Providing for Consideration of H.R. 954, CO-OP Consumer Protection Act of 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Here we are again, Mr. Speaker, discussing a bill that, whatever its merits and noble intentions are, of course, of trying to hold harmless the victims of organizations that go out of business, will meet a veto.

The Statement of Administration Policy says, if the President were presented with H.R. 954, he would veto the bill. That is the strongest kind of veto message that we get. Sometimes they say his advisers say he might or he is going to consider it. It says he would veto it.

So here we are again, in the precious little time that this body has before it sends everybody back to their district, when we could be addressing Zika, when we could be addressing Flint, when we could be addressing immigration reform, when we could pass a balanced budget amendment, or any of those things that I hear from my constituents every day. Instead, we are pursuing a bill that won't become law.

This bill will not become law. The President has indicated he would veto it. So we are just taking up the time of this body to debate a bill that affects people in a few States. Of course, I understand Iowa and Nebraska share one of the CO-Ops that went out of business. New York and Oregon are the others.

I hail from a State where the CO-OP went out of business. I would add that it went out of business, with the actions of State regulators, at the right time, namely, before the enrollment period.

So the question I brought before the Rules Committee yesterday, and I think it is very important for anybody who supports this bill to answer: Why did the State regulators in those States allow those CO-Ops to fail mid-period? Why weren't they ahead of the curve in those States to make sure that, if they had to fail, they did so in an orderly manner prior to the enrollment period? It is irresponsible of State regulators to allow insolvent plans into the marketplace.

Instead of discussing that and instead of launching an investigation into that, instead of having a GAO report on that, we are just doing a bill that effectively bails them out. Another Republican taxpayer bailout bill that we have before us today.

I have always been a big fan of the CO-Ops. In fact, the Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan program was created to support the development of nonprofit health insurance options in the individual marketplace. They face a lot of challenges. And, sadly, in fact, we wouldn't even be dealing with the fact that 17 of them have gone out of business if the Republicans hadn't put a provision in the omnibus in 2016--which I was proud to oppose for this reason, among many others-- that defunded the healthcare CO-Ops.

So they already did an attack on the Affordable Care Act by defunding the CO-Ops; and now they are saying we want to bail them out. Of course, you want to bail them out now. You are responsible for letting them fail in the first place.

Look, there are a lot of questions to answer before this body moves forward with this failed Republican bailout bill, namely, where were the State regulators?

Why did they let these fail mid-cycle instead of, as they did in my State, before the enrollment period ended?
Number two, why did you defend them in the first place? Didn't you know that you would probably have to bail them out if you did? And the third question I brought up in the Rules Committee is, why are we even just talking about CO-Ops? What about if for-profit insurance companies go out of business? Are we going to bail out those consumers, too?

Now, I haven't seen that that has happened yet, but, look, these are private companies; it is only a matter of time until some company makes bad decisions and goes bankrupt and leaves its customers in the lurch.
Now, it is the job of State regulators to try to actuarially make sure that those companies are sound and solvent; and if they are going to disqualify one, to do so before the enrollment period, not midterm.

But let's be honest. Bad things happen, and probably someday a company will go out of business in the middle of a term, despite the best efforts of State regulators.

And what about those customers, and why would they be treated any differently than the customers of CO-Ops?

Look, in the three States where the CO-Ops did close down mid-session because of the ineffectiveness of State regulators, rather than proposing a Republican taxpayer bailout, we should simply point people to alternative insurance options. In fact, CO-Ops contacted every customer over 20 times to assist with the process of finding a new plan by e-mail, mailer, and phone. And in the event the available premiums were too expensive, the Affordable Care Act already has what they call a hardship exemption, where families can avoid paying any penalty. Just as they do under this bill, they can do it without this bill as well.

