a very noble goal, was done to d that

achieve it under affordable care act is not very good. and this provision employers providing health insurance to employees for 30 hours or more per week. their thinking was that employers would not change their behavior. simply they would absorb these new costs. i guess when you think like the government, maybe you would think that. you're unconcerned about costs, you're unconcerned about balancing your books and so that sort of thinking makes sense. but in the real world it just doesn't make sense. employers need to live in the real world. they need to balance their books. and these onerous provisions of obamacare make it very, very difficult for them to continue with business as usual, to comply with the law and to stay in business. so employers have been forced to cut workers' hours. and we also need to look for a moment, madam speaker, at those who have been most negatively impacted by obamacare and this particular provision of it. according to a study done by the hoover institute, the

30-hour rule puts 2.6 million, .6 million workers with a -- 2.6 million workers with a median income of $36,000 have a risk of losing their job or having their hours cut. 89% of the impacted workers do not have a college degree. 59% are between the ages of 19 and 34. and 63% of these workers that are so negatively impacted are women, madam speaker, women. so this rule impacts the most vulnerable in our economy who are just starting to make their way in the world or who are working hard to support their families. and you know, i didn't need a study to actually tell me that because i am hearing it directly each and every day from those that i am so proud to serve. and i will just give you one example of -- example of many, many that we got, especially women, who have contacted my office. this is from a mother named tracey in michigan who said, my

daughter is a single mom and struggles to make ends meet. she's had her hours at work cut by over 50 hours a month so that her company doesn't have to provide her with health care. so she is now looking for a second job, which means less hours for her, so she -- and less time, of course, she's able to spend with her children. madam speaker, being a single mom is tough, really tough. and what we do here in washington shouldn't make it tougher, and being a small business owner and a job creator is tough and, again, what we do here in washington shouldn't make it tougher. the 40-hour workweek has been the bedrock, the bedrock of our economy for decades, and workers and families have come to depend on it. that is, of course, until obamacare changed the rule. it's time for us to correct this mistake and repeal this terrible provision, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington is recognized.

mr. mcdermott: madam speaker, i yield to my good friend from california, mr. miller, five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. i thank the gentleman very much for yielding. and i rise to oppose h.r. 2575. the majority's obsession with attacking the affordable care act is unprecedented and they have never let the truth stand in their way. today's bill is no exception. let's call this bill for what it really is -- it's a big favor to millionaires and billionaires at the expense of working families. this legislation's perfect for the owners and c.e.o.'s of bigelow-wage companies like wal-mart and mcdonald's. it says that you can have your employees work 35, 39 hours a week without providing one iota of health care coverage. that's a great deal for the walden family which already has a net worth of nearly $145 billion. one family.

$145 billion. and that's a great deal for the c.e.o. of mcdonald's who makes $9,200 an hour, $9,00 an hour. but it's -- $$9,200 an hour. but it's terrible for american workers. it means the profits will go toward helping health insurance for the bulk of their workers. all the while those workers continue to make as little as $7.25 an hour. and it means that the american taxpayers will be stuck with picking up the tab. the republicans decided to bring this bill to the floor even though they have no pay-for, which means this is a very pure form of deficit spending. you're incurring $75 billion worth of expenses for the taxpayers and you have no way to pay for it, but rather than have these companies provide health insurance to their workers, you're willing to add it to the deficit of the united states for the next 40 or 50 years. i remember when that party stood for deficit reduction. now it's deficit creation.

it's deficit creation. so let's get it straight so emp can understand. the american -- so everyone can understand. the american people will be paying $75 billion more so the life of the wal-marts don't have to provide their employees with health care. they made $15 billion in profits last year. target made $2 billion in profits. mcdonald's made more than $5 billion in profits. and they can't afford to provide hourly employees with health care? give me a break. all this to solve a problem that doesn't exist, because let's be clear, there's nothing in the affordable care act that forces an employer to cut workers' hours. in fact, the nonpartisan c.b.o. stated that there's no compelling evidence -- this is the congressional budget office -- there's no compelling evidence that part-time employment has increased as a result of the affordable care act. so to benefit the richest of the rich, the republicans want

to pass this bill. the very week that we learn more than 10 million people have gained coverage under the affordable care act, the republicans want to strip a million people of their employer-based health coverage, tossing them into the government programs and leaving less insured and having the taxpayers pick up the bill. and this all the while republicans continue to block a minimum wage increase for these very same workers, a minimum wage increase that goldman seahawks says will give the economy -- goldman-sachs says will give the economy a boost. but they won't vote for the minimum wage increase, they tell us. so what are they going to do instead? they're going to continue to stand on the throat of the american economy, because all over this country where we raise the minimum wage in cities and states and towns, small businesses are hiring. there's more customers on main street. but they're not going to allow that to happen nationwide. instead, they're going to provide $75 billion of new

deficit for these businesses who pay their taxes, for these workers who pay their taxes and they'll continue to block unemployment insurance, another boost to the economy. people with unemployment insurance that has run out, if we extend it they're going to spend that money immediately because they have to take care of their families, they have to buy groceries, they have to pay the rent. they are customers on main treet. they're not going to do that. economists left and right tell us one of the biggest boosts to this -- to this american economy is immigration reform but they're not going to do that. they're not going to give our economy that boost. but they're going to add $5 billion to the deficit. but they're not going to let somebody have food stamps for the deficit, they're not going to let somebody have health care for the deficit but they're going to reward the big employers for throwing people off their health care roles. this is some plan you have for america. this is some plan you have for working families.

clearly, when the newspapers and the editorial boards accuse you of doing nothing in washington, they misread you. you're doing great harm to the budget, you're doing great harm to health care, and you're doing great harm to these low-income workers. but you're doing a great favor for the rich thoves rich in this country. i yield back the balance of -- of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. members are reminded to address their remarks to the chair. the gentlewoman from kansas is recognized. ms. jenkins: i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from west virginia my friend, representative capito. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from west virginia is recognized for two minutes. mrs. capito: thank you, madam speaker. rye is -- i rise in strong support of this commonsense proposal to change the affordable care act's definition of full of time employment back to 40 hours a week where it

blons. 40-hour workweek has been deck reck niced for decades as the standard for full-time employment. small business owners, union leaders, have recognized that the a.c.a.'s definition of full-time employment risks damaging the traditional 40-hour workweek and the paychecks that those 40 hours bring. as we've heard with the hoover institute study, the 30-hour rule puts 2.6 million workers at risk of losing their jobs or losing their work hours. harming those who can least afford to take a pay cut. those work verse a median income of $30,000, more than half of them have a high school diploma or less, and more than half of them are women. in practice, many of these workers will have to find two part-time jobs to equal what they were bringing home. and balancing two jobs means less time with your family, not to mention the tremendous stress that folks will feel to have to go in this direction. passing this bill will help create jobs.

