tv U.S. House Meets for Legislative Business CSPAN March 21, 2017 11:59am-3:35pm EDT
from 415 addiction groups nationwide opposing trumpcare for the devastating impact that trumpcare would have on treatment for the opioid epidemic. >> without objection. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. chairman. from my vantage point there is no one outside of a three-block radius of this capitol building that thinks that trumpcare is anything better than a raging dumpster fire. certainly no one think this is backroom bill will improve the lives of those struggling with the disease of addiction. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. i want to know from the gentleman -- note for the gentleman, the article referenced before from "the washington post" says the important takeaway is that there's not one opioid epidemic. >> we'll leave this here, you can continue to watch the house energy subcommittee hearing on our website. go to c-span.org.
type the word opioid. u.s. house beginning legislative work shortly, beginning debate on two health insurance bills, one repealing health insurance businesses. these bills a run up to thursday's debate and vote to the health care law replacement bill. the house will meet at 9:00 eastern on thursday for that debate. live coverage of the house here on c-span. the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by the guest chaplain, pastor chris bell, 3 circle church, fairhope, alabama.
the chaplain: let us pray. my lord and father, i come to you in this place of government of the nation that i love to ask for your hand, a blessing and guiding wisdom upon the leadership of these united states of america. we know that all good gifts come from your hand and this beautiful and free nation in which we live is one of these gifts. we thank you, today, for the many ways you have blessed us from our bountiful natural resources to our freedom and to work and to speak and to worship and it is because of these blessings that you've also given us a great responsibility to our world, to live and to lead by example. so by your grace today i humbly ask that you would help these leaders of our nation and our citizens to be a continued light in the darkness. we confess now our need for your help and your guidance. please place your mighty hand on us today for you have told us in your word to trust not in our own understanding but to
trust you and acknowledge you in all of our ways and you would make our path straight, may we do this today and in the future and it's in the name of our lord jesus i pray, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from alabama, mr. byrne. mr. byrne: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: without objection, the gentleman from alabama, mr. byrne, is recognized for one minute. mr. byrne: thank you, mr. speaker. be written in 4:6 do not anxious about anything but in everything by prayer and is up i willcation, with thanksgiving let your request be made known to god.
as this body debates important issues, it is critical we begin with prayer. and i'm honored my constituent, pastor chris bell, was able to lead today's prayer. he studied theology and communications at the university of mobile and luther rice seminary and he has over 20 years of ministry experience. pastor bell is currently the lead pastor at 3 circle church in southwest alabama. 3 circle church has five campuses with weekly attendance reaching over 2,000 people. in addition to their regular services, pastor bell and 3 circle church have a focus on mission and serving others locally, regionally and around the world. these missions make a real difference. so on behalf of alabama's first congressional district, it is an honor to welcome chris and his wife, nan, to the people's house and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to 15 further requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the
aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, yesterday i was grateful to participate in a panel discussion at the dynamic hudson institute about the growing threat north korea poses to the united states and our allies with hudson fellow research director rebecca heinrich and senior fellow artur herman. we discussed the growing threat of north korea's testing medium and long-range missiles, the gruesome capabilities of missiles and nuclear program. we further discussed how the importance of missile defense, specifically the thad missile system, and the boost phase interceptor system,ould deter the reats from north korea. i also spoke on a bipartisan resolution that i introduced last week, a resolution condemning north korea's
development of their missile program, calling for the consideration of all available options to protect the people of south korea. i look forward to working with foreign affairs chairman ed royce, ranking member eliot engel, rex tillerson and president trump are options are on the table when responding to the growing threat by north korea. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. quigley: thank you, mr. speaker. tomorrow we will celebrate seven years since the president signed the affordable care act into law. the following day my colleagues across the aisle will vote to eradicate the undei insideable progress it has -- undeniable progress it has made. when we vote on the american health care act we will vote to take away health insurance from millions of americans. we will vote to raise premiums on seniors. we will vote to damage women's
health care programs, and we will vote to reduce access to care for lbtq people. -- lgbtq people. policies that were considered socialists are now mainstream, considering popular parts of the a.c.a. are retained in the republican replacement. the majority of the country doesn't want to repeal a.c.a. but improve it in a bipartisan way. the only way to create a meaningful change for the american people is to work together across the aisle. as lincoln said, we cannot escape history. we will be remembered in spite of ourselves, and a vote to repeal a.c.a. will be a stain on that legacy. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, today i rise to recognize and celebrate national agriculture day. i proudly represent the largest agriculture producing district in the country, the big first
district of kansas. mr. marshall: it's kansas agriculture month, a month to celebrate our state's largest economy. today is an opportunity to remind my colleagues that the hardworking americans who produce the bounty of american harvest and livestocks. the food that sustains them doesn't originate in a grocery store. let us remember as we move forward with regulations and with trade policy that there are families with generations of history on their farm or ranch who face the consequences of every decision. they feed america and our economy. this day and every day, we are grateful that god made a farmer. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, i ask to address the house -- i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized 1. ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, i, too, am excited to celebrate the signing of the affordable care act signed by president barack obama. in the hearing last thursday in
the budget committee we noted at medicaid, that provided insurance, health insurance, in this bill, now the trumpcare bill, will be cut $880 billion for working people, for seniors in nursing homes, for the blind, for the disabled. and we know that this meaningless trumpcare amendment of which the president is now rallying his troops, coming up to the hill two and three times, maybe he will be here tomorrow, is meaningless as the first part of it was. 24 million americans will lose their insurance. trumpcare will double that amount in 2026. 52 million will not have insurance. giveaways to billionaires, 1% of the rich people in america, and destroying two million jobs. but what i'm most concerned about is my constituent who could not take her medicine before the fordable care t tragically a young woman had a stroke and a heart attack and now is in a nursing home uses
the health insurance of medicaid. $880 billion to provide for her lifeline, but yet trumpcare comes to destroy that. i want to celebrate the affordable care act because it saves lives. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to commemorate national rosey day in an effort to raise awareness of the 16 million women working in world war ii. these women left their homes to work or volunteer full time in factories, farms, shipyards, banks and other institutions in support of our military. these brave women worked with the u.s.o. and the red cross. they drove trucks, collected critical materials, rolled bandages and served on rationing boards. they embodied the weakened spirit forever connected to them by norman rockwell's iconic painting.
