Todd Young

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the record a letter of support for the Save American Workers Act from the National Grocers Association on behalf of their members and on behalf of their workers, and I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus). National Grocers Association, Arlington, VA, March 31, 2014. Hon. John Boehner, Speaker, Washington, DC. Hon. Eric Cantor, Majority Leader, Washington, DC. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Leader, Washington, DC. Hon. Steny Hoyer, Democratic Whip, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Boehner, Leader Pelosi, Leader Cantor, and Representative Hoyer: The National Grocers Association (NGA) supports H.R. 2575, the Save American Workers Act (SAW), a bill introduced by Representative Todd Young (R-IN) and championed by Representative Dan Lipinski (D-IL). The bill has broad support in the House, with 210 bipartisan co- sponsors. NGA strongly encourages the House to pass the bill with bipartisan support during the vote scheduled for the week of March 31. We commend Majority Leader Cantor for bringing H.R. 2575 to the Floor for what will hopefully be an overwhelming vote in support of the bill. H.R. 2575 addresses one of the most problematic provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) by amending the definition of a full-time employee, which the ACA currently defines as those averaging 30 hours a week. Left unchanged, this provision will have far reaching consequences on the independent supermarket industry. Simply put, 30 hours is not full-time and requiring employers to meet this new definition is one of the most significant challenges of the law, jeopardizing coverage for our true full-time workforce. The SAW Act seeks to amend this problematic provision by defining a full-time employee as those averaging 40 hours a week and treating full-time equivalents as full-time employees for the purposes of determining whether an employer is an applicable large employer. This is a win-win for both American employers and our nation's workforce. Independent grocers face complex challenges in implementing the law all while operating on a profit margin of around 1 percent. They are committed to their workers, and 92% of independent grocers already provide health benefits to full- time employees. It is important that Congress work in a bipartisan manner to provide employers with important reforms such as the SAW Act before irreversible changes to the US job market occur. Maintaining the full-time level many employers use today is something both sides of the debate can agree would be better for job preservation and employee coverage. Reforms such as the SAW Act are vital to our businesses and to our goal of providing quality benefits and available hours to our employees. Independent retailers and wholesalers have a significant economic impact across nearly every community in America. Our industry is accountable for close to 1 percent of the nation's overall economy and is responsible for generating over $131 billion in sales, 944,000 jobs, $30 billion in wages, and $27 billion in tax revenue. We are proud that the communities we serve are also the neighborhoods we live in. Thank you for your support of this important issue. NGA looks forward to continuing to work with Congress to address this issue before the employer mandate is implemented in 2015. This is a critical issue for NGA and our member companies, and we will be key voting this vote and including it on our 2014 Legislative Scorecard. We remain appreciative of the reforms Congress has already made to amend the ACA to make the law workable for both employers and the American workforce. Sincerely, Peter J. Larkin, President and CEO.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this bill, the Affordable Care Act that the President calls ObamaCare, clearly would not insure every American in the country. Dropping somebody from 39 hours down to 29 hours is effectively a loss of 10 hours of work per week. Over the course of a month, that is the loss of an entire week's work of wages. For the life of me, I can't understand why the very same individuals who embraced all of the three dozen or so administrative changes to this law without hesitation will not work together in a bipartisan fashion because this is a bipartisan bill to restore the hours and income of those who need it most during the worst economy since the Great Depression. With that, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a letter of support from the International Franchise Association for this bill, and I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon), a member of the Education and Workforce Committee. International Franchise Association, Washington, DC, February 3, 2013. Dear Representative: On behalf of the International Franchise Association, I write today to urge you to support H.R. 2575, the Save American Workers Act, sponsored by Rep. Todd Young (R-IN). This legislation will change the definition of a full-time employee in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to 40 hours, the definition that employers have traditionally used to manage their workforce, and will help small businesses better adjust to the ACA's employer mandate. For decades, employers have used the 40-hour work week as a standard for workforce management. The ACA's provision requiring employers to provide coverage to full-time employees, and defining full-time as 30-hours, will cause many employers to simply manage their part-time employees to fewer hours. Data from a recent Public Opinion Strategies survey commissioned by the IFA and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce shows that 31 percent of franchises and 12 percent of non-franchised businesses have already reduced worker hours to lower costs, a full year before the employer mandate is set to take effect. Not only has the employer mandate discouraged job creation and business expansion, it has also damaged existing jobs by including a misguided statutory requirement that discarded more than a half-century