one-half of small businesses recently surveyed said they will either cut hours or full-time employees or replace them with part-time employees. we need to make it easier for businesses to hire full-time employees, not harder. but the a.c.a.'s mandate and the administration's repeated delays have only created more uncertainty for workers and businesses and individuals and moms throughout this country. i urge my colleagues to join me in helping working families and working women and job creating small businesses by voting for the save american workers act. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from west virginia yields back. the gentlewoman from kansas reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. mcdermott: i reserve the balance of my time but could you give us an accounting of our time at this point. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington has 19 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentlewoman from kansas has 30 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. mcdermott: thank you.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from kansas is recognized. ms. jenkins: thank you, madam chair. i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. blackburn. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized for two minutes. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mals. i am so appreciative -- thank you, madam speaker. i am so appreciative for us to be able to come to the floor and have this discussion today. i think our constituents are just shocked with what they see happening because of the president's health care law. they can't believe it. they had heard the rhetoric from the minority leader that it was going to create four million jobs. what they have found out is that it is costing them their jobs. it is costing them wage increases. it is costing them certainty in the job market. and i have to tell you, it really is a war on jobs.

it is a war on women. and we are seing that because women, 63% of those that are affected by the adverse impact of the president's health care law, are women. let me give you one example of this. i was in the grocery store recently, passed a lady with two children in her grocery cart and we chatted, nodded at each other, the next aisle around she said, are you marsha blackburn. i said, yes i am. she said, can i tell you my story? absolutely. this is her story. she worked in the office part nor grose -- where this grocery store was located. her husband, self-employee the family's benefit structure, insurance, through her job. an employer with just over 50 people, her hours as an office manager and assistant, she was cut to 29 hours a week.

her time was cut. every week. impacts her, impacts her husband. in one day she lost her insurance, she lost her wage increases, and she was forced to healthcare.gov. also, what she had to do, she's a survivor, she said, i went to the mall, i went to a retailer, i got a part-time job. she said, thank goodness i have great in laws. they are going to help watch the children. but here is what is so sad. she now is working two jobs and she is losing time to be with those children as they are playing soccer and baseball, as they are doing girl scouts and boy scouts, as they are trying to get to church to sing in the choir. she's had to rely on her in-laws

to handle those so that she can work a second job to pay for a program that she doesn't want and pay her taxes to a government that refuses to live within its means. i support the s.a.w. act, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. mcdermott: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. pallone: i thank my colleague. madam speaker, throughout this debate, republicans have been claiming that they are championing of working people but that's not the case here. this is not the saving american workers act, it's the sabotaging america's workers act. the affordable care act is based on the premise that the large businesses can afford to offer health coverage to their workers and they should do the responsible thing and offer coverage. that's only fair.

96% of all businesses don't have to offer any of their workers coverage under the a.c.a. but for the 4% of business this is a have the means, the law says that they need to do the right thing by their full-time workers and offer them health coverage. and the republicans don't think businesses owe their employees anything at all. the family and medical leave act, republicans say, oh, that's not important. equal pay for equal work, republicans say, oh, women don't deserve that. a fair minimum wage, republicans say, absolutely not. and quality, affordable health care, republicans say, who cares? well, i think bigger businesses should do the right thing by their workers and that's what the a.c.a. asks them to do. so what does this bill actually do that's before us today? i would say that big businesses could deny, or this bill says, that big businesses could deny health coverage to someone working 39 hours a week, 52 weeks a year. that's not a part-time worker. their employer should provide them health coverage.

five times more people work around 40 hours a week than work around 30 hours a week. that's why this bill will throw one million americans off of their employers' health coverage. that's why it should result in millions and millions of workers seeing their hours cut below 40 hours a week. i mean, what is it? why are republicans claiming people are losing hours right and left because of the a.c.a. but the congressional budget office told them flatly, and i quote there is no compelling evidence that part-time labor has increased as a result of the affordable care act. but i doubt that means much to my republican friends because they just don't look at the facts. we've added 8.6 million private sector jobs since the job passed but republicans simply ignore that there are fewer part-time workers than there were before the law passed but that doesn't get in the way of the republican talking points. 71 million people -- 7.1 million people have enrolled through the exchanges and millions and millions more have signed up directly through medicaid or an

insurer but republicans claim people don't want health coverage or the number are made up. we're adding jobs to the economy. giving big business a green light to drop coverage for their workers is not the way to move this country forward. work verse the right to decent health care. businesses should help them get it. that's the fair thing. that's the right thing. and this bill takes us in the total wrong direction. so i urge my colleagues, vote no. this is a very bad bill for america's workers. don't let the republicans kid you otherwise. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expire the gentlewoman from kansas is recognized. ms. jenkins: thank you, madam chair. i'd like to yield two minutes at this time to the gentlelady from north carolina, mrs. ellmers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. mrs. ellmers: thank you, madam speaker. thank you to my colleague who is working so hard on the ways and means committee and also as our vice chair of our conference. madam speaker i rise today in

support of the save american workers act, an important bill that i am proud to say i'm a co-sponsor of as well. every day we learn of more and more of the dangers facing millions of americans due to the affordable care act or obamacare. just last week in north carolina we learned that substitute teachers will be getting their hours cut and their incomes cut because of this irresponsible mandate. north carolina teachers are being notified of their cuts and millions of hardworking americans across this country will work less and suffer more in order to comply with this law. in my own district, substitute teachers are facing the same problem. in lee county, an official confirmed to us, to my office, that we are cutting the hours of our part-time people. our substitute teachers. nationwide, 76% of public school teachers are women. this is a direct assault on women.