mr. fitzpatrick: as we mark the contributions of women's history month i'm proud to recognize these brave heroes ith a national rosey the riftor day. i want to congratulate mae for these long deserved recognitions. she was a builder of b-27's, b-29's which flew missions over europe. i want to recognize this day and have the pleasure of welcoming rosies here at the alcohol today. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one inute. >> mr. speaker, across the country communities are struggling with an epidemic of oipped addiction abuse and -- opioid addiction abuse and overdose and across party lines
we all agree something must be done to address this crisis. but the repeal and replace plan proposed by my republican colleagues adds fuel to the fire. the bill eliminates the affordable care act's requirement that medicaid cover basic mental health and addiction services. economists estimate 1.3 million americans receive treatment for substance abutte and other mental health disorders through the medicaid extension. mr. schneider: across the states we have expanded medicaid like illinois. the program is used for 20% of all addiction treatment. we're not going to arrest our way out of this epidemic. instead, we need to treat addiction like the disease that it is. removing the mental health coverage requirement pulls the rug out for more than a quarter of those seeking help from opioid addiction. mr. speaker, opioid's now killed more americans than car accidents. the affordable care act offers hope in saving lives. the republican efforts to repeal the a.c.a. is a bleak
step backwards. i strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today as a practicing physician who believes we must repeal the disaster that obamacare has brought us and return to a patient-centered system. my patients have dealt with skyrocketed premiums, un afforded deductibles. these patients can't find doctors. they can't find specialists who will see them which results in more hospital admissions, more unnecessary hospital referrals, more expensive trips to the emergency room and higher costs to the program and to the taxpayers. mr. abraham: there's nothing
compassionate about cramming more people into a failed system just so politicians can score political points. all they've done is force a second-class insurance onto first-class people. all americans deserve better than obamacare. we can provide a better health care delivery system for them where everyone has access to affordable care and it starts with the passage of the american health care act. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized 1. -- the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. >> since january i have received hundreds of messages from constituents who are panicked they will lose health care coverage with the republican plan, where people will pay more for less. although the talking points of the republican plan references access to health care, care will only be accessible for people with enough money to pay. ms. bass: a message i received from vera, my husband has leukemia and if it wasn't for
the a.c.a. he would be dead by now. i'm living in fear if he loses obamacare, that will mean his death sentence since he won't be able to afford insurance to continue his treatment. a message from lee, the a.c.a. allowed my wife to start her silicon valley beach business in venice, california, and still have access to health care. the a.c.a. is pro-small entrepreneur and gives us the freedom to work on our own and still have insurance. my constituents like millions across the nation are afraid they might be one of the 14 million people who will lose coverage if the republican plan is passed. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, members, this week republicans plan to vote on trumpcare to push 24 million americans off their health care coverage and saddle families across the country with massive health costs. mr. green: trumpcare is a
broken promise to the american people. 24 million people will lose their health insurance. it will terminate the assistance that depend on affordable, quality coverage. it will destroy the medicaid program, the bedrock of our social safety net for more than 50 years. medicaid covers 74 million children, pregnant women, people with disabilities and seniors with long-term care needs. under trumpcare, deductibles and out-of-pocket costs will skyrocket and families will be exposed to crushing health costs. premiums will rise dramatically, particularly for older americans, because trumpcare allows insurance companies to charge five times higher than what others pay for the average. five times higher for our senior citizens. this means thousands and thousands of dollars more in premiums which low-income seniors cannot afford. trumpcare shortens the life of the medicare trust fund by three years and cuts $880 billion from medicaid. this is a terrible bill and it puts the entire health care system at risk and i yield back
my time. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise to talk about the republican sick plan to repeal the affordable care act and replace it with trumpcare. where the wealthy will get huge tax cuts and the rest of america will pay more for less. ms. frankel: 24 million losing their doctors, their nurses and their medicine. and my constituents are frightened. just ask amy bernard, whose mom francine, like 70% of americans living in nursing homes, pay for it with medicaid. francine was a teacher. she planned for her retirement.
she had savings. social security. and a pension. then she was diagnosed with parkinson's disease and she spent all her savings on in-home care and then one day after a near-fatal fall, her family realized she needed around-the-clock care. now, trumpcare means tax cuts the he very rich, less for rest of americans, gutting medicaid, and sending folks like francine to the curb. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek reck -- seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, sir.
>> mr. speaker, on thursday we will vote on the future of health care for america. we need to do what's right for our district and for our constituents. we need to protect the affordable care act. the a.c.a. works, but like america's other great health care program, medicare, it needs a little time to get there. today, medicare covers over 55 million americans and is a staple for our seniors. but back in 1965, people had a very negative opinion of medicare. today, 52 years later, medicare is one of our most efficient health care systems in our country. i urge my colleagues, do not repeal the affordable care act. mr. panetta: if you do, 24 million americans will lose their coverage and older americans will pay higher premiums. i ask my colleagues, keep the a.c.a., let's do the right thing. mr. speaker, i yield my time back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek
recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent for one minute to address trumpcare. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thursday, these republicans are awarding a new grand prize a big dollar award. unfortunately, the contest has been rigged so that your name is not in the winner's circle. mr. doggett: instead, world leaders in prescription price gouge, highest drug prices to americans just about anywhere, they're declared the winners of the grand prize in the trump republican sweep stakes that they call repealing obamacare. with big pharma's exceptional, distinguished service in charging astronomical prices, and blocking competition to government-approved monopolies, these republicans have included a no strings attached $25 billion tax windfall for big
pharma, in their so-called obamacare repeal. now with their latest late night amendment, the prize is already growing, bigger and bigger by the moment. all of those american families that are out there struggling, trying to access life-saving drugs, they don't win a dime in this contest. let's reject this phony republican giveaway where only big pharma is the big winner. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri seek recognition -- recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. clay: i rise to honor a legendary american musical genius, an inaugural member of the rock 'n' roll hall of fame and a friend of the clay family for six decades, the father of
rock 'n' roll, the immortal chuck berry who died this past saturday at the age of 90678 i grew up just a few blocks away from the barry -- from the berry residence. my sisters and i came up with his kids and our families knew each other very well. chuck berry was one of the first black superstars whose innovative music was not only popular with african-american audiences, but with young music fans around the world. since his death, tributes from across every spectrum of music have poured in, including the rolling stones, u2, sir paul mccartney, stevie wonder, bruce springsteen, and hundreds of other internationally known artists who were deeply influenced by chuck berry's magical music. on behalf of my family, i want to express our deepest
condolences to the berry family and on behalf of musician -- music fans everywhere, i want to give thanks for the life of this legendary american treasure whose legacy and unique sound will live on for generations a true st. louis original, the real king of rock 'n' roll, chuck berry. thank you, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> trumpcare a total disaster for america. here it is by the numbers, per our own nonpartisan congressional budget office. 24 million americans will lose coverage with 14 million americans losing coverage in
ear one. here it is by the numbers. 24 million americans lose coverage with 14 million middle easterns losing coverage in year one. 15% to 20% increases in health care premiums in year one. and if you are paying $1,00, you'll be paying $14,600 in premium increases if you're a 64-year-old making $26,500 per year. but where does the money go? mr. soto: $592 billion in tax cuts for the rich. that's where it's going. the conclusion, trumpcare robs health care from americans -- from america's working families to give tax cuts to the rich. so vote no on trumpcare to vet
yes on health care for america's working families and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rom vermont eke recognition? without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. this country since harry s. truman has had an elusive and desirable goal, health care for all citizens. we made two strides, one in 1964 with the passage of medicare, another in 2010 with passage of obamacare. mr. welch: we should be moving forward health care for all our citizens. this bill doesn't go forward, it goes back. 24 million americans will lose their health care. number two, americans who have been hiing a life of toil and effort all their lives from the ages of 50 to 64 at a time when they need health care the most are in danger of losing it with the excessive tax that's being imposed on them by this bill.