In the three instances where CO-OP plans were terminated in the middle of the year, the set of circumstances that this Republican taxpayer bailout bill is designed to address, it appears that individuals had ample time and options to find new coverage, even if their own State regulators were asleep at the switch, and it does not mean that the rest of us, that I have to go back to honest, hardworking Coloradans and say, sorry, you have to bail out the Republican Congress and their failure to include in the omnibus a plan to maintain the solvency of the CO-Ops.

The financial penalty for forgoing coverage is one of the primary incentives for what we call RomneyCare, or some call ObamaCare. By circumventing the individual mandate, H.R. 954 undermines an essential component of what was known as the Massachusetts plan, which is now the Affordable Care Act.

But as we know, over 20 million Americans have obtained health insurance, many for the first time. I am proud to say that in my home State of Colorado, while we have a number of issues with regard to the Affordable Care Act, one positive indicator that we can point to is that the rate of individuals without insurance has dropped by half. It is now a historically low 6.7 percent. It has never been that low in the history of Colorado. For Colorado children, the uninsured rate is even lower, 2.5 percent.

So nationwide, as we know, there are a lot of elements of the Affordable Care Act that are very popular and important to maintain. No one should be denied coverage for having a preexisting condition. Young adults can afford health insurance by staying on their parents' plan.

The individual mandate is the flip side of making sure that people aren't discriminated against because of preexisting conditions. You can't have only a high-risk pool. You have to make sure that healthy people are in the pool to keep the rates low for everybody. That is the fundamental model that went into RomneyCare, and it was later adopted as a bipartisan concept.

In addition, individuals have access to preventative services, affordable prescription drugs, and are no longer subject to lifetime caps that can leave them bankrupt if they have a serious illness. I have heard from a number of constituents for whom that is very important.

So, look, every law can use improvement. There is no doubt about that. I was very strongly against the language in the Omnibus in 2016 that led to these CO-Ops going out of business and led to this Republican bailout package. And the Affordable Care Act, of course, can be improved.

So instead of discussing ways to roll back the successes of the Affordable Care Act or do massive bailouts, we should be discussing ways that we can make the law work better and prevent the need for bailouts moving forward.

To this end, I, along with many of my colleagues, have been a long- time supporter of establishing a public health insurance plan option. A public health insurance plan option would go a long way to revitalizing the individual marketplace through increased competition.

In 2010, I led an effort with my colleague from Maine, Representative Chellie Pingree, to encourage Senator Reid to consider a public option in the health care reform legislation that was being drafted. And I have continued to call for a public option even after the Affordable Care Act passed. It has been scored to have reduced the deficit by over $200 billion and it would help the constituents in my district, particularly in our mountain areas, by providing a more affordable option within the individual exchange.

I am proud to be a cosponsor of Representative Schakowsky's H.R. 265, the Public Option Deficit Reduction Act, which would require HHS to set up a public health insurance option. I would point out that this Republican bailout plan increases the deficit. Right? Small amount, small amount.

You have the figures, my friend from Texas. I think--was it $40 million? How much does this bill increase the deficit? 12 million? Very small amount, right; but still the wrong way.

The plan that I am supporting and that many Democrats support would reduce the deficit by $200 billion.
So if the Republicans continue to go down this road of bailouts, large and small, we are going to bankrupt this country. We are already $20 trillion in debt. We have a deficit of half a trillion dollars.

Yes, every little bit matters.

Again, the amount is small of this Republican bailout that increases the deficit; but we could be going another path which is fiscally responsible, increases consumer choice, and brings down costs.

Furthermore, since this bill will be vetoed anyway and this isn't going to become law, it is hardly worth the time to discuss. What we should be talking about are the very real public health crises. Indeed, public health, health-related bill, let's talk about health.

Let's talk about the fact that it has been over a year since Flint administrators first became aware of toxic levels of lead in the water of the city, which still exist; and over that time the body has sat on its hands, day after day, week after week. Exposure to lead is very harmful to children who are at significantly elevated risk of damage to their nervous system, learning disabilities, impaired development, that not only are crises for them and their families, but ultimately will cost taxpayers even more over time. Yet, Congress hasn't allocated any help to even replace the pipes in Flint while children in the community are still using bottled water to drink and bathe, at great expense, I might add.

