Lynn Jenkins

Ms. JENKINS

Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Chairman, opponents may argue that this is a burden to place on the DOD when they are seeking to insource, but I believe that ensuring taxpayer dollars are well spent and that taxpayers are getting the best value for their money is hardly a burden. A formal, documented process which shows the cost savings will make sure that this is fair for the small businesses who depend on these contracts to thrive. The American Legion approves of this proposed amendment. They stated: The practice of converting functions and services that have been performed by contractors with government employees limits the amount of contracts that can go to the private sector to stimulate and grow the veteran small business industrial base. When the government takes a couple of positions away from a small business, they are essentially crippling the small business' ability to succeed in the private sector. These practices primarily affect small businesses, as large contractors are rarely affected by insourcing policy because of their size and number of employees. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is also supported by the TRSA, MAPPS, the Business Coalition for Fair Competition, and the American Conservative Union. Mr. Chairman, I will submit their statements in support for the Record. Submitted for the Record in Support of Jenkins Amendment #135 Textile Rental Services Association (TRSA): In its 1996 examination of the issue, the Center for Naval Analyses likewise found benefits of competing work. The visibility and identification of alternate providers were beneficial aspects of the process identified by the Center. As a bottom line, the Center for Naval Analyses determined a 30% average savings resulted from this beneficial focus on competition, with savings persisting over time. A leaner, more efficient government is a worthy goal, and Rep. Jenkins (KS) Amendment #135 is a means to achieve this goal. MAPPS: We have seen insourcing take place beyond `inherently governmental' activities such as commercial activities like mapping and geospatial activities. The Jenkins Amendment is the fairest approach by helping defend business opportunities for the private sector, including small business. Business Coalition for Fair Competition (BCFC): The Jenkins Amendment is the `yellow pages test' personified. This amendment 1) prevents the outright conversion of ``commercial activities'' from private sector firms into DOD performance; 2) requires an official cost accounting be performed and documented to identify whether DOD performance is more cost effective than the private sector contractor; and 3) helps protect private sector firms, including small business, from losing contracts taken away unfairly by the Federal government. American Conservative Union (ACU): The Jenkins Amendment is essential to stopping the government goliath from gobbling up jobs that belong in the private sector. Rather than wringing our hands over slow growth and the lack of good paying jobs, we should start by protecting existing private sector jobs from further `insourcing' by this Administration. This amendment will help do that.

Ms. JENKINS. In closing, my amendment seeks to strike a balance. If the service is inherently governmental, it should be contracted out. If it is a commercial activity, the Federal Government owes it to the American taxpayer to get the best value, the most efficiency, and the best service available. We owe this to our warfighters to ensure they are receiving the best possible services as they protect us. This cannot be assured without the use of a fair competitive processes. With a debt of more than $17 trillion, calls for reductions that will erode the end strength of our military and a stagnant private-sector job market, we must find ways to reduce spending and find efficiencies at DOD while boosting job creation in our communities. This amendment is an opportunity to vote for small business, break up Federal monopolies, ensure more efficient services, empower the warfighter, and maintain funding for DOD. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Chair, I submit the following statements in support of Jenkins Amendment #15 to H.R. 4435. National Veteran Small Business Coalition (NVSBC): ``The National Veteran Small Business Coalition (NVSBC) has seen the negative effect of Insourcing on veteran and service disabled veteran small businesses over the last few years. Veterans who have fought for this government should not have to compete for business opportunities with the same government who ordered them in harm's way. Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI): A leaner, more efficient government is a worthy goal. Competitive sourcing provides important, demonstrable benefits for our business workforce, our economy, and our government's efficiency. The Competitive Enterprise Institute supports Rep. Lynn Jenkins' insourcing-and-outsourcing-related amendment to achieve that goal.