third, our community hospitals from the prairies of nebraska to the hills of vermont, those are critical institutions providing care. they have gone from red ink to black ink as a result of the affordable care act. every single one of those is in jeopardy and that is going to deprive our citizens in those communities of access to affordable health care. this bill must be defeated. let's embrace the goal of health care for all our citizens. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. >> without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. thousands of my constituents have contacted me very concerned about the republican health care bill, trumpcare, which would mean higher costs and worse care for hardworking families. on the campaign trail, then-candidate trump promised
that, quote, everyone would be covered. mr. kildee: under his plan. we now know that's a broken promise. that under trumpcare, 24 million americans will lose their health insurance. 24 million people. what kind of promise is that? then candidate trump promised that no cuts to medicaid but he will cut $880 billion from medicaid. what kind of promise is that? a broken promise. seniors overwhelmingly voted for president trump but he has already forgotten them. imposing an age tax on them. if you're 50 to 64, fasten your seat belts. you are going to pay five times what a younger, healthier person would pay for worse coverage. this is a terrible bill. democrats and republicans should reject it.
i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. polis: there is a ridiculous health care bill that this body may or may not be considering soon. it creates an entirely new entitlement program at the state level rather than the federal level. in an unrelated matter, it provides huge tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires mostly in california and new york. which has nothing to do with health care. republicans want to do that, that's fine, but don't put it in this bill. second, this bill that's somehow supposed to help is going to increase insurance costs for american families by 15% to 20%. most families can't afford that and 24 million people will lose their insurance. so there's just no way, shape,
or form that this bill makes any sense. look, there's a lot of positive improvements and suggestions we could make to the affordable care act a lot of great ideas, whether it's a public option, more pricing transparency a lot of great ideas that probably democrats and republican support but frankly they missed the mark on this bill. these aren't ideas democrats of republicans support, because they're bad ideas that cost families money. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. for what purpose does the -- for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i -- on behalf of the committee on rules i call up house resolution 209 and call for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will reminority resolution. house calendar 22. resolved, that upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill h.r. 372, to restore the application of the federal antitrust laws to the business of health insurance to protect competition and consumers.
all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on the judiciary now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 115-8 shall be considered as adopted. the bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except, one, one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary, and two, one motion to recommit with or without instructions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one hour. mr. collins: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis. pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. during all time yielded is for
purposes of debate only. i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include ex-trainus material on house resolution 209 currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. collins: i'm pleased to bring forth this rule on behalf of the rules committee. it provides for consideration of h.r. 372, the competitive health insurance reform act. it provides for one hour of debate for the bill equally divided between the chair and ranking member of the judiciary committee. it also provides for a motion to recommit. yesterday the rules committee had the opportunity to hear from the judiciary committee chairman bob goodlatte and congressman david cicilline on behalf of the judiciary committee. i want to thank chairman goodlatte and the judiciary committee staff for their work on this legislation. i had an opportunity to review this legislation in the committee hearing and markup. we have heard from several sponsors and witnesses at the judiciary, including the primary sponsor, congressman paul gosar of arizona. in addition to the bill's sponsor, i'd like to recognize
one of my colleagues from georgia, austin scoth, for his interest in this topic and leadership on this legislation. congressman scott testified before the judiciary committee on this bill and worked actively to highlight this issue. the issue of this issue is not a new one but one that deserves more attention. one similar to the health reform act won under 2010 and under a republican congress in 2012. mr. speaker, much of our attention on the floor this week is focused on making health care more affordable and accessible to the american people. the competitive health insurance reform is part of that plan. -- reform act is part of that plan. we saw soaring costs that hamstrung by a.c.a. regulations. as a result, insurers have fled the exchanges while access to quality care have disappeared along with them. today more than ever we need to institute reforms that restore options for americans by encouraging healthy competition in the health insurance market. the problem actually dates back
to the 1940's. and the competitive health insurance reform act helps address the problem that's increasingly demanding attention. you see in 1944, mr. speaker, the supreme court held for the firns time that insurance was part of interstate commerce and was therefore subject to the antitrust laws. congress responded a year later by passing the mekaran us act which established certain exemptions from the federal antitrust regulations for the business of insurance. that law remains in place today and reexamining it in the context of health insurance market has received bipartisan support. the competitive health insurance reform act would amend the 1945 mckaran ferguson act to apply the clayton act, the sherman act and the f.t.c. act to the health insurance industry. to be clear, this bill does not impose new or radical regulations upon the health insurance industry. it puts long standing antitrust laws that has applied to the rest of the economy for decades. by restoring competition in
antitrust laws to the health insurance industry we strengthen the foundation for a competitive health insurance market. the high prices and lack of choices for patients find in the health insurance market today flow back from lack of competition in the market and the barrage of regulations. so it's past time we re-establish a basis for the system in which insurance providers compete for customers in a patient-driven marketplace. while we work to bring back common sense back to health care, we need to look at the industry and how it got there. this bill recognizes openness including the marketplace. part of the government's role is guard the american people. h.r. 372 establishes there is no basis for further exemption of the federal health insurance from the antitrust law. h.r. 372 also contains narrowly defined safe harbors that are
unique to the business of insurance, including the collection and distribution of historical loss data and act wearl services that do not involve a resraint of trade. the competive health insurance reform act is a key component of our brder pl to restore competition and common sense to the health care marketplace. the principles captured part of this bill is part of the house republicans' better way plan and to address the harm done through the obamacare that is brought on our health care system and those who depend on it. i look forward to the underlying legislation once again receiving broad support from both sides of the aisle. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves and the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: i thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: i rise in opposition to the rule today which has -- opposition to the rule.