Bottled water, for those of you who drink bottled water--Mr. Speaker, I don't know if you do--you know it is quite expensive, right? Better to drink water out of your tap. Let's fix the underlying condition.

Then, of course, we have the Zika crisis. Nineteen thousand Americans have contracted the virus so far this year; 1,800 of those Americans are pregnant women who have an elevated risk of having associated consequences for their children, including microcephaly. Funding is essential to reduce the building diagnostic backlog and develop a method of testing, a vaccination, and better ways to address this health crisis as it spreads across Florida, south Texas, and the Caribbean.

But instead of debating Zika or Flint or even a continuing resolution to keep the government open past Friday--which we haven't spent a moment on yet even though Government funding runs out Friday--or a bipartisan balanced budget amendment or any of the other great ideas that have been brought forward in a bipartisan way, instead of doing any of that, a symbolic bill will be met by a veto, yet another Republican bailout that costs taxpayers and increases the deficit.

We have a bill that does nothing, that won't become law. It is a part of a wider effort to increase the deficit and force hardworking taxpayers in Colorado to bail out the failures of State regulators in four States.

Mr. Speaker, this bill adds to the deficit. It undermines a component of the Affordable Care Act. It doesn't even address the failure of State regulators. It doesn't even address the fact that a policy that Republicans put in the 2016 Omnibus has led to the need for this bailout. Simply put, this is not part of the solution.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up the bipartisan no fly, no buy legislation. It would allow the Attorney General to bar the sale of explosives and firearms to those on the FBI's terrorist watch list.

Republicans have refused to act on this commonsense legislation. Some of you might have heard at the debate yesterday that both Presidential contenders from both parties support this legislation. It is common sense.

If we don't let somebody fly on an airplane, if they are on the terrorist watch list, why would we let them quietly assemble an arsenal?

We need to check it out. Of course, if they are wrongly put on that list, of course let's have a way to get them off that list right away.

So if they have a legitimate reason to buy a gun and they are not a terrorist, they shouldn't be on that list. But not buying a gun is the least of their inconveniences. If they are on that list, they can't even fly in most cases.
Yet, Republicans continue to fail to act on this commonsense legislation despite being supported by Donald Trump, by Hillary Clinton, by many other leaders of both parties.

We have the opportunity, if I can defeat the previous question with this vote, to actually take action and close this glaring loophole that allows terrorists to buy firearms and explosives right now in this country.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, again, rather than have this Republican bailout bill that increases the deficit, we could be discussing making it harder for terrorists to buy explosives and assemble arsenals. Okay?

That is the choice we have in this vote. It is a choice I am willing to make, Mr. Speaker. It is a choice that every Member will be called upon to make when they vote ``yea'' and they say, Let's do a bailout that increases the deficit, or they vote ``nay'' and join me and say, You know what, let's make it harder for terrorists to buy explosives and firearms, a policy supported by both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

That is the choice we will have in moments, and it is one I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to think deeply about before they cast their ``yes'' vote or before they cast their ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, we have three calendar days left in this fiscal year, and our limited legislative time is not being spent well. We could be devoting our last few days to addressing Zika, to making it harder for terrorists to assemble arsenals, to addressing the disaster in Flint, Michigan, to stem the tide of opioid addiction ravaging this country and so many families that I have heard from in Colorado.

None of these public health crises will be addressed if we don't consider a bill to keep the government open beyond September 30; instead, we are considering yet another Republican bailout--increases the deficit, unnecessary, and lets State regulators off the hook, bails them out.

H.R. 954 implements an unnecessary, uncalled-for exemption, distracts us from the real conversations we should be having about how we can make health care more affordable and how we can reduce our budget deficit. This bill is simply an irresponsible process. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source