Ms. JENKINS

Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my support for H.R. 2672, the CFPB Rural Designation Petition and Correction Act. One of the most troubling aspects of the Dodd-Frank Act was its creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is a new bureaucracy with broad powers that is unaccountable to Congress or the American people. When I talk to financial institutions in Kansas, one of their main concerns with this agency is that the CFPB will fail to correctly classify rural banks and, possibly, leave them open to overzealous regulation as a result. I am a proud cosponsor and supporter of this bill, which will allow these financial institutions a way to appeal the CFPB's decisionmaking process and ensure that rural lenders and their communities are not unintentional victims of poor decisionmaking by the CFPB.

Ms. JENKINS

Ms. JENKINS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I would like to commend the gentleman from Indiana, Congressman Young, for introducing this important legislation and Chairman Camp for making it a top priority. We have heard from employees and employers alike about the negative consequences of the employer mandate penalty. More specifically, we have 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. 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 owner in 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. Additionally, he told me that the number of his employees working 40 hours per week has naturally declined by 25 percent and that he will continue to replace these full-time employees with part-time employees. It is 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 reduced are the 2.6 million Americans who currently work over 30 hours but have an income slightly above poverty level. Madam Speaker, 1.64 million of these folks are women and another 1.56 million are young people. I am proud to support this legislation to restore certainty to our employers and opportunity to employees by defining a full-time workweek as 40 hours. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Society for Human Resource Management, Alexandria, VA, April 2, 2014. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative: On behalf of the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) and our 275,000 members, I urge you to support the ``Save American Workers Act'' (H.R. 2575) when it is brought to the House floor for a vote tomorrow, Thursday, April 3. Specifically, H.R. 2575 would amend the Internal Revenue Code to modify the definition of a full-time employee from 30 hours to 40 hours of service per week for purposes of the employer mandate, which requires employers to provide health care coverage for their employees under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). As you may know, SHRM is the world's largest HR membership organization devoted to human resource management. SHRM members implement critical workplace policies every day. To that end, employers are encountering difficulties implementing the new PPACA requirements. Specifically, defining ``full-time'' as an employee working 30 hours a week is inconsistent with standard employment practices and benefits coverage requirements in the U.S. and conflicts with other federal laws. Some employers have opted to eliminate health care coverage for part-time employees, while others have re-engineered their staffing models to reduce employee work hours below the 30-hour threshold that triggers the coverage requirements. According to a recent CBO report, the U.S. economy will have the equivalent of 2.3 million fewer full-time workers by 2021 as a result of the PPACA--nearly three times previous estimates. The Save American Workers Act restores a common understanding in America, spanning over half a century, of what constitutes full-time work. SHRM and its members believe that effective health care reform should expand access to coverage, while not inhibiting or altering employer business models. The PPACA's definition of full-time as 30 hours of service per week severely restricts an employer's flexibility to offer a benefits package that best meets the needs of their employees. I strongly urge you and your colleagues in the House of Representatives to vote in favor of the Save American Workers Act. If you have any additional questions about how amending the definition of a full-time employee would impact workplace operations please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Mike Aitken, Vice President of Government Affairs.

Ms. JENKINS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black), my friend and colleague on the House Committee on Ways and Means.

Ms. JENKINS. Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to our colleague from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Ms. JENKINS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Ms. JENKINS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Ms. JENKINS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Ellmers).

Ms. JENKINS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).

Ms. JENKINS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington State (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers), our honorable chair of the Republican Conference.

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, a substitute teacher earning $11.07 an hour, if that substitute teacher's hours were cut back from 39 to 29 hours, she would lose $125 per week, or $6,484 per year, or nearly a 26 percent pay cut. These are the folks we are here fighting for. With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).

Ms. JENKINS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski).

Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), a colleague on the House Ways and Means Committee.

Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem).

Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), my colleague on the Committee of Ways and Means, control the remainder of the time.

