THE DAILY WHIP: THURSDAY, APRIL 3, 2014

For Immediate Release:

April 3, 2014

Contact:

Katie GrantStephanie Young, 202-225-3130

House Meets At: First Vote Predicted: Last Vote Predicted:

10:00 a.m.: Morning Hour
12:00 p.m.: Legislative Business

Fifteen “One Minutes”

2:30 – 3:00 p.m. 3:00 – 3:30 p.m.

Complete Consideration of H.R. 2575 Sabotage American Workers Act of 2014” (Rep. Young (IN) – Ways and Means) (Three Hours of Debate). This bill would modify the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) definition of full-time employee, repealing the 30 hours a week threshold and replacing it with 40 hours a week, and it would increase the deficit by nearly $74 billion.

Under the ACA’s employer responsibility provisions, employees who work at least 30 hours per week are defined as full-time and are counted towards the 50-employee threshold for requiring businesses to offer affordable health coverage. Use of a 30 hour threshold in the ACA was designed to minimize shifting and gamesmanship. According to the non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, recent studies provide little evidence that the ACA has created an incentive to significantly shift toward part-time work. Businesses either operate with a substantially part-time work force, or they use mostly full-time workers.  Most employers do not fully retool their business practices and cut full-time employees down to 29 hours just to avoid the coverage requirement.

By replacing the 30 hour threshold with a 40 hour threshold, employers would become greatly incentivized to “game” the law, easily shifting the 43% of employees nationwide who work 40 hours a week to part-time employees who only work 39 hours.  This new “part-time” employee model would completely undermine the intent of the employer responsibility provisions, and, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), would cause as many as 1 million Americans to lose access to employer provided health coverage and almost 500,000 to become uninsured. 

Those that could get coverage would have to rely on other federal programs, like Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Additionally, it is estimated by the Congressional Budget Office that enactment of this measure would increase the deficit by $73.7 billion over 10 years, and Republicans have chosen to bring the bill to the Floor without providing an offset.  Lastly, the White House has issued a SAP stating that the President would veto this bill.

Positive effects of the Affordable Care Act are already being seen across the country; millions of Americans now have health insurance, people cannot be denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition, women cannot be charged more for the same care, and cost growth is at the lowest it has been in 50 years.  However, Republicans have made it clear time and again that repealing the Affordable Care Act is their only goal; this attempt marks the 52nd time that Republicans have tried to repeal or undermine the law. Members are urged to VOTE NO.

The Rule, which was adopted yesterday, provides for three hours of debate.  As of last night, the House had completed the first seventy minutes of debate.

Bill Text for H.R. 2575:
PDF Version

Background for H.R. 2575:
House Report (HTML Version)
House Report (PDF Version)

TOMORROW’S OUTLOOK
The GOP Leadership has announced the following schedule for Friday, April 4: The House will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. The House is expected to consider H.R. 1874 Pro-Growth Budgeting Act (Rep. Price (GA) – Budget) (Subject to a Rule).

 
The Daily Quote

“As Rep. Paul Ryan was laying out his Path to Prosperity budget Wednesday, Republican leadership was working behind the scenes to make sure there was a path for passage… Passing Ryan’s House Republican budget has always been a heavy lift for leadership, with little margin for error. Last year, Ryan’s budget passed by a seven-vote margin with 10 Republicans voting no…  Even the smallest group of members voting ‘no’ can potentially put a vote in jeopardy and give a black eye to Ryan — a potential 2016 presidential contender — and Republican leadership.”

-    Politico, 4/2/2014