of established labor policy. The employer mandate will hurt American workers in many ways, but one of the most devastating effects of the mandate is that fewer workers will be offered health insurance, and employees will be less able to afford their own coverage when working fewer hours. Allowing employers to manage their workers to the traditional 40-hour work week will give employees more flexibility and eliminate the need to revamp longstanding employer personnel policies. IFA urges you to support the Save American Workers Act. This is a common-sense effort to a problem we know is only going to get worse. The passing of this bill would provide much-needed relief and flexibility for employers and employees by avoiding the worst effects of the employer mandate. While this measure will not make the Affordable Care Act completely workable for the 825,000 franchise locations nationwide or the 9 million workers they employ, it will help both employers and workers better absorb the impact of the employer mandate. Sincerely, Stephen J. Caldeira, President & Chief Executive Officer, International Franchise Association.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I would like to include in the Record a letter of support for the Save American Workers Act, the bipartisan bill, by the National Restaurant Association. Mr. Speaker, I also now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), a member of the Education and the Workforce Committee. National Restaurant Association, Washington, DC, April 1, 2014. Dear Representative: On behalf of the National Restaurant Association, the leading trade association representing the restaurant and foodservice industry, I write to urge you to vote YES in favor of H.R. 2575, the ``Save American Workers Act,'' when it is considered on the House floor this week. The National Restaurant Association may consider any votes on, or related to, such legislation in our annual ``How They Voted'' legislative scorecard. H.R. 2575 would reinstate the historic definition of full- time as working 40 hours per week. The law's definition of full-time set at 30 hours could have lasting impacts on the labor market, far beyond the Affordable Care Act, with the unintended consequence of potentially limiting hours for workers who do not intend to rely on their employer for their insurance needs. One reason so many Americans are drawn to restaurant and foodservice industry jobs is the flexibility to build a work schedule or change hours to suit their personal needs. Generally, most restaurant operators have classified positions as salaried and hourly, not full- or part-time. Previously, hourly workers were able to take on extra shifts as available and as they chose to work. However, under this law, there is now a bright line as to who is considered full- time and who is considered part-time. As a result, the flexibility so many enjoy and seek out in working for the industry may become harder to find. In its analysis of the legislation, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) acknowledged employers' commitment to offering coverage to employees and projects that only a small percentage of employers would either reassign or reduce hours of employees who work more than 40 hours per week. More than 156 million people would continue to be covered by employer- sponsored plans, underscoring the CBO' s conclusion that ``most of the affected employers would continue to offer coverage because most employers construct compensation packages to attract the best available workers at the lowest possible cost.'' Aligning the law's definition of full-time employee status with current levels used by restaurant and foodservice operators would help avoid any unnecessary disruptions to employees' wages and hours, and would provide significant relief to employers. The National Restaurant Association supports H.R. 2575 and encourages you to vote YES when it is considered on the House floor. Sincerely, Scott DeFife, Executive Vice President, Policy and Government Affairs.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. We have six speakers on this side.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge that to get a bill this far in the legislative process requires the work of a lot of people: my own staff within my office, the committee staff, and my fellow colleagues who are willing to provide a consultative role, constructive advice, and a very strong leadership role. So, with that, I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, Tim Walberg, who helped us introduce this bill. He is a member of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe), a member of the Education and Workforce Committee.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe what I just heard. I heard that individual cases ought not be cited, that that is somehow off limits. Mr. Speaker, one of my colleagues just cited the example of his son, lost his insurance despite the promises of this bill during campaign season. He lost his doctor. He saw his insurance premiums and copays go up. These are real lives we are talking about. These are real hours and real wages that we are trying to remedy. This is a real 40-hour workweek that people depend upon. Then to cite the Statement of Administration Policy as somehow being more authoritative than these personal examples I find, frankly, a bit off-putting. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), the chairman of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to also indicate the fact that I, too, have read the Congressional Budget Office's estimate of this legislation. They indicate that $75 billion in wages will be lost as a result of the Affordable Care Act if something like the Save American Workers Act isn't implemented. So, effectively, I hear some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle making the case that we ought to be funding the Affordable Care Act essentially on the backs of these hourly workers, and I don't think that is a position anyone wants to find themselves in. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon).

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the House majority leader.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I know my good colleague spoke with a great deal of sincerity and earnestness when he talked about pay-fors. It is worth noting, once again, that the attempt to pay for this Affordable Care Act--ObamaCare, as it is popularly known--on the backs of our hourly workers strikes me as unconscionable and something that none of us ought to be contemplating, which is why this is a bipartisan effort. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the distinguished majority whip.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as the Senate continues to push for a 25 percent increase in the Federal minimum wage, they continue to ignore that millions of hourly workers face as much as a 25 percent pay cut as a result of ObamaCare. Because of the 30 hours is full time provision buried in the employer mandate, many employees face the prospect of being limited in their work hours. When they are not allowed to work more than 29 hours, they simply aren't able to generate the income they need to support themselves and their families. It is worth noting that an employee who sees his hours cut from 39 to 29 is losing 10 hours a week, which, over the course of a month, is an entire week's worth of wages. The employees we are talking about are the people who most depend on getting every hour and every bit of wages that they can. We are talking about custodians, cafeteria workers, and substitute teachers at your child's school. We are talking about the waitresses and busboys at your favorite restaurant, about the cashier who rings you out at the grocery store, and about the guys on the assembly line who help make your car. In my district, we are also talking about adjunct professors at places like Ivy Tech Community College and Indiana University. These are all Americans who want to work, but they are dealing with the unintended consequences--and I do believe they are unintended--of this health care law, ObamaCare. Some of these provisions are limiting their hours and pay, and this needs to be fixed. So I introduced the Save American Workers Act because I want to help these hardworking Hoosiers and other Americans who are just trying to make ends meet. By simply repealing this provision and restoring the traditional 40-hour workweek, we can help make an America that works. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill. I commend my colleagues on the other side who have already signed on as cosponsors. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. I thank the gentleman. I am going to close where I began. The President is proposing a 25 percent increase in the minimum wage, but ObamaCare is resulting in as much as a 25 percent decrease in the pay of millions of hourly workers. Because of the 30 hours is full time provision, too many Americans aren't able to work the number of hours they need, aren't able to get the take-home pay they need to support themselves and their families and to go after the dreams that they want to realize. So by passing my bill, one which has bipartisan support and which has enjoyed great leadership by so many of my colleagues, the Save American Workers Act, we can create an America that works simply by restoring the traditional 40-hour workweek. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. I would like to associate myself with those remarks pertaining to preferring to start over in an open, deliberative fashion. My belief would be that, if we started over with respect to health care reform, we could actually control costs, increase access, continue to incentivize innovation, and do all the other things that were purportedly the rationale behind this law. We want to broaden coverage to those who don't have coverage, but the Affordable Care Act, so-called, does not even accomplish that. And so the administration, at least according to the Statement of Administration Policy put out today, welcomes ideas to improve the law. Well, this is an idea to improve the health care circumstances of so many Americans. We need to repeal this 30-hour provision within the law, so that is what the Save American Workers Act does. Now, I noted that this created some perverse incentives, this 30-hour threshold. I heard a story from a constituent who will remain unnamed for obvious reasons, but they indicated they own some fast-food restaurants, and they are actually contemplating employing some of their workers at one fast-food restaurant under the 30-hour threshold and then making an arrangement with a nearby restaurant, whether they own it or someone else owns it, of a different name to finish out their workweek. So basically, to use a colloquial example, you take off the Subway shirt or the McDonald's shirt and then put on a Burger King shirt. These are the sorts of perverse incentives created by ill-considered provisions in a very hastily passed and, frankly, partisan law.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. You mentioned a very compelling story, incidentally, and I think all of us hear these stories, Republican, Democrat, Independent. It matters not. I suspect we all hear them around our district. You mentioned the President's Statement of Administration Policy which came out today, April Fools' Day. I had to wonder whether it might have been an April Fools' joke. It, in part, reads: Rather than attempting, once again, to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which the House has tried to do over 50 times, it is time for Congress to stop fighting old political battles and join the President in an agenda focused on providing greater economic opportunity. And then it goes on and on. Listen, this is not a repeal of the Affordable Care Act. This is a repeal of a provision that we recognize that a bipartisan group of United States Congressmen and many Senators recognize is flawed. So, I mean, it is an absolute red herring. I cannot understand why the administration won't engage with us in a fair-minded, statesmanlike way to mitigate the pain so many Americans are feeling.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Thank you for your leadership on this important issue. This is not a political issue. There is an old saying that good policy is good politics. Those who are driven primarily by political considerations--and I think there are, frankly, few that are primarily driven by those--they need to be on the right side of history. They need to be adopting a more optimal policy with respect to how we treat our low- and middle-income workers, so I would invite their support. Please understand, even in this sometimes shrill, divided Congress, even in this sometimes divided Nation, there are still things we can agree upon. There are commonsensical solutions that we can adopt. There are problems that we can solve. Repealing the first ever definition of ``full time'' in full law at 30 hours and moving it up to 40 hours, the traditional full-time workweek standard, just makes common sense. It is going to restore wages for millions of workers. $75 billion in foregone wages will be realized if we pass the Save American Workers Act. Now, there has been quite a bit of talk about wages in this town and beyond in recent weeks, the minimum wage, in particular. I didn't come here to talk specifically about the minimum wage, but let me just illustrate the impact of this 40-hour provision. Let's consider the worker who works at the Federal minimum wage, which few actually do, but $7.25 an hour. So many States have a higher minimum wage. So many people get multiple jobs and, you know, gosh, my heart goes out to them. I appreciate their work ethic. But as a proportion of our economy, most people are not working at the $7.25 rate. But let's suppose someone is and they work 40 hours a week. That is $290 in take-home pay per week. Now, if we were to raise the minimum wage as the President suggests to $10.20 but this person got dropped down to 29 hours a week, guess what they would be making? Roughly $290 a week. The same thing. So, for those who see this as a sort of an issue that is somehow partisan but care deeply about the issue of the minimum wage, which I think can create distortions in the economy and kill jobs and so forth--that is a separate debate that I suspect we will have--but those who care deeply about this ought to be on board with this 40 hours is full time legislation, the Save American Workers Act, so I would invite their bipartisan support. I note that we have just about every Republican who has signed on to this bill. We have a handful of courageous Democrats, and I commend their participation. I think we have some others with us this evening who are supportive of this legislation, prepared to speak to their constituents' experiences and their thoughts about the adverse consequences of a 30-hour definition of ``full time'' in the United States of America. I am joined by my colleague from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford), who is a very thoughtful and articulate member of the Budget Committee and cares deeply about his State. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. It makes absolutely no sense. For example, I have a school corporation in Washington County, Indiana, which I recently visited. I was visiting their superintendent and members of their school board. I don't know their politics, but I certainly know that they care about children. They care about all the employees who work for them. They were absolutely distraught. They said: Congressman, I don't know what we're going to do with respect to this 30 hours is full time provision. When we think about our substitute teachers, we are actually contemplating having to reduce the number of hours in the middle of classes because we don't have a large enough pool of substitute teachers available to draw on. We can literally have somebody substituting for half of a class. In order to fall under the 30 hours is full time provision in the Affordable Care Act, these folks are having to leave early. The students are unattended. They are not being