the mckaran ferguson rule -- currently unfortunately most type of insurance, including property or life insurance, are xempt from federal antitrust regulations in staffates. the mccarran-ferguson act makes sure that it is regulated by states. additionally, the department of justice and the federal trade commission have retained authority for antitrust enforcement involving mergers and acquisitions of insurance companies but not dominations of markets and competition. as a result of this exemption, the health insurance industry does not have to share pricing information and actually can currently communicate with one another to fix prices. now, that doesn't make sense. i firmly believe that more transparency in our health care system, the more that we have, the better off consumers will be.
repealing the health insurance exemption of the mccarran-ferguson act may improve competition but it would almost result in more trsparency in the health insurance industry, something we sorely need. i intend to join me of my colleagues to support the underlying bill because it increases transparency. this bill does nothing to replace the protections of the affordable care act. it doesn't even make a dent in addressing the many problems created by the republican health care legislation, the american health care act. so i don't want anybody listening to this, mr. speaker, to be distracted by a bipartisan bill that we hope becomes law in any way, shape or form. this bill does nothing when in two days we're considering a bill that threatens the health care for 24 million americans, increases prices for americans who are currently insured by 15% to 20%. and throws millions off of the rolls of the insured.
the republican health care bill coming to the floor thursday would cause a huge disruption in coverage for millions of americans. it creates an entirely new entitlement program. it would throw 24 million people who currently have insurance out of insurance. and for anybody who still has insurance their rates go up 15%, 20%. how is that a good idea? it's not. this bill today does nothing, nothing, i don't even think the advocates would say it does anything to address those increases in costs for consumers or 24 million people losing their health care or the creation of a brand new costly entitlement program in a time of record deficits. for constituents, and we all represent people from our districts, for people like greg and nakita, coloradans that have shared their stories with me, the passage of the american health care act, republican health care bill, would devastate their lives. greg was diagnosed with a rare form of cancer in 2014 in his mid 40's. after several surgeries, his doctors told him his condition
is inopable and can be treated chronically by medication. it's a very expensive injection that has so far has been successful from keeping the tumor from growing and allowing greg to live an ordinary life. now he needs the shot every three weeks. thousands of dollars each time. and despite working at least two jobs, it's not something that he could afford to have. greg -- afford to have without the affordable care act. wee have to quit his jobs and become destitute and get on medicaid. the republicans are basically saying for people like greg, we want you to be laysy we want you to quit your job so you can have health care, we want you to live off this brand new sbrimet program that we wand -- entitlement program that we create rather than pay for your own insurance. that's the message the republicans are sending to people like greg across the country. nakita lives in boulder and has spent her life battling endomitre owe cis. -- endomitriosis.
she was able to afford the surgery that she needed to improve her mobility and manage her pain. and her message to me, she emphasize the affordable care act is what allows her to work and to be a citizen that pays taxes and contributes to society rather than somebody who is at home living off the republican doll like the republicans are forcing her to do from the new entitlent they are creating. witho the affordable care act she said she would be on disability and medicaid, costing the government far more money and preventing her the dignity of holding a job and working to support herself and paying taxes. both greg and nakita express fear that the benefits they receive under the affordable care act would disappear if the affordable care act is dismantled in favor of this new republican entitlement program that encourages people not to work. the american health care act would threaten to pull the rug out from so many of my constituents, millions across
the country while simultaneously raising rates by 15% to 20% for people who are currently insured and paying for their own insurance. look, this bill, h.r. 372, it's a fine bill. republicans are using it as a talking point, claiming it somehow it addresses costs in some meaningful way. and given how complicated the health care system and the critical role that we all have to play in it and every little piece plays, it's important to lay out the facts of the republican plan which h.r. 372 does nothing to address. it's a fact. fewer people will be covered under the republican plan. the congressional budget office says 24 million people will lose their health care coverage over the next decade. it's a fact that middle-aged americans will pay five times more in premiums. age tax, big part of the republican health care bill. americans 55 to 64 will see their health care cost increases by $8,000. many of my constituents can't afford that every day. it's a fact those currently enrolled in medicaid programs are at risk of losing their
coverage. they should be equally concerned about the per capita cap in the republican plan. the flip sidef the same coin. those are just some of the many troubling facts about the republican hlth reill. this bill, h.r. 372, removing the antitrust exemption, fine bill. does nothing to address any of those problems or change any of those facts and figures that i cited as to why this bill doesn't fix health care. in fact, frankly, this bill is a distraction from the real topic we should be discussing -- how to improve health care in this country. i don't think we should improve it by giving tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires, forcing people like greg and nakita not to work and to be destitute in order to get health care, creating a brand new entitlement program that states administer. increase the cost for those that are already insured by 15% to 20%. if those are the answers, mr. speaker, what's the question? is it how to make health care costs more and how to have less people covered? if that's the question, the republican bill is a good answer.