this law, so-called law is a complete and total assault on women. more than half of the work force today, of the 72 million women in the work force are the primary wage earners for their families. across this country, women stand to lose the most. 63% of them are women, those that are at risk, those who are at risk of losing their hours. the facts speak for themselves. i encourage my colleagues to vote for this bill, yet another changing bill that we see every day, this very bad law known as obamacare. i yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. mcdermott: madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentlewoman from kansas is recognized. ms. jenkins: thank you, madam speaker. i would like to yield three

minutes to the gentlelady from minnesota, mrs. bachmann. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for three minutes. mrs. bachmann: i thank thele gentlewoman from kansas for sponsoring this extremely important time we're taking today. it's so important because this is a law, the signature piece of the president's legislative agenda, the obamacare act that we are dealing with today, has impacted people's lives in such a profound way. you know, madam speaker, i'm reminded of the president of the united states who five days before he assumed office said he was planning to fundamentally transform the united states of america. we didn't know if that was a rhetorical flourish or exactly what thalled that would mean. it's taken many forms since that time but one thing that i didn't think i would ever see in my district on the faces of beautiful, innocent people, is a fundamental transformation. but i can tell you very clearly, madam speaker, that i have seen a fundamental transformation in

the face of a lot of women -- a lot of women's faces in my district. i'm seeing them for the first time not be able to look me in the eyes. there's a loss of dignity. there's a sense of shame. and there's an embarrassment. because there's women, madam speaker, who had full-time jobs, who could support their families, now they don't have them. they've been lost. because their employer no longer can keep the full-time jobs. i see women who have lost their jobs altogether. i see women whose hours have packed off to the extent that they can hardly afford to pay the gas to go in the car to get to work. life has really changed for women in my district. this isn't made up. this is real. that's the fundamental transformation. and i'm sorry to say, madam speaker, it's not for the better. you see, we all hoped that

perhaps once this bill passed that maybe we'd be proven wrong. maybe this bill actually would help a lot of women in our district. i'm not denying that there aren't a few people who have been helped. there are some. but what's remarkable are the number of women and men that i've met who lost health insurance. who said to me, michelle, what happened? the president promised me if i liked my plan i could keep it. why can't i keep it? they've said to me, michelle, i relied on my doctor. one woman who called me, she was scheduled for cancer surgery. she was denied. she wasn't able to go through, the hospital canceled it. and then her doctor was changed out from under her. she was depressed. she didn't know where she could go. we spent hours on the phone to try to help her find someone who could take care of her. then i got a call, madam speaker from a female physician who said, i want you to know, in my

practice, i spent 90% of my time speaking to my patients, diagnosing them, giving them advice and now i spend 50% of my time doing that because i have to spend 50% of my time filling out paperwork. madam speaker, let's listen to the women of this country and fundamentally transform their lives for the better. that's why i support h.r. 2575, the save american workers act. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expyred this egentleman from washington is recognized. mr. mcdermott: madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from kansas is recognized. ms. jenkins: thank you, madam speaker. i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from washington state, our honorable chair of the republican conference, mrs. mcmorris rodgers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from washington is recognized for two minutes. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you and i want to thank the lady from kansas for her

leadership on this important issue, and i rise to join in expressing strong support for h.r. 2575, the save american workers act. this is to restore the 40-hour workweek and to save jobs. all across this country, people continue to struggle under this economy, and they see it when they go -- when they look at their paycheck and their take-home pay. they see it at the doctor's office, and they see it in the work force. today, too many americans are feeling the pressure of higher premiums and higher deductibles. many are losing their jobs and losing their health insurance. all because of obamacare. in fact, c.b.o. recently reported that 2 1/2 million americans are at risk of having their hours cut because of this law. these are the very people that are often struggling to make ends meet, whether it's those recent grads, single moms trying to provide for their

families. the president likes to suggest that his policies are helping women, but actually what's happening is that his policies are setting women back. women are being hurt by these policies. hundreds of them have already lost their jobs in the home health care industry. nearly two million people will see their hours cut or their jobs lost in the service industries. and you know, for the first time earlier this year -- for the first time, earlier this year with the jobs report we saw where the health care sector lost jobs, where women disproportionately are actually employed. women, single moms, young people who work late nights at mcdonald's drive-through, serve as teachers' aides in the classroom will be impacted because of this law. women and all across america, jobs succeed when

succeeds. when you support good policy and that's what this legislation does. i ask members to support it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. mcdermott: madam speaker, i yield myself 30 seconds to point out that my -- to my colleagues that c.b.o. did not say people would lose their jobs. they said, because they have health care, they no longer have to stay in the job that they have and they will be able to stay home or do something else, and that will reduce the number of hours of work. they did not say the bill cuts them out or knocks them out of work. i yield to mr. connelly of virginia two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. connolly: thank you, madam speaker. i thank my friend from washington. boy, listening to the stories here on the floor, i must say

i'm a little surprised. this new-found commitment on the other side of the aisle to women. so how about raising the minimum wage for women? how about joining with us in extending unemployment insurance for women? how about the fact that 7.1 million americans have enrolled in this program you don't like, that you want to call a failure? 7.1 million of our fellow americans beg to differ and a lot of them are women. it is not true what you're selling today on the floor, i would say to my friends, madam speaker. in fact, women will be the biggest beneficiary of obamacare. protecting their families, protecting their health care, protecting their reproductive rights which you, i would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, madam speaker,

would deny. other than that, yes, you're protecting women. if we're going to be serious out this, madam speaker, let's recognize the truth. the truth is this obamacare protects the interest of women. this bill would undo it. n fact, the biggest victims of legislative action if we pass this bill today would in fact be the very women some of my colleagues have been talking about today. so i urge my colleagues who say they are committed to the interests of women to vote against this bad bill and to support the expansion of health care, especially for working women in america. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia yields back. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentlewoman from kansas is recognized. ms. jenkins: madam speaker,

before i yield to the gentlewoman from wyoming, i just want to highlight that according to the bureau of labor statistics that a substitute teacher earning $11.27 an hour, if that substitute teacher's hours were cut back from 39 to 29 hours, he would lose $125 per week or $6,484 per year or nearly a 26% pay cut. these are the folks that we are here fighting for. and with that i'd like to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from wyoming, mrs. lummis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from wyoming is recognized for one minute. mrs. lummis: thank you, madam speaker. hey, i come from the wild west. i come from a place of wide open opportunity, and women in the west want freedom and liberty and the ability to create their own business. women want to expand the businesses they already have and play a bigger role in the

american entrepreneurial dream, but obamacare makes it more affordable for women entrepreneurs to keep their employee numbers below 50 and their employee hours below 30. this makes no one's life better . not women entrepreneurs and not for their women employees. in fact, 2/3 of those most at risk of losing work hours because of obamacare are women. let's fix this. let's save american workers. let's pass the save american workers act. madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from wyoming yields back. the gentlewoman from kansas reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. mcdermott: madam speaker, i yield to the gentleman from chicago, mr. lipinski, two minutes.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mr. lipinski: i thank the gentleman for the courtesy of yielding, especially today, as i rise in support of h.r. 2575. i was first approached about the problems of the 30-hour full-time position by steve palmer, one of the owners of palmer place restaurant, an institution in lagrange, illinois. this is a family business committed to their community and their employees and they offer health insurance coverage to their workers when possible. because of the nature of the business, many of their employees are part-time and work flexible schedules. but the a.c.a.'s definition of full-time work has put the palmer family's one restaurant on the cusp of being classified as a large business. the family's found themselves of paying the hefty cost of health insurance or paying a fine.

