Providing for Consideration of H.R. 3, Keystone XL Pipeline Act, and Providing for Consideration of H.R. 30, Save American Workers Act of 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, today the House is scheduled to consider H.R. 30, which is really more properly called the ``Sabotage American Workers Act,'' a bill to provide a major change in ACA's requirement that larger employers offer health coverage to employees who work 30 or more hours a week or face a penalty, raising the threshold to 40 hours instead.

The GOP claims the 30-hour threshold is a destructive barrier to more hours for workers. However, in reality, this GOP bill would lead to fewer hours and more part-time workers, the exact opposite of what the Republican rhetoric about restoring the 40-hour Ðworkweek implies.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the Urban Institute have found no compelling evidence that part-time employment has increased as a result of ObamaCare. H.R. 30 would lead to more part-time work, since large employers could avoid providing health care coverage by reducing employees' work schedules by even just an hour.

Even conservative analysts agree. Yuval Levin recently wrote in the National Review that changing the definition to 40 hours ``would likely put far, far more people at risk of having their hours cut'' and ``would make for a worse effect on workers.''

Unfortunately, Congressional Republicans remain unmoved by the facts, choosing instead to launch yet another attack on working families.

According to the CBO, this bill would increase the Federal deficit by $53 billion over the next decade. So I would urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and then ``no'' on H.R. 30.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I was unavoidably detained during the vote on the Motion on Ordering the Previous Question on the Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 30, the Save American Workers Act of 2015 and H.R. 3, the Keystone XL Pipeline Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source