that's not the questions my constituents are asking me and that's not the questions they are asking the republicans. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. collins: as we continue to discuss the actual rule before us, it's my honor to yield to the gentleman from georgia's eighth congressional district, representative austin scott, i recognize for as much time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: and the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i rise today in strong support of h.r. 372, the competitive health insurance reform act of 2017 which would take a big step towards creating a more business and consumer-friendly insurance market that works for all americans. as i listened to the comments just before i stood up, i heard this is a fine bill. it's more than a fine bill. this is a good bill. let me tell how i know it's a good bill. because a few years ago, both nancy pelosi and mike pence voted for it. what the democrats dot want to tell you is that on february
24, 2010, less than a month before the affordablcare act was signed into law, there was an agreement that allowing the insurance companies to be exempt from the anti-trust -- antitrust laws in the company -- how is it a bill was passed 406-19, that when it came out of the dark rooms, the affordable care act was brought to the floor with the comments of, well, you'll have to read it to find out what's in it, democrats the should have read it to find out what's in it because the leadership not only sold america out, they sold them out. this passed 406-19 and yet in the back rooms where they put the affordable care act together they didn't include the provision. while the affordable care act certainly has played a major role in the disruption patients and providers experienced, the decades' old special exemption, which they voted to take away,
the leadership of the democratic party gave it back to the insurance industry, from federal antitrust laws eroded competition in the marketplace. fortunately, we have a vehicle before us to walk back this special deal. the legislation currently before the house would take much-needed competition into the market by eliminationing the exemption, leveling the playing field and giving consumers and providers more leverage and better options. the very few antitrust exemptions in our country and for -- there are very few antitrust exemption empingses in our country and for good reason. it damages the health care providers further eliminating consumers access to services. the dominance of the market that large insurers have enjoyed have forced many providers to move, sell to larger regional hospitals, impacting many. in the dtrict i represent, patients have few health care
choices. that impacts their quality of care and negotiate for policy that meets their unique needs. echoing that sentiment, many can tell you that the majority of the problems traces back to a lack of competition, yet, the democrats left the insurance companies exempt from the antitrust laws once again when they passed the affordable care act. while insurance companies have the power to negotiate just as they proved in the negotiations with the democrats on the affordable care act, pharmacies, physicianings and hospitals were left without -- physicianings and hospitals were left without a seat at the table. when they determine who is and is able -- the insurer-provider relationship is closer to extortion than negotiation. so why do we allow the insurance company to control who your doctor is, who your pharmacist is, and what medicine you can get control -- be exempt from
the antitrust law. by definition, health care and health insurance are not the same thick. but when one industry, one insurance company controls such significant foorses of the cash flow of all the providers in a region. no provider can stay in business without a contract for that carrier. therefore the insurance company gets to determine who is and who is not able to provide health care. removing this antitrust exemption means one more option for consumers. increased competition between providers and great earn certain -- greater certainty for consumers when it comes to hammering out details. should have been done long ago but the democrats turned their back on the american public and granted the insurance companies an exemption from the antitrust laws of the company. while this is not an end-all be-all, it is a step in untangling the mess our health insurance marketplace has
become. it's also worth noted again, february 24, 2010, the health insurance industry passed the house, only one month prior to the affordable care act% signed into law yet the american citizens once again were sold out by the democratic party. i strongly believe this piece of legislation currently before the house lays a firm foundation in our promise to fix our broken health care system. today we have the ability to provide relief to consumers and providers alike and i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the competitive health insurance reform act of 2017. mr. speaker, i yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: two weeks ago, the republicans pushed ahead with a health care bill despite not knowing the impact of the legislation. a week later, the nonpartisan congressional budget office announced that the bill would take health insurance away from 24 million people, increase
costs by 15% to 20% for those who currently have insurance. mr. speaker, late last night, the republicans introduced a major manager's amendment that changes the bill, frankly. and mr. speaker, just as it was irresponsible to move forward without knowing the full effects of the original bill, it's completely reckless to even know whether this manager's amendment makes it better or worse an the impact it has on health care for american families. it's reckless to consider and vote on an amended bill befored says how much it costs or how much it will increase insurance by or whether it throws people off insurance rolls. plbling if we defeat the previous question, i'll offer an amendment to the rule that would require a c.b.o. cost estimate that analyzes the impact of any legislation amending or repealing the affordable the ma amendment that legislation to be made publicly available before the bill may be considered on the house floor. i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the record along with
extraneous material immediately prior to the sthronet previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. polis: to discuss our proposal, i'm proud to yield four minutes to the gentleman from kentucky, mr. yarmuth. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman icognized. mr. yarmuth: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my colleague for yielding. you know, the one question i think many americans who follow this debate would be asking now is, what's the rush? what's the rush? for seven years now, our republican colleagues have consistently said we're going to repeal the affordable care act. more than 60 votes have been taken in this body to repeal the affordable care act. we kept asking if you're going to repeal it, what are you going to replace it with? you can't just say, do away with it and leave millions and millions of americans in the lurch. so finally, two weeks ago yesterday, we got their answer. trumpcare. ryancare. the american health care act.
we finally got an answer. what's happened since those two weeks? we had no hearings. on this bill. we had quick markups that lasted a long time. we had the bill was introduced monday night. markups in energy and commerce and the ways and means committee on wednesday. and this was on -- just a steam roller to try to get this accomplished before any now, the c.b.o. report from last week came out indicating things that i think most americans would be frightened by. 24 million americans lo their kverage over 10 years but moly million lose their coverage within three years. 14 million next year. consider that. all of the games and coverage -- all the gains in coverage made by the aid fordable care act done away with in three years. premiums going up for americans.