this scenario for -- is the same for those struggling to plan for the future. the workers of some of these businesses are going to get a far different deal when they got the job. as a result of the 30-hour job, some part-time employees are seeing their hours reduced. the c.b.o. has confirmed that shifting to a 40-hour pulltime definition would leave some workers to seeing an increase in additional lost wages. many workers could lose scheduling flexibility so they won't cycle in and out of full-time status for week to week. these are ways that workers will lose. the administration has already acknowledged the difficulty in implementing the employer coverage rules of the a.c.a. through two delays in substantial administrative changes. clearly, the administration knows there are problems with the employer coverage rules as currently contained in the law and today it's reported that former white house press

secretary robert gibbs said, i don't think the employer mandate will go into effect. madam speaker, let's do right by america's part-time workers and by family businesses. let's pass this bill and fix this broken part of the a.c.a. that is what the american people are looking for. that is what we should do. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from kansas is recognized. ms. jenkins: thank you, madam chair. i'd like to yield one minute to the gentlelady from indiana, mrs. walorski. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from indiana is recognized for one minute. mrs. walorski: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today in support of the save american workers act. obamacare redefines full-time employment as 30 hours per week rather than the traditional 40 hours per week and mandates that any business with more than 50 full-time equivalent employees must provide health insurance. if these businesses do not provide insurance, they face a

tax penalty. my district is ripe for job growth. indiana's manufacturing industry is booming. yet, as i travel throughout the district, i speak frequently with business owners afraid to expand due to this rule. other hoosier business owners will be forced to lay off employees if this definition is not changed, and women are disproportionately affected. 63% of those at risk of lost hours in my district are female. the save american workers act will unleash job creation by repealing this 30-hour definition and replacing it with the traditional 40-hour definition. i urge my colleagues in supporting this bill, and i yield back the balance of my ime. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, accounting of us

the time? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington has 12 minutes and the gentlelady from kansas has 19 minutes. the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: reserves. the gentlelady from kansas. ms. jenkins: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, a colleague on the house ways and means committee, mr. kelly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. mr. kelly: i thank the gentlelady. mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of h.r. 2575. you know, sometimes you have to figure out first of all, where did you come from, to find out to where you got. i was trying to understand the 40-hour workweek, where could we have possibly started? for 70 something years it was 40 hours. i found out it was the product of the depression. fair labor standards act they said we need to have a measure. so it is 4 hours. part of the new deal, by the

way. in 1944, 40 hours a week was full-time employment. then all of a sudden obamacare comes along and the new deal has been replaced by a bad deal. we told people, no, no, no. it's not 40. it's 30 hours. that's what full-time employment is. when you go back to 1937 and 1940, what were they trying to do? they were trying to get america back to work. it was after the great depression. so it was getting folks back to work. now you fast forward today, it's not getting people back to work. it's about getting obamacare to work. who will hurt the most? it has hurt low-income and middle-income people. 2.6 million folks have been affected by either losing their job or losing hours. so you got to scratch your head and say, wait a minute. if we're really trying to get america back to work, why would we take their hours from them? why would we slash their workweek by 25%? it has nothing to do with work.

not working people. it has to do with making obamacare work. well, i got to tell you, 25%, 75%, we have the new deal that got replaced with a bad deal and then we have 25/75. this is a good deal. this is a good deal. and i don't see how -- i would look at this 435 members, any one of us could say that this just doesn't make sense right now for the folks that we represent. why would we do this to them? why would we take their work hours away? why would we put in jeopardy 2.6 million people just in an effort to make obamacare work? if it's about making it easier for americans to work, then it's high time we start to turn the tide. it's time we look at what's going on and we say to ourselves, if it worked before, why can't it work again? why can't we get back to 40 hours? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from kansas reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, i

reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from kansas. ms. jenkins: i would like to yield at this time two minutes to the gentlelady from south dakota, miss know yems. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from south dakota is recognized for two minutes. mrs. noem: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of this bill to change the definition of full-time in the i.r.s. code to 40 hours per week on average. the 30-hour workweek was instituted in obamacare is limiting economic opportunities across the country. it's especially harmful for women. when 63% of those most at risk are women, south dakota has one of the highest rates in the country of working women and i have had them come to me time and time again talking about how this regulation has impacted them. they no longer are getting the hours they need to pay their bills. their hours have been cut where they are working. they may be forced to take another part-time job. if you want to talk about putting challenges in their way, when they are trying to fulfill all their requirements of work, paying their bills, being with their children, having

successful family life, this regulation is one of the worst. obamacare pressures employers to restrict their full-time ranks in order to avoid the employer mandate, putting millions of workers at risk of having their hours cut. now we have two definitions. the department of labor definition, and then the new i.r.s. definition defined by obamacare. only here in washington, d.c., does things like that happen. two different definitions for the very same thing. many workers have had their workweek cut down to a maximum of 29 hours. in many instances their possibility of being promoted to full-time no longer rests on their dedication or achievement but now on their boss' ability to weed through the regulatory environment here in washington, d.c. mr. speaker, i used to run a small family business and let me close by saying that women-owned businesses have surged over the past 20 years. we should not be putting obstacles in their way, making it more difficult for them to own those businesses, to undermine their growth and ability to create jobs.