educated. Parents are certainly upset. It is imposing undue costs upon the school corporation in order to track the hours of their employees. This is the sort of Rube Goldberg sort of contraption that only could be conceived of in Washington, D.C. I cannot make sense of why anyone would oppose trying to change this provision, as we have done in this bill. Some have speculated that it is a matter of saving face. You pass a big bill; you pass it quickly. It perhaps was most ill-advised in any sort of fundamental change to the bill. Any sort of repeal of a major provision within the bill and a replacement with something that works better undermines the credibility not only of the bill itself, but of those who supported it originally. I would like to think better of my colleagues than that. I think there has to be something else at work here, but I don't know how to explain to that superintendent and those concerned school board members in Washington County, Indiana, why others won't sign on to this.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Thank you for not just your support, but your vocal support, engagement, leadership, and education of your colleagues and others who are important stakeholders with respect to this issue. Thank you so much for being with us here this evening. I would like to pivot off of your discussion of this down economy. We are at a 35-year low in labor force participation. None of us is happy with the rate of job creation or business creation. One of my constituents was sharing with me recently they saw a stat indicating that business creation and entrepreneurship are at a 15-year low. Clearly, we are experiencing the hardest of times. The way to grow an economy, based on my economic background, is not to reduce the hours of workers and impose new compliance costs on our employers. Instead, we need to be removing obstacles to realizing the sorts of income that people need and opportunities to work your way up that economic ladder. Unfortunately, this goes in the opposite direction. I am pleased today to be joined by my good colleague, Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania, who partnered with me in helping to draft this legislation. He has proven himself to be a fine leader in the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Reclaiming my time, I sometimes like to distill the narrative down to some numbers. You just mentioned the movement down to 29 hours a week. Let's consider the Kentuckian or the Hoosier who is currently working 39 hours a week, and because of this provision, their employer is unable, under the current economic conditions, to offer them ObamaCare- sanctioned health insurance. They are incentivized to move that hardworking hourly work down to 29 hours. That is a loss of 10 hours per week. Over the course of a month, that worker is losing an entire work week. How is an hourly worker that has to pay for food and shelter and clothing and other basic expenditures supposed to take care of their family? It is imminently unfair, and someone needs to stand up for our low- and middle-income workers. I think that is the essence of what this is all about.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. If I could interject because I think you hit on a key point. This isn't ideological. This ought not be partisan at all. In fact, we have a number of Democratic cosponsors. I am gratified by their intellectual honesty, their courage, their support. They are doing the right thing here. They are looking out for their constituents. We have all been asked to come here and get something done while people are feeling pain. This was certainly an unintended consequence, is my reading. I don't want to impugn the motives of those who hurriedly passed this Affordable Care Act. I don't think they intended this. So we repeal the provision. We replace it with something that makes sense and restores wages for workers that need it most.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, the President proposes a 25 percent increase in the minimum wage. ObamaCare, however, is resulting in as much as a 25 percent decrease in the pay of millions of hourly workers. Because of the 30 hours is full time provision, too many Americans are not able to work the hours they need to support their families. By passing my bill, the Save American Workers Act, we can create an America that works simply by restoring the traditional 40- hour workweek. I am joined this evening in this Special Order by my colleagues, Representatives Kelly of Pennsylvania and Barr of Kentucky, but so many people have helped bring this important issue to the attention of the American people at large, to rank and file Americans, who during this down economy are looking for as many hours as they can get and for as much take-home pay as they might receive. Let me just kick this evening off by explaining in some level of detail what this 30-hour provision is because, frankly, for the uninitiated, it is a bit foreign for most of us to consider full-time employment to be a 30-hour workweek, but that is the case under the Affordable Care Act. In fact, the Affordable Care Act mandates employers provide ObamaCare-sanctioned health insurance to all of their employees should they employ 50 or more individuals who work 30 or more hours per week. We have all heard from employers about the adverse consequences-- unintended, I expect--created by this 30 hours is full time provision. The unintended consequence is chiefly that so many employers, especially those who are squeezed by tight profit margins or those who just wouldn't be financially viable entities, are moving their employees down below this 30-hour threshold. They are reducing the number of hours that their hourly employees can work so that they don't have to provide ObamaCare-sanctioned health insurance. The employer mandate has been delayed by the administration twice, so it is clear that this is ill-considered policy. While the White House says the delays are to help employers, it should be even more apparent to those of us who visit with our constituents on an almost daily basis that it is the low- and middle-income worker who is being most adversely impacted by this employer mandate. The real result of the 30-hour bill--let me be clear--is fewer jobs, reduced hours, reduced wages, less take-home pay for things like food and shelter and clothing for Americans who need it most. I can cite plenty of examples in my district in which this is having a very serious impact at this early stage of ObamaCare's implementation. I live in Bloomington, Indiana. Indiana University is feeling the pinch of this and is reducing some hours of some of their hourly employees, from custodians to cafeteria workers and others, because they cannot remain a financially viable entity, as taxpayers expect it to be, should it have to comply with this employer mandate as it is currently constructed. Ivy Tech Community College is also feeling the pinch. In fact, 4,500 of their adjunct professors are losing hours. This is resulting in reduced course offerings for many students, but more importantly for those adjunct professors, they need the wages, they need the hours. Should Ivy Tech decide to continue on with business as usual, they would be eating all sorts of compliance costs to try and measure the hours of their hourly employees and ensure that they are complying with the law. They have done the math. They have figured out that this 30 hours is full time provision amounts to a $12 million unfunded mandate, courtesy of Uncle Sam. I have heard from 39 public school corporations in Indiana about the adverse consequences of this 30 hours is full time provision. In fact, they are suing the Federal Government, along with the State of Indiana, because of this provision, which they say will have catastrophic financial consequences on their operations, on their balance sheets. From a practical perspective, the majority of employers who voluntarily provide coverage to their employees do so for their full- time employees, and they do so because they want to attract the absolute best talent they can within the labor market. This system has succeeded in providing coverage for nearly 160 million Americans. It is working. In fact, this is the largest source of health coverage in America, but the 30-hour rule radically disrupts this success and this model. Many people will lose their coverage, especially your lower- skilled workers, often your entry-level opportunities where younger workers get valuable work experience and start to work their way up the economic ladder. We need to protect the wages of Americans who depend on them the most. That is what this bipartisan effort, the Save American Workers Act, is all about. I am proud to be joined in this effort by Representative Barr, who has shown some leadership on this issue, and by Representative Kelly, who was out front very early with respect to this issue. I look forward to engaging in some dialogue this evening and in turning over the mike to them to get their State level perspectives, but I think it is worth noting, because I do want to recognize them, the fair-minded Members among us who look for opportunities to work across the aisle. Representative Lipinski, a Democrat from Illinois, has shown a lot of leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives with respect to this issue. There are a handful of other Democrat Members who have signed on to the Save American Workers Act. It is my fervent hope, not for my interest but for the interests of my constituents and for those like them around the country, that other Democrats will join the vast majority of Republican Members of Congress in supporting this bill. With that, I would just invite the dialogue of Mr. Barr, my good colleague in his first term--but he seems far more experienced than that--to speak to the Save American Workers Act.

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. So would it be accurate to say that, in part, it is our lower-income to middle-income workers, through reduced hours, who are paying for the Affordable Care Act, which is wildly unpopular nationally?