Ms. JENKINS

Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mars Chocolate North America on the grand opening of their state-of-the-art manufacturing facility in Topeka, Kansas. This is the first Mars Chocolate factory built in the U.S. in 35 years. Mars has invested more than $270 million to build this facility, bringing hundreds of jobs to the Topeka area. They will be manufacturing Snickers as well as 39 million individual M&Ms per day. I want to also congratulate the city of Topeka, Shawnee County, the chamber of commerce, and the State of Kansas for attracting world-class manufacturing to our State. Mars conducted an extensive search, reviewing 80 potential sites. Our talented workforce, access to key infrastructure, and positive business environment all made Topeka the best choice. Thank you, Mars, for making Topeka your home in the heartland, and welcome to Kansas.

Ms. JENKINS

Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to commend this Chamber for passing three pieces of legislation this week that will offer Americans relief from the President's health care law. These bills, which passed with bipartisan support, reaffirm America's commitment to the ideals of religious freedom, volunteerism, and military service. Unfortunately, the President's health care law has put all three of these in jeopardy. As written, the law would force Americans with a conscientious religious objection to buy health insurance and count volunteer firefighters, other emergency responders, Active military members, and our Nation's veterans toward the employer mandate tax thresholds. I am a proud cosponsor of three of these bills because they all will ensure the Affordable Care Act does not discriminate against Americans on the basis of religion or sacrifice.

Ms. JENKINS

Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 497, I call up the bill (H.R. 4118) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to delay the implementation of the penalty for failure to comply with the individual health insurance mandate, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous materials on H.R. 4118.

Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), the illustrious chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.

Ms. JENKINS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, the enforcement of the individual mandate penalty tax is an important issue, an issue of basic fairness, and I look forward to debating this legislation on the House floor. On February 10 of this year, the Department of the Treasury announced that it would delay enforcement of the employer mandate penalty tax for businesses with 51 to 100 employees until 2016. This delay in the President's health care law comes on the heels of a similar delay the administration announced last July, which exempted all large businesses from the employer mandate penalty until 2015. Amidst all of these delays, it is easy to forget that the employer mandate, like the individual mandate, was required by the Affordable Care Act to be in effect right now. The President has now acted unilaterally on two separate occasions to give Big Business relief from this tax burden. However, he has not leveled the playing field for the millions of individuals and families who are forced to comply with the individual mandate tax. Aside from the fact that it is fundamentally unfair to give businesses special treatment that is not extended to these individuals, American families have also been forced to deal with a botched rollout of healthcare.gov and a series of confusing administration delays of the law issued via blog post. This has led to confusion, frustration, and, ultimately, difficulty complying with the law. Nowhere is this more evident than the fact that only 4 million Americans have enrolled in health coverage on the healthcare.gov Web site. This means that with less than a month to go in this initial open enrollment period, we are still 3 million enrollees short of the original CBO projection of 7 million enrollees--one that even the administration once touted as its goal. Enrollment is still 2 million enrollees short of CBO's new projection of 6 million enrollees. These millions can be added to the tens of millions of other American individuals and families who will now likely be forced to pay the individual mandate penalty. In my State, Kansas, the latest census information estimates that 356,000 folks are uninsured. At the last count, only 22,000 of those individuals have enrolled on healthcare.gov. Unlike businesses, the President has offered no relief for these individuals who do not or are unable to comply with the law's mandates. I believe that this is simply not fair and that the House must act to provide parity for these folks. That is why I have introduced this bill under consideration today. H.R. 4118 would eliminate implementation of the individual mandate penalty by 1 year. This means that the individual mandate penalty would be zeroed out this year. It would rise to $95 or 1 percent of income in 2015, to $325 or 2 percent of income in 2016, and $695 or 2\1/2\ percent of income in 2017 and thereafter. I believe this is a simple concept, and considering the circumstances, I applaud this committee for taking up this legislation to provide fairness to all Americans under the President's health care law. In closing, I would ask this: If the President can delay the employer mandate, where is the relief for everyone else? It is time to give relief to hardworking individuals and families and work toward a legislative solution to eliminate these tax penalties for everyone. Congress must pass this bill today and create simple fairness for all. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JENKINS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, Chairman Kevin Brady, our chair of the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee.