Sander Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, could I ask you for the available time now on both sides?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Republicans say that with this bill they are trying to help or, as they put it, save workers. But their legislation will lead to many times more workers becoming part time, losing millions of hours of work. The Republicans constantly talk about the threat of increased budget deficits, but their bill would increase the deficit by over $50 billion. The Republicans like to say they care about the taxes people pay, but this bill would substantially shift responsibility for paying for health insurance from employers to taxpayers. These are indisputable facts based on yesterday's analysis from the nonpartisan CBO and Joint Committee on Taxation. This chart helps to illustrate what this is really all about. Today, 7 percent, more or less, of workers work between 30 and 34 hours, while close to half work 40 hours. As you can see, the number working 40 hours overshadows dramatically those who are working less. This is the key point. So if you shift the basis of employer responsibility for health care to begin at 40 hours instead of 30 hours, the result will be a dramatic increase in the number of workers whose hours of employment will be reduced to less than 40 hours per week. You will be creating hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of 39ers. CBO and Joint Task conclude, therefore, that 1 million workers will lose their employer-based health insurance, with half of them shifting to insurance through the health exchanges or through Medicaid--by the way, with some taxpayer support--and the other half--listen to this-- losing health insurance coverage completely. So when you take off the label of this Republican bill and look at the contents in the package, this is a bad deal, highlighting the need for a truth in labeling requirement for this Congress. When you go beyond the benign Republican rhetoric, this is a bad deal for American workers and the middle class and taxpayers. That has led even a conservative like Yuval Levin to say that today's bill ``is worse than doing nothing.'' This bill is brought up today without any committee consideration or discussion with Democrats--the minority leader is here, the minority whip--not a single minute of discussion. Unfortunately, contrary to the rhetoric we heard yesterday--again, from the majority--about the need to look for common ground, on this issue the Republican approach is scorched earth. I urge a strong negative vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), another distinguished member of our committee.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).

Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), another distinguished member of our committee.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), another active member of our committee.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis), another distinguished member of our committee.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), a distinguished member of Energy and Commerce.

Mr. LEVIN. How much time do I have, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, you know, there has been some discussion here. The gentleman from Illinois said there isn't anything being taken away. That is simply not true. The basis for the Joint Tax and CBO estimate is that there will be the loss of hours for hundreds of thousands of people. And as a result, 1 million people will no longer be enrolled in employment-based coverage, and of those, 500,000 will have no insurance. So that statement is not correct. And, if I might say so, when the chairman said the House will take up a bill to define full time as 40 hours per week so more people can work full time, the basis of the CBO estimate is that fewer people will be working 40 hours or more. That is the basis for their conclusions. So let me just, if I might, emphasize what has been said by a conservative, Yuval Levin--not related: Putting the cutoff for the employer mandate at 40 hours would likely put far, far more people at risk of having their hours cut than leaving it at 30 hours. That would make for a worse effect on workers and on the economy. That is just a fact. The ACA has eliminated discrimination in terms of preexisting conditions. It has dramatically reduced the uninsured rate--now 12.9 percent, the lowest since that began to be tracked. It has increased Medicare benefits, and it has held health care cost growth to record lows. If you don't like the ACA despite all of these achievements, continue to try to repeal it. But don't punish people who are working 40 hours or more with this bill. That is what this does. And it leaves 500,000 with no insurance whatsoever. This is worse than a terrible bill. And I will now enter into the Record letters of opposition from the Consumers Union, the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, SEIU, and the Teamsters. Consumers Union, January 6, 2015. Hon. Sander M. Levin, House of Representatives, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Consumers Union urges you to oppose changing the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) definition of full time work from a 30-hour per week threshold to 40 hours. The Affordable Care Act's current 30-hour threshold for classification as full-time employee for purposes of the employer ``mandate'' in the ACA discourages employers from easily circumventing penalties that incentivize employers to provide health insurance coverage to their workers. Raising the full-time threshold to 40 hours per week would reduce access to employer-provided insurance coverage. Under the ACA, employers with at least 50 full-time equivalent employees who do not provide health insurance to their full-time workers must pay a penalty. This makes it fairer for employers who do provide insurance and have to figure that into their costs. More importantly, it helps reduce the cost of providing care to the uninsured that would otherwise be picked up by public programs, such as Medicaid, and, hence, ultimately passed on to taxpayers. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation estimate that changing the threshold to 40 hours would increase budget deficits by $25.4 billion over the 2015-2019 period and by $73.7 billion over the 2015-2024 period. Currently the ACA penalty is applied to employers who do not offer insurance to full-time employees defined as those who work at least 30 hours a week. Raising the threshold to 40 hours per week would make it much easier for employers to avoid covering millions of Americans who work between 30 and 40 hours a week by cutting their hours slightly. Thus, raising the threshold to 40 hours will jeopardizes access to employer coverage for many people who get their insurance through an employer. Consumers Union strongly supports retaining the current 30- hour threshold and urges you to oppose efforts to increase it. Sincerely, De Ann Friedholm, Director of Health Care Reform.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following letters. January 7, 2015. Dear Representative: On behalf of the three million members of the National Education Association, and the students they serve, we urge you to vote NO on the Save American Workers Act of 2015 (H.R. 30), scheduled for a floor vote this week. Votes associated with this issue may be included in NEA's Report Card for the 114th Congress. We oppose the bill because we believe it would create a disincentive for employers to provide health care coverage, negatively impacting employer-sponsored health insurance and harming families, children and educators who need coverage. We believe that the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) shared responsibility for employers, sometimes referred to as the employer penalty, supports the overall goal of expanding quality, affordable coverage to all Americans. We are concerned that this bill's changes to the ACA's definition of what constitutes full-time employment from ``on average at least 30 hours of service per week'' monthly to an average of 40 hours per week monthly would adversely affect overall employer-sponsored health coverage. That change would make a shift towards part-time employment much more likely. Employers could respond by cutting employees' hours to under an average of 40 per week to avoid possible shared responsibility penalties and could eliminate coverage for these employees without fear of penalties. The result of a cut in employee hours would be substantially less employer-sponsored health coverage--and as a result, a potentially large increase in federal spending for the premium tax credits that many low- and moderate- income people will receive under health reform to help them buy coverage through a health insurance marketplace (exchange). Employers and employees would also face a complex new administrative burden as they tried to determine which employees paid on a salaried basis fell above or below the 40-hour mark; salaried school employees' exact hours of service are generally not counted the same way as hourly employees' hours, but tallying their in-school and out-of- school hours would suddenly become issues of concern to employers interested in avoiding penalties. Additionally if employment-based coverage is reduced, an even greater number of low-income individuals and their families in the 23 states that have failed to expand Medicaid would be unable to afford to buy health coverage. In those states, childless adults whose incomes fall below 100 percent of the federal poverty line would not only be denied access to Medicaid coverage, but they would be ineligible for premium tax credits and cost-sharing reductions through a health insurance marketplace. Moving the full-time definition from 30 hours to 40 hours, as this bill does, would only expand the number of people hurt by this coverage gap. We believe H.R. 30 misses the mark by substituting ``40 hours'' for ``30 hours'' because it would do nothing to stop employers' misuse of the ACA's employer penalty provisions as a justification for cutting employees' hours of service and health coverage. Experience with this portion of the ACA shows that one of the biggest implementation challenges in the education sector consists of making sure that employers and other health plan sponsors fully understand the law's provisions related to shared responsibility for employers. For years, we have engaged with the Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service to ensure that regulations on shared responsibility for employers work consistently well in the education sector, and believe regulators have taken important steps in this direction. The changes contemplated in this bill, however, would simply shift the hours-related context in which these common errors take place: Mistakenly believing that the only way to avoid employer penalties is to cut employees' hours to under 30 a week or to under six hours a day. In fact, school calendars include so many unpaid days during the school year--for spring break, winter break, federal holidays, and other such times--that hourly employees can normally work more than 6 hours a day without ever being considered a full-time employee. Misunderstanding how and when to use proposed regulations related to an optional hours-counting method called the look- back measurement method. It's unfortunate that some school employers wrongly blame the look-back measurement method for limiting their hours-counting options when regulations recognize four different ways that employers can calculate whether an employee is a full-timer or not. Overestimating the potential cost of complying with the law's provisions on shared responsibility for employers. Regulations include many ways that employers can minimize or even avoid penalties, but some employers fail to factor these options into their analyses, so they exaggerate and often incorrectly state the potential for penalties. Failing to incorporate into their decision-making the statutory and regulatory provisions that ensure that this part of the ACA establishes the possibility of a penalty on large employers rather than an ``employer mandate.'' Just like before the ACA became law, there is no federal law that requires employers to offer coverage to employees. Many large employers will not face penalties at all, or will face smaller penalties than they initially thought. These and other ACA-implementation errors can lead to exaggerated responses that hurt students, workers, and families alike. Unfortunately, H.R. 30 would just shift the hours-related focal point for such errors. Employers who take the time to understand the law and regulations as they currently stand can develop common sense, constructive, and consensual approaches to properly implementing the law. Again, we urge you to vote NO on Save American Workers Act of 2015. Sincerely, Mary Kusler, Director of Government Relations.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield as much time as she shall consume to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Gabbard), someone who has served this Nation and now serves all of the people of Hawaii and I think, once again, all the people of this country.

Mr. LEVIN. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I ask the gentleman if he has other speakers.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I shall consume. First of all, I would like to congratulate Mr. Ryan on your selection in election, I guess, as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. We look forward to working together. Madam Speaker, I support this bill. This bill encourages the hiring of veterans. The unemployment rate has continued to decline for post-9/ 11 veterans, and these improvements are part of a larger economic recovery. In November 2013, the unemployment rate for these veterans was nearly 10 percent. One year later, the rate has dropped to 5.7 percent, the national average; yet for female post-9/11 veterans, the unemployment rate remains high, above 8 percent. This bill continues as part of our national commitment to help the veterans of this country. I want to emphasize this if I might: as we legislate, we need to balance priorities. We need to maintain--very differently than just spoken--the basic structure of ACA, which is providing millions and millions of Americans with insurance and with coverage they never had. We also need to encourage the hiring of the veterans of this country who have served this Nation and serve this Nation so well. That is a supreme obligation of this institution; therefore, I support this legislation and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEVIN. I reserve the balance of my time.