i urge my colleagues to support this bill and let's take a step towards restoring economic freedom in this country. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from south dakota yields back. the gentlelady from kansas reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, i now yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from chicago, ms. schakowsky. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from illinois is recognized for three minutes. ms. schakowsky: actually the debate on this floor and all of my colleagues, women coming down from the republican side, talking about how wonderful this bill is for women and how bad obamacare is for women. i want to make this point. that before the affordable care act was passed, there was gender discrimination against women. the standard body was clearly the male body because women have been paying about 48% more for health care before this law went

into effect that said there would be no more gender discrimination. women could not be charged more because things like pregnancy take place. so this -- women become among the biggest winners under the new affordable care act. and also it's interesting to me talking about protecting women, the republicans, including my women colleagues, oppose the -- raising the minimum wage. /3 of minimum wage workers are women -- 2/3 of minimum wage workers are women. they oppose the paycheck fairness act. isn't it time in 2014 that women get paid equal pay for equal work. they opposed the funding of preschool. they support a budget that would cut pell grants for colleges. they oppose making sure that the affordable care act will provide

contraceptives as a preventive service to women. so this idea that somehow this is bad for women. and also i was --hearing about the economics of freedom. under the affordable care act now you don't have to be locked into a job because you need the health insurance. that is what i call freedom. suddenly entrepreneurialism is unleashed because women and men are able to say, i'm going to take a risk, but i'm going to still be able to find health insurance. the other thing is that it's a job killer. ctually, h.r. 2575 would force one million people to lose their employer provided coverage, and increase the number of uninsured up to 500,000. this is not a number that has come out of some democratic think tank.

this is a number that comes from the nonpartisan congressional budget office. now, it asks the workers themselves, and this is what they'll tell you, the national education association says, we oppose this bill because we believe it would create a disincentive for employers to provide health coverage. they act like we are changing what full-time employment is from 30 hours to 40 hours. here's what we are changing. we are saying if you work 30 hours, your employer will -- should provide you with health insurance. what this bill says, if you work -- i wonder if you yield another minute. mr. mcdermott: i yield the gentlewoman another minute. the speaker pro tempore: the the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized for another minute. ms. schakowsky: what this bill says now if you work 39 hours, your employer can deny you health care coverage. so it actually raises the bar

and says that workers can no longer get coverage between 30 and 39 hours that he they work. this is not a good thing. i was saying the american federation of labor represents millions of workers. this bill not only fails to address the problem it was intended to solve. it makes the problem worse. raising the threshold, that is of how many hours, will only move the cliff and actually increase employers' incentive to reduce workers' hours. the communications workers of america say the threshold from 30 to 40 hours per week doesn't help. it would actually encourage employers to lower the amount of hours. there's been some implication, i think, that the teamsters union is supporting this bill, that is not true. the teamsters are not supporting this legislation. and i would urge my colleagues to oppose it as well. and encourage my women

colleagues to stand up for women. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentlelady from kansas. ms. jenkins: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that my colleague on the committee of ways and means, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. kelly, control the remainder of the time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. kelly: i thank the gentlelady. at this time i'd like to recognize my friend and colleague from illinois, mr. roskam, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mr. roskam: thank you, mr. speaker. the obama administration has done a deliver thing over the past year, mr. speaker, and that is to he redefine things. so they redefine the word balance not to mean the traditional understanding of balance, but they said, no, no, no, that roolly means long-term fiscal sustainability. that's the new definition of balance. they did the same thing on tax reform. the common understanding of tax reform is you lower rates. you use loopholes to bring rates down, and you simplify the code.

they said, no, tax reform for us means, let's close loopholes, but let's use those closures to fuel more spending. the richest one i have heard so far is to hear a white house spokesman make the claim basically that a job is now a burden and now it's obamacare there's going to be over two million americans who are shed from that burden, mr. speaker, and they tonight have to worry about working anymore because they have this new health care plan. well, it's now finding itself coming true in this bill as well and what the obama administration has said, we are going to just create a new definition of full-time work. full-time work has meant 9 to 5, full-time work has meant 40 hours a week. not with obamacare. obamacare has now redefined it. it's a long pattern of redefinitions. and these redefinitions, mr. speaker, have led to failure. here's the thing, we have an opportunity to remedy this. we have an opportunity to make it right. we have an opportunity to

recalibrate full-time work to what it has historically meant. here's the bottom line. if he we recalibrate it, we'll get more workers to the very people that our opponents on the other side claim to speak for, an the irony is their remedies mean less work for the very groups they seek to advocate for. mr. speaker, we have a chance today and that is to support this bill to do it quickly, and to get us back to the normal definition of full-time work, which is 40 hours a week. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves his time. and the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. kelly: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i'd like to introduce another colleague and good friend of mine from louisiana, mr. scalise. the speaker pro tempore: how many minutes? mr. kelly: two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for two minutes. mr. scalise: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank my friend from pennsylvania for yielding. i rise in strong support of this legislation. of course, mr. speaker,

president obama's own health care law has now resulted in the direct loss, loss of work, for millions of people across this country. one of the perverse incentives in obamacare actually forces employers through incentives in the law to drop the number of hours that their employees work. this isn't something employees want. it's not something employers want. yet it's directly there in the law where you get penalized. you get fined by the i.r.s. if you're not doing this when you talk about these impacts of the law. it's having devastating impacts on families across this country. the president was talking about the minimum wage. the president has literally forced a 25% pay cut for millions of americans through his incentive in the law that is encouraging employers to drop their work force hours below 40 hours a week, to 30 hours and 28 hours a week. i represent parts of the city of new orleans. some of the best restaurants in the world are in the city of new orleans. we love going to those restaurants. so many people from all over the

world love going to those restaurants, but many of those restaurant owners tell me he they love their work force. they love the employees that work for them. it's like family businesses. yet they are being forced because of this law to drop those hours of those workers below 30 hours. there's no reason for this, mr. speaker. this bill fixes this problem. president obama and the white house, they said, hey, look, this is a burden for poor workers. this is freeing them up to do things he they want to do. as if people don't want to be working. one of the things they said, you can sit in a park and write poetry. these people don't want to be sitting in a park writing poetry at 2:00 on a thursday afternoon, they want to be at their job working. the law doesn't let them do that. let's fix this. we can get this economy moving again. and it's crazy policies like this component of obamacare that literally forces people to be dropped below 30 hours to address some new definition of part-time worker. and full-time worker. these are the kind of policies that are devastating american

families. this is what we are here to fix. we need to pass this bill, fix this problem, get people back to work so they don't have to sit on a park bench on thursday afternoon. they can be at their job working. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. and has 11 minutes remaining. the gentleman from washington has eight minutes remaining and is recognized the -- recognized. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. my colleagues out here today have really had a good time telling personal stories. so i got a few of them for them. last week a distinguished senator from texas, senator cruz, put a poll up on his facebook asking whether people are better off under the law. the responses were not what he expected. the overwhelming number of responses -- he got nearly 56,000 responses. were in support of a.c.a. the most recent 100 comments, if

you look at it online, there's just two that appear more negative than positive. so that's 2% -- against it. one of them said, no. not -- i'm only better off now and i have friends that are better off, too. the second one said, yes, i have m.s. and i lost my job. and i wasn't able to get any other insurance because of my pre-existing condition. thank you, president obama. another one said, this nation is better off for helping people avoid the devastation that poor health can bring. thank you a.c.a. i ask unanimous consent to insert a screen shot of some of the comments into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. kelly: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i'd like to enter into the record two letters, one from the chamber of commerce of the united states of america in strong support of 2575, and then -- another letter from the national federation of

independent business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. so ordered. mr. kelly: at this time, i'd like to yield three minutes to my good friend and member of the ways and means, mr. reichert from washington. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized for three minutes. mr. reichert: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, there are a few things going on here. one, you have an american family, hardworking american families who are working hard every day to juggle their lives, to provide for their families, provide for their children. they're trying to make ends meet, put food on the table and clothes on their backs. and what happens is this obamacare 30-hour rule could seriously jeopardize all of those efforts. 30 hours instead of 40 hours. secondly, under obamacare, employers are already cutting workers' hours just to avoid the employer mandate. so there's another burden that's placed on our employees. and our employers.

third, now the law is changing the standard definition of a full-time employee to someone who works 30 or more 40 rather than 40 or more hours. workers are taking home less pay each month as a result of that. instead of having 38 hours of play, they might have 28 hours of -- 38 hours of pay they might have 28 hours of pay or lose their job, mr. speaker. much of that impact will be in restaurants, retailers and hospitality businesses. 89% of those who would be impacted do not have college degrees. talk about helping those who need help, this bill, obamacare's reduction of 30 hours -- from 40 hours to 30 hours doesn't help those people. people have college degrees are going to be hurt the worse, and over 50% do not even have high school diplomas. if they lose their jobs, there may not be somewhere else for

them to turn. the save american workers act would prevent this from happening, it would save jobs and it would provide relief for everyday americans from the enormous tax burden of obamacare, repealing 63.4 billion dollars of tax increases. i know this is right for my constituents in washington state, and i urge my colleagues to support this legislation today. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves his time, and the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. mcdermott: i reserve the balance of my time, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: continues to reserve. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. kelly: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd also like to ask for unanimous consent to insert two other letters into the -- the employers for flexibility in health care coalition, the n.r.f. we have a lot of these letters. i think what i'm going to do now, read more of them as we go on, i'm fascinated by the results of senator cruz's request online to hear from people.

we'll see if we can get some other accurate numbers. at this time, though -- the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. kelly: i'd like to recognize my good friend and another member of the ways and means committee, mr. reed from new york. the speaker pro tempore: for how many minutes? mr. kelly: two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. reed: mr. chairman, i rise today to urge support for the bill, the save american workers act, introduced by my good friend, mr. young from indiana. mr. chairman, this is a fundamental question about what's fair. what's fair for the american worker? we have had a long history in america to protect the 40-hour workweek. this mandate, this requirement under the affordable care act to go to 30 hours, as the definition of a full-time work, is going to hurt. it's not fair to the american worker. i'll just offer comments that i just received from a constituent in the 23rd congressional district, which i have the honor to represent.

carol tyler writes, who is the owner of haguers flowers and gifts. as a business owner, i encourage you to vote in legislation that will reflect my business' work force needs while maintaining flexible hours and health insurance for my employees. this must align with the standard that better reflects current employee practices within our industry. increasing the a.c.a. 30-hour workweek definition will make it easier for employers to provide additional hours to all employees. that means more money in hardworking taxpayers' pockets across america. i urge my colleagues to join with ms. tyler's plea to support this legislation, to stand with the american worker and protect the 40-hour workweek which means more money in american workers' pockets as they go forward. and i have to say, mr. chairman, there is a contrast between our side and the other side.

when i hear the other side argue that what this will allow people to do is to not have to work, what i hear is they're not championing the concept of work. i believe in the american work ethic, mr. chairman. i believe the strong work ethic that allows people to work a 40-hour workweek is what's made this nation strong for generations. i ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to stand with us to protect that which has made america great and that is the 40-hour workweek in the workplace environment. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, i yield -- i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: reserves his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. kelly: yes, mr. speaker. two more letters i'd like to submit into the record. one from the small business coalition for affordable health care. there's 43 members signed onto this one. and i would just say at this point -- the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman asking for unanimous

consent? mr. kelly: sorry. i'm asking for unanimous consent. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. kelly: and reserve the rest of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves from pennsylvania and the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, can you tell us how much time is left? the speaker pro tempore: both sides have seven minutes remaining. mr. mcdermott: and is the gentleman -- is he ready to close off, does he have any more speakers? mr. kelly: we are prepared to close. we did a little background check on senator cruz. you read one or two of those -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is not yielding his time. mr. kelly: just so we understand -- the speaker pro tempore: seven minutes remaining. do you reserve? mr. kelly: i reserve. mr. mcdermott: the gentleman, does he have any more speakers? mr. kelly: we have no more speakers and we are prepared to close. mr. mcdermott: i yield two minutes to mr. capuano of massachusetts. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for two minutes.

mr. capuano: i was doing desk work done and watching this debate and wasn't going to speak. i am hearing this and it's tiring. so i did a little bit of work and came up with a couple of quotes that i wanted to read. this is relating to the fair labor standards act of 1938, which i heard referenced from the other side, that talk about a 44-hour workweek and minimum wage at the time. here are a couple quotes. the act will destroy small industry. these ideas are the products of those rooted in the alien philosophy and are bent upon the destruction of our whole constitutional system and the setting up of a red tape communist dess petism upon the ruins of our christian civilization. that's a quote from georgia.ative cox of communism, fascism and nazism, that's a quote from the national association of

manufacturers. the fair labor standards act would create chaos in business, never yet known to us. no decent american can take exception to this attitude. what i do take exception to is any approach to a solution of this problem that's utterly impractical and a operation would be much more destructive than constructive the purposes which it was designed to serve. that was a representative from ohio. these arguments are not new. are you going to get tired of being behind history? when are you going to get tired of holding the american people back? please, find an opportunity in any case, health care, housing, education, minimum wage, anything to move us forward. 80 years-plus of the same arguments against the typical

legislation that simply tries to move america forward and take care of our people, it's the same old argument, the same old rhetoric. it's wrong then, it's wrong now. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington reserves and the gentleman from ennsylvania is recognized. the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: is the gentleman from pennsylvania ready to close? mr. kelly: yes. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, i will speak then on the emaining time that i have. it's an old political tactic to use confusion. we have watched for almost four years the republican party try to confuse the american people about the affordable care act. that it was the worst thing that was ever going to happen

on the face of the earth, that we would have storms, that we would have hurricanes, we would have unemployment, we would have wars, we have famines all because of the affordable care act. well, we're up here today with yet another attempt to confuse people about the 40-hour workweek and whether or not we are going to cause people to lose their jobs. i enter into the record the c.b.o. report on page 135 of the budget outlook for 2014-2024 in which it says the c.b.o.'s judgment is there is no compelling evidence that part-time employment is increased as a result of a.c.a. everything you have heard out here is not true about losing jobs. there's nothing in the law that says people have to shorten the workweek. i -- i don't know if anybody on the other side understands the free enterprise system. businesses are run by

entrepreneurs, and they decide what kind of product they're going to produce. they hire people to do that. they decide the hours. they decide the pay. they decide everything. and somebody -- you keep saying that obamacare came in and it's forcing, forcing these entrepreneurs in america to cut eir employee's wages and hours. -- employees' wages and hours. there's no such thing in the law that's true. if an employer wants to cut his wages -- and in fact, my colleague from washington state, mr. reichert, just said that, mr. speaker, he said that there were already people's hours being cut before obamacare. it is not obamacare that decides how much somebody works. it's the person who runs the company. now, if he doesn't care about

his employees and doesn't want to give him health care, that's one thing. you know, there are people out there like that, but there are a lot of people that would like to give health insurance to their people and we are trying to do that with the subsidies in this bill. but let me come to one other issue and that is this whole question of women. i fly back and forth across the country every week for 25 -- 35 flights a year for 25 years and i know most of the flight attendants on united airlines between seattle and washington, d.c. i can't tell you how many of those women are working because they get health care benefits because their husband has a job and has no benefits and if they don't take their job they simply won't have health care in their family. united airlines has been through two bankruptcies. they have lost pay increases. they've lost their pension rights, and the only thing left

they have is that health care benefit. and that's what's holding the family together. if they -- i'm interested to see what happens to the flight attendants i know, the older ones, they leave flying -- before he couldn't get health insurance and now he can under the affordable care act and they can quit working. now, when the c.b.o. talks about people working less, it's because the job lock is gone. people are not locked into their jobs because of the fact they can't get health insurance anyplace else. it makes it available for any american. and the fact is the cuts you're seeing, if you see employers that are going to take people down from 40 hours a week to 39 so they can avoid giving benefits, take a look at the morals.

wonder if that person goes to church and talks about how we take care of the poor and the weak and the sick and the -- well, all the rest. no, no, no. you can't have it both ways. you cannot cut your people down one hour just to get out of giving them benefits. and that's -- that's what you're suggesting is going to go on in this country. i don't think that badly of owners of businesses, myself. now, there may be some people out there looking for a way to get around the law, but this law doesn't make anybody do anything, and this law is going to create more problems. you hear one million people are going to lose their health care benefits, and that's not good. and this whole idea of continuing to undermine this law by confusing the american ople and making them isn't

working. 1.7 million people joined. mr. kelly: we have an interesting conversation today. we talk about the 40 tsh hour workweek and what was established in the 1930's under the new deal. how it switched under obamacare to a bad deal. 30 hours is considered now full-time employment. now we talk about mr. young's bill, h.r. 2575 that will be a good deal for american workers. gives them back those 25% of the hours they were going to lose each week. we can play ring around the rosy with this an talk about who doesn't like whom and these terrible business owners don't go to church, they don't have a heart, they don't seem to worship anywhere, but they want to make sure they take advantage of their various associates with whom they have a close relationship. i can just tell you after being in business my entire life i'm the son of a parts picker from a general motors warehouse, a guy who worked his fingers to the

bone to have something. to step out of this room and go out in the marketplace and sit down with people who actually sit across the desk from somebody and hire them. there is no greater thrill for an employer than to be able to tell somebody, you know what, we are going to bring you on our team. you are going to be able to work with us. you are going to have wages that can support your family. plan for the future. do things that you never thought you were going to do. you can do that because of a job. and then suddenly because the numbers just weren't working for obamacare, and as the president says all too often, tause just the arithmetic, we are going to do something that makes it work for us, not for you, but for us. we are going to make full-time employment 30 hours. we are going to take 25% of your workweek away from you. and we are going to say it's 30 hours. now we say to these people who have the great association and great relationship with the people they work with every day because the success of the

business is also the success of the employee. we are dividing these people and making them enemies in the marketplace. you don't need to do that. but only if this great house and only in this great town and only in the place that's so out of touch with everyday america can we stand up and make these statements and think that they stick. 2.6 million people are affected by this in a very negative, negative way. they are going to loose jobs an they are going to loose hours. it's not the fault of the employer because he's trying to make his model work. it's the fault of a government who works at such great deficit that people can't begin to understand what it is. my little 9-year-old grandson says to me all the time when he looks at these things, grandpa it just doesn't make sense. a child can get it. but we can't get it. and in a time we need to be more united than ever as a country, as we make our way back to a very tough time, we need to stand together on these things.

i have heard since i got here is you guys just don't like this affordable care act. help us make it work. so we said why don't we get people full-time employment. that's not the kind of help we want. don't you get it? so we stand here today and we have this debate. i told you how the new deal get replaced by the bad deal, i also told you how the bad deal will get replaced by a good deal by mr. young. h.r. 2575. that is going to help get america back to work. honestly, if that's not why we are here today, if that's not what our main purpose is, why are we here? what are we doing? why do we continue to spin this so much there's hardly any american can watch straight because they get spun every day by a message from washington. we continue to do it and we continue to thump our chest and say we did good. we did really good. the lowest labor rate participation in 35 years. in a country that has been so blessed by our creator that the rest of the world looks at us and says, what in the world are

you doing? what is holding you back? you have every -- everything you could possibly want. you have great workers. you have great energy sources. we have sources of energy that would last for several decades. several centuries. several centuries. great. great abundance and affordable and accessible energy. we hold back on it. we have assets that make sense to everybody in the world but us. we have 1/5 of the world's fresh water sitting right in our great lakes. and our production per acre exceeds anybody's wildest dreams. we can have energy independence, we can feed ourselves, and he we have drinking water. everybody else in the world wants to have it. we just ask the gentleman, the rest of the congress, listen, there's 435 of us. if it's really about getting people back to work, let's do things that make sense. let's not beat around the bush around some type ideological debate about what we are trying to do to each other.

40 hours a week were always considered full-time employment. it's just that simple. it's not hard to figure out. and i can tell you as an employer having to let somebody go is the worst feeling you can ever have. i do go to mass every day. and do i pray about it every night. and i do pray about the future of this country. to suggest that anybody, anybody of the great employers we have and the job creators we have around this country are somehow godless, heartless people who don't have feelings is absolutely absurd. it's what continues to make it hard to come to this house every day and say, you know what, we are going to fix this for america. we are going to get america back to work. we are going to do the right thing every day in every way. no. that just doesn't fly here. well, we could go on for this for hours, mr. speaker, but i would just tell you this, returning americans to a 40-hour workweek just makes sense. this is not a hard thick to -- thing if figure out f a 9-year-old child can understand it, why can't the congress of

the united states? if we are truly going to turn this economy around, get people back to work, let's make sure we renew that great sense of dependency we have on each other. not divide ourselves between those who don't like you and those who do like you. by the way, senator cruz's poll, i know the gentleman referred to several replies that had gone in that poll, there was 57,444 people that actually answered that poll. i'm sure there was probably good stuff on there, too. but that's not my point. my point is we have an opportunity here in this house, like no other place in the world, when something is wrong we can fix it. and i have heard from the time i came here the problem with a lot of these last passed are the unintended consequences. let me tell you, there may be unintended consequences but not unintended and not uninsured people, there's not people ute there not feeling the pain. there is a lot of pain out there right now. the unintended consequences have certainly not been unpainful.

and the other thing, they are also not unfixable. you know we can fix this today? you know we can fix this and send it to the senate? get people back to work, make their futures look brighter? we can do that in this house of representatives. forget whether you are wearing a blue tie or red tie. an r on your back or d on your back, start thinking about who you represent. each of us in our districts represent not just republicans or democrats. but every single american. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. all time has expired. pursuant to house resolution 530, the previous question is ordered on the bill as amended. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend internal revenue code of 19 6 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: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i have a motion to he recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? mr. takano: i am opposed in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will read the motion. the clerk: mr. takano of california moves to recommit the bill at that 75 to the committee on ways and means with instructions to report -- mr. takano: i ask that the clerk dispense with the reading. the speaker pro tempore: objection is heard. clerk will tun the reading. the clerk: at the end of the bill add the following, section 3, additional conditions, a, in general, the amendments made by section 2 shall not affect if it results in any of the following, one, prohibition on loss of work hours or wages. a reduction in hours worked and subsequent loss of wages in order to skirt requirements to help pay for employee health care costs. two, ensuring fiscal responsibility and lower deficits. in the increase in the federal

deficit. b, protecting health insurance for veterans and wounded warriors. the amendments made by section 2 shall not apply to veterans or their families. c, being a woman must not be a pre-existing condition. nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize an employer to, one, eliminate, weaken, or reduce health coverage benefits for current employees. two, increase premiums or out-of-pocket costs. three, deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions. or four, discriminate against women and health insurance coverage including by, a, charging women more for their health care than men. b, limiting coverage for pregnancy and postnatal kay, or c restricting coverage for prevnive health services such as mammograms and contraception. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes in support of his motion. mr. takano: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the republicans

need to get with the program. it's over. their sorry attempts to dismantle the affordable care act must come to an end. my republican colleagues have become so disparate to repeal the affordable care act that they are willing to pass legislation that would increase the deficit by $74 billion. i'm not sure if they are aware, but this is a bill that violates their own budget rules and what they claim to be the foundation of their political philosophy. but it's ok. i realize they may be caught up in their obsession to repeal the a.c.a. i'm here to help my friends on the other side of the aisle, my final amendment prohibits their bill from taking effect if it results in an increase in the deficit or if employers begin to reduce hours or wages for workers. my final amendment would also protect veterans from the harmful impact of this legislation and would prohibit employers from raising premiums

or denying coverage to women. no longer is being a woman a pre-existing condition. before the affordable care act, women paid 48% more for health insurance than men. those days are over and done with. we should not go back to them. earlier this week it was anouvensed that more than seven million americans have signed up for private health coverage. that's in addition to the three million who are able to stay on their parents' plans until they are age 26. the millions more who are receiving medicaid for the first time. but according to the nonpartisan congressional budget office, the bill before us today would cause one million workers to lose their employer-sponsored health coverage. a great number of americans finally have access to affordable coverage. now is not the time to take a step back.

here's proof. a resident in my tisstrict named terry brooks wrote to me saying, quote, the individual coverage that i could afford as a healthy 54-year-old woman has been $418 a month with a $5,000 deductible. yes, this would keep me from going under in an emergency, but i avoided going to the doctor mostly for the fear that if i used the unshurens my policy might be canceled. i found myself skipping annual physicals and mammograms, labs, etc. because of the $1,200 tab. i was on a continual quest for something better and more secure. she goes on to say, recently anthem let me know that i would have to change to a client plan. the plan they suggested to me is similar to what i had but it will cost me $53 less a month. yes, less. most important, i know i cannot be canceled, end quote.

i might mention that the annual physical examines, mammograms, and other preventive services that mrs. brooks once avoided are now provided at no cost to patients under all health plans. the affordable care act is law that -- is the law that millions of americans like mrs. brooks have many braced and benefited from. why would anyone want to take that away? do we really want to go back to the days when insurance companies have free rein to do as they please? do we want to go back to the days when one illness or accident could completely bankrupt your family? do we want to go back to the days when premiums skyrocketed year after year with no end in site? my republican -- sight? my republican friends, this addiction to repealing the a.c.a. is not doing anyone any good. we need an intervention here. this is a safe place. stop standing on the wrong side of history. let's move on.

let's accept that the affordable care act is the law of the land and get back to being a productive legislative body. i urge my colleagues to support this motion to recommit and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> i'm opposed to motion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i thank the speaker. mr. camp: let me just make one thing really clear. the legislation before the house is really to address the problems of obamacare which have reduced hours, reduced wages for workers in america. if you really care about the loss of work hours, which this motion purports to do, you'd vote for this bill because it is obamacare that is causing workers to go from 40 to 30 hours. if you really cared about the deficit, and we know what obamacare does in the long term, it increases the deficit hugely, you would support this bill so that you can get a job.

a job that you can work 40 hours. that you could increase your income. and then you can pay taxes on that income. then our economy and our country will be better off and the american dream won't be in jeopardy. vote no on this motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. mr. takano: mr. speaker, i request the yeas and nays be recorded. the speaker pro tempore: 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 y electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage of the bill. 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.]