i can't believe speaker ryan tried to put lipstick on a pig and say he thought the c.b.o. report was really encouraging because 10 years from now, premiums will be 10% lower. the only way they're 10% lower is because under the trumpcare, older americans, 50 and older, in the individual market, are priced out of the market with huge premium increases. so they're gone. only younger and health yever people are in there. premiums would be lower for them. other people are out of business. so that report comes out, causing a great deal of consternation on parts of thert. they bring it, schedule it to come to the floor on thursday, march 23, because they think that's cute because that's the seventh anniversary of the passage of the affordable care act. but again, no hearings. and what's more important, no
c.b.o. revised report on the changes that were introduced late last night. this is outrageous. i'd love to hear my republican colleagues try to portray the process under which the affordable care act was drafted and considered with some kind of nighttime secretive deal. they weren't here most of them. i was. i was on the ways and means committee, one of the draing committees. 14 months we worked on that legislation. 14 months. 79 hearings in the congress. on that legislation. hours and hours and hours of markups on that legislation. cost estimates throughout the process. i can't imagine a more exhaustive and public process than we went through for the affordable care pact. and here, two weeks from introduction to proposed passage we have no real public discussion on a piece of legislation that directly
affects the lives and probably unfortunately the deaths of many, many americans. so mr. speaker, we don't need to rush to judgment. i don't think the american people are waiting i don't need obamacare is so bad and my life is so bad that i can't wait another two weeks to find out what this really would do to me and my family. no, we need to give more time and most importantly -- mr. polis: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. mr. yarmuth: we don't need to do this this thursday without a full rendering of the cost of the new manager's amendment to trumpcare. we suspect, although we don't know, that it's going to look even bleaker. that more people will lose their coverage. but cost -- that costs and rates will be higher.
shouldn't we understand exactly what those statistic are? what those projections are? before we vote on something that's so significant for tens of millions of americans. so mr. speaker, i think it is entirely appropriate that we require that a newc.b.o. report be done on e manager's amendment before we vote on something that again means life and death to american families. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky yields back. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: thank you. i'd like to inquire how many speakers the gentleman has. mr. collins: we have no other speakers, if you'd like to close we're ready. mr. poe lits: i'm going to make one more round of remarks and then come back to close. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. awaiting the graphic presentation about some of what
is at stake in this debate. about the affordable care act. fundamental debate about whether we try to fix health care in this country, make insurance costs less, or whether we move backwards under this republican health care proposal. the republican health care proposal would create an entirely new entitlement program administered by the state. in creating this program, it would throw 24 million people who have health care insurance today off of the insurance rolls. they would become uninsured americans. it would add an age tax on older americans. it woul also increase the cost of health care for people who have health care today and pay for it by 15% to 0%. they wouldn't be getting more for that 15% to 20%. mr. speaker, if you can believe it, they would be getting less insurance for that 15% to 20%. many of the requirements that
insurance has to have are rolled back, the federal prosections -- protections under this republican health care bill. somehow at the same time it does all these things, the same time it costs 24 million americans their insurance, the same time it increases rates 15% to 20%, by the way, these figures are from the nonpartisan congressional budget office, the head of which was appointed by republicans, these are solid predictions done by people that were appointed by republicans, we're not citing any outside group or naysayers that don't like the bill. these are the objective congressional budget office numbers that we're citing here in their entirety. in addition to costing people 15% to 20% more, this bill also, for reasons unknown, gives an enormous multibillion dollar tax break to millionaires and billionaires in new york and california. that's where most of them live. there's a few in other places, of course, too. it's just unclear why that at
the same time republicans are trying to change the health care law, they want to go back to giving enormous tax cuts to the wealthiest americans, we're not even talking the wealthiest 1%. we're talking like .1% that are going to see the bulk of the benefit from these tax cuts. at the same time that health care is being taken away from4 million people who have insurance today. at the same time those who are fortunate enough to be able to continue to have it will have to pay 15% to 20% more. that's why, mr. speaker. this -- that's why, mr. speaker, this bill is so unpopular. if you're going to go through the trouble of creating an entirely new entitle prament, at least do it in a way where it helps people afford coverage versus hurt theirs ability to afford coverage. i gave the example in my remark -- those who rely on the subsidies if the republican bill
passes, would have to quit their jobs and rely on medicaid. instead. or they'd have to take a lower wage job. instead of earning $40,000 or $50,000, they'd have to quit that job and try to make a -- try to take a minimum wage job to qualify for medicaid this republican health care bill is telling americans you need to be lay sir and not work if you want health care. because if you want to work and have a job, we're going to take it away. we're only going to provide it if you quit your job or take a minimum wage job under medicaid. so that's not the message or the incentive that we want to send to the american people. one of the great aspects of the affordable care act is that it actually for the first time provided an incentive for people to get increases in their wages, to get better jobs, to work additional hours. before the affordable care ac we were locked into a scenario where people on medicaid lost their medicaid benefits. if they got a raise at work, depending on the size of their family, could have been a raise
from $14 an hour to $16 an hour they couldn't work overtime, they couldn't work a segged job as so many people do to escape from poverty because they'd lose their health care. the affordable care act said, we're going to allow you and encourage you to work that second job, to get a raise, and support your health care as you make your way out of poverty into the middle class. what a great idea. the republican proposal creates a brand new entitlement program but rolls back those affordability protections that helped people work their way out of poverty and reeves -- leaves no alternative for people like nikita and tpwhreg other than you have to quit your job or work a minimum wage job because otherwise we're going to take your health care away from you. that's the reason that the projections came back, no surprise, that 24 million people would lose their health insurance. the reason that health insurance rates will increase 15% to 20% we have don't know the reason they're also giving a tax cut to
billionaires in the same bill. we know they want to do that, they should do that in a tax bill. there's an effort at tax reform. i think they're talking about giving an additional tax cut to billionaires in that bill. that will be debated accept are thely. it's unclear how -- it's more than unclear as to why it would help make health care more affordable to give a cacks tutt -- a tax cut to billionaires. let's debate that under a different bill and happy to do that and that's part of a broader tax proposal. we'll see what else is in it. we know republica want to do that they shouldn't do it under the guise of health care. so again, mr. speaker, what you have here in this republican bill, which this current bill is nothing to change this bill will pass, it's passed before, we hope the senate acts on it. this bill does nothing to change the facts on the ground that the republican health care bill that creates a brand new entitlement program would make americans pay more for less, 24 million people would lose insurance, there's an
age tax on oler americans, guts medicaid, huge tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, increases 15% to 20% for americans lucky enough to retain insurance and discourages work and encourages people to be lazy at home to get health care. the opposite of what we want to do, contrary to the american work it's contrary to all incentives around cost containment, i hope, really hope, mr. speaker, that the house defeats this awful bill to replace the affordable care act. even as we pass some of these common bipartisan -- commonsense bipartisan measures like the one before us today that around the edges could potentially affect antitrust with an insurance company. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. collins: i'll continue to reserve and allow the gentleman to go back to his post so he can close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i'm prepared to close. i yield my southwest balance balance of the time. the bill under consideration today is a commonsense piece of
legislation. passed the house before. ultimately, however, it distracts from the elephant in the room. the american health care act, the republican bill to roll back and change the affordable care act and create brand new entitlement program while increasing the rates -- insurance rates for american families, providing tax cuts to billionaires, and throwing 24 million people off the insurance rolls. my colleagues across the aisle had seven years to work with us to improve the affordable care act. but they refused to work with us to make health care more affordable, to expand coverage, instead they drafted a bill that does the opposite. no wonder we're unable to find common ground when our goals are different. goals of myself and democrats have always been to reduce costs and expand coverage. read into what the republican goals must be if this bill meets them. seems like they working to decrease coverage and increase cross costs. the opposite of what we're working for. how will my colleagues look in
the eyes of a former veteran or small business own or middle class family like my constituents and somehow tell them they would be better off under a plan that forces them to quit their jobs and become destitute? how will republicans defend the vote to senior citizens when the age tax in this bill will force most seniors to pay premiums five times higher than what others pay for health care coverage. what will my colleagues say to 24 million people who lose health care coverage entirely under this bill? the republican health care bill that this body will consider on thursday will do extraordinary damage to the health care system and leave millions of americans guessing as to how much health care costs will cost and what will be covered. the american health care bill threatens to roll back important protections and coverage gains delivered by the a.c.a., and the discussion of anything else at this point is a diversionary tactic plain and simple. mr. speaker, let's defeat the previous question and figure out
how much this mysterious manager's amendment changes the bill for better or worse. my colleague, mr. yarmuth, made a very compelling argument how we need to know the actual costs and benefits of any bill we vote on. yet this body is being forced to vote blind on a manager's amendment that we saw for the first time dade and could even change by tomorrow -- first time today and could even change by tomorrow and we won't even know how it affects the costs of this bill or how it affects the lives of americans who have health care today or aspire to it. i encourage my colleagues to defeat the previous question and vote no on the rule. to vote yes on this commonsense bill to modify our antitrust statutes which democrats and republicans have supported overwhelmingly in the past, never, notnce, take our eye away from the ball trying to decrease costs rather than increase costs and trying to expand coverage rather than retract. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia. mr. collins: thank you, mr. speaker. i would just like to remind those from the house if you do
defeat this rule will you not vote on this commonsense piece of legislation. let's at least put the correct procedural order out there. we need to vote yes on this rule. get on to the underlying piece of legislation. which is a piece that has passed this house not only unanimously by voice vote in the republican congress, but also a overwhelming vote just recently -- within the democratic administration as well. we're moving forward on this. i think what is interesting here and what i have worked on and we're going to have a lot of discussion onlacing obamacare. i think it was interesting that my friend, we share many night and day in the rules committee, we share different opinions, but he made mention of the elephant in the room. i'll just make mention of the donkey in the room. it's amazing to me we're concerned about people losing health care. we're concerned about prices going up. we're concerned about these issues that have been going on for seven years.
we're having $800 billion -- we removed the tax impediments of obamacare. instead of mandating the folks they buy insurance they can't afford and can't use, we're actually getting a marketplace that will actually give them bert voice choices and results. i think thing -- better choices and results. i think the interesting thing here not knowing the costs, good gracious, look back over the last seven years, mr. speaker. when we understand what is going , let's also as we throw out the discussion, it was mad comment by my friend that seven years to fix, you can't fix broken. in this regard. when it goes about it traditionally wrong, it's not fixing. when you take away the markets, when you takeway the individual markets, when you're taking away the very incentives that actually are the underpinnings of our health care, if your goals were to reduce and expand,
you failed miserably. you have not reduced costs. they went up. you have not expanded choices, they went down. i have listened to it about as much as can i right now. to give, next two days, people help. it's why we're over here from the majority speaking because of the failure of the a.c.a. and obamacare. when we understand that, then we can look at pieces of legislation like the competitive health insurance act that should have been part of this, should have been a long time ago. but yet we choose to begin discussions about a failure. it's about a failure. choose the status quo. squinch your eyes, look real hard, it's not really getting worse, it's really ok. just help us tweak it. it's not getting any better. in fact, any insurance company is in a death spiral.
obamacare is failing. some of the c.b.o. estimates about increased costs 10 years out are based on obamacare pricing, there wouldn't even be an obamacare plan in 10 years because it won't be there. so we'll have these arguments. we'll have these discussions. but if you want to move forward a commonsense piece of legislation, you want to move a bipartisan piece of legislation, you want one that the american people sent us here to do, you vote yes on the he rule. yes on the underlying bill because that is why we're here. real solution from a real majority that will answer the questions and then gladly defend it to an american people who are tired of being talked about and take things away because we didn't read it to know what was in t you couldn't know what was in it. now we will and put in a marketplace that works for americans . when we do that we'll gladly put the market back there where they have a plan they can afford and actually use. when we understand that, the health care and the plan we put
forward will be one that works for the american people. not against t -- t with that i yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia yields back the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from georgia. mr. collins: request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman request the yeas and nays. mr. collins: request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes y electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 -- pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by five-minute votes on adopting the resolution, if ordered, and suspend the rules and passing h.r. 1353. this is a 15-minute vote.
the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. polis: on that i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. it this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 234. the nays are 182. the resoution edis ado without objection, the motion to reconsideis laion t the unfinished business is the vote on the rutherford, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1353, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1353, a bill to
amend the homeland security act of 2002 to require certain additional information to be submitted to congress regarding the strategic five-year technology investment plan of the transportation security administration. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. it this is a five-minute vote. -- this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representative proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 414. the nays are 2. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended and the bill is passed, without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania -- >> mr. speaker. by direction of the committee on energy an commerce i submit a privileged report to accompany house resolution 154. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to acompmy house resolution 154, resolution of inquiry requesting the president of the united states and directing the secretary of health and human services to transmit certain information to the house of representatives relating to plans to repeal or replace the patient protection and affordable care act and the health-related measures of the health care and education reconciliation act of 2010.
the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, by direction of the house committee on rules i call up house resolution 210 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number if house resolution 210. resolved, that upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill h.r. 1101, to amend title 1 of the employee retirement income security act of 197 4 to improve access and choice for entrepreneurs with small businesses with respect to medical care for their employees. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. in lieu of the amendment recommended by the committee on education and the work force now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 115-9 shall be considered as adopted.
the bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except, one, one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on education and the work force, two, the further amendment printed in the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution, if offered by the member designated in the report, which shall be in order without intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as read, shall be separately debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question, and three, one motion to recommit with or without nstructions.
the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will come to order. the gentleman from alabama is recognized for one hour. mr. byrne: during consideration of this resolution all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. i now yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the house will come to order. please move your conversations offor. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. byrne: thank you, mr. speaker. house resolution 210 provides for consideration of h.r. 1101, the small business health fairness act of 2017. president trump promised to
repeal and replace obamacare which is a negatively -- which has been negatively affecting our economy and causing great hardship on the american people. congress is respond this week with multiple bills to do just that. after years of endless premium increases, we must take steps to make health insurance more accessible and affordable, including for small businesses that employ the majority of americans. h.r. 1101, the small business health fairness act, will do just that by helping to level inequalities between large and small employers, ultimately making health insurance more affordable for millions of americans. simply put, the small business health fairness act will empower small businesses to band together through association health plans to purchase health insurance. this will allow them to increase their bargaining power,
negotiating for lower health insurance rates on behalf of their employees, just like their large competitors do. additionally the bill will allow their plans to fall under the employee retiree income security act of 1974 or erisa and the department of labor just like -- the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will come to order. the gentleman is recognized. mr. byrne: additionally, the bill will allow their plans to fall under the employee retiree income security act of 1974, or erisa, and the department of labor, just like the large, self-funded employer plans, preempting a myriad of state regulations that often make insurance unen affordable for small businesses this usefulness of this legislation is easy to imagine. for example, a small accounting firm might employ just three or four people while the largest firms employ tens of thousands. if that small firm could join
together with others just like it, to provide health insurance through their national association, it could have the same bargaining power and be subject to the same regulations as the firm with thousands of employees. parity means more options and lower costs for employers and employees. mr. speaker, our nation's small businesses were hit especially hard by the passage of the a.c.a. in fact a 2016 survey by the national federation of independent businesses found that small businesses identified the cost of health care as their number one challenge. an estimated 300,000 small business jobs were destroyed and an estimated 10,000 small businesses closed altogether due to the fail odd ba macare policies. since 2008, 36% of all small businesses with fewer than 10 employees have stopped offering
health care coverage. this has resulted in less overall health care options for working families. obamacare's compliance costs and mandates have resulted in $19 billion in lost wages for small business ememployees. -- small business employees. the bottom line is small business the backbone of our nation's economy, and their employees are feeling the pain of obamacare's failures and broken promises. i meet with these small business owners from south alabama every kay. they want to take care of their employees. and provide them with high quality health insurance. through enacting the small business health fairness act, we can help thousands of small businesses achieve that goal. mr. speaker, i also want to point out that this legislation includes strong protections to ensure association health plans are solvent and that the families covered by them are indeed protected. a sponsor of a plan must be a
bona fide trade industry or professional organization and can't be established for the purpose of providing medical care. the sponsor must have existed for a period of at least three consecutive years before providing group health insurance coverage. and the association health plan must be operated by a board of trustees and that will be supervised by the department of labor. this will include minimum capital requirements and a requirement that plans have a stop loss and solvency insurance. finally, and most importantly, the bill prohibits association health plans from discrimining based uponealth status and pre-existingonditions. mr. speaker, the small business health fairness act is about insuring our -- ensuring our nation's small business are afforded the same opportunities given to large corporations and labor unions. when similar legislation has been brought to the floor in the past, it has received strong
bipartisan support as i hope this will bill -- this bill will today. ultimately this bill is just one part of our larger plan to rescue the american people from the failures of obamacare. this week, the house intends to vote to repeal obamacare along with its mandates and taxes. but we do also understand that the pre-obamacare status quo is not acceptable. that is why the house is already moving to consider bills to give americans the freedom, choices and control they deserve. our solutions are built on free market and patient-centered principles. by getting the government out of the way and increasing competition, we can drive down costs and help americans obtain health care that actually works for them. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support house resolution 210 and the underlying bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from colorado is
recognized. mr. polis: i thank the gentleman for yielding me half an hour. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: i rise in opposition to this rule today that provides for consideration of h.r. 1101, the so-called small business health fairness act of 2012. this bill this bill first of all from a procedural basis did not allow even a discussion of the amendments that my democratic colleagues brought forward to improve the bill this. rule has something called the structured amendment process which basically means that democrats are locked out of presenting our ideas for improving this bill. we're not even allowed a 10-minute debate or vote on any of the ideas that many of my colleagues brought forward. ms. bonamici from oregon proposed an amendment to require the legislation only take effect if the congressional budget office determined the premiums for older workers wouldn't increase. sounds like a reasonable idea to
at least debate for an hour. 10 minutes? it's important to do. representative torres from offered an amendment that would require all health plans to tint 10 essential health benefits of the patient protection act to obtain state certification. representative ep pyatt -- he piatt, including regulations related to benefits, consumer protections, and rating restrictions. these amendments would have improved the underlying legislation. they should have been allowed to proceed to the floor. unfortunately the only amendment that made it in was from the republican side of the aisle and all of the great ideas that members on my side of the aisle offered were prevented from being even allowed to be debated under this restrictive rule. find it very troubling that my colleagues on the other side seem to prefer a partisan vote
to collaboration. and to considering valuable proposals that might help improve the quality of health care just because they happen to come from democrats. there is a bigger issue here. of course in addition to the faulty process, the bill is simply a bad bill and does nothing to address the problems with the real of the affordle care act,hich is pending before this body. one of the issues raised under this bill is it could lure away young and healthy workers, creating a distortion in the market. the a.c.a. changed that practice by requiring health insurance sold through the association to meet the same insurance standards of coverage sold in the individual and small group market. preventing cherry picking and providing a basic level of protection for consumers. this bill would roll back that progress. creating a separate set of rules for association health plans. essentially exempting them from complying with state regulations. there's also little evidence
that it's even been effective to expand coverage. that's why many consumer and advocacy groups, including the national association of insurance commissioners, have come out opposed to this bill. but even more disturbing is the fact that we're considering a bill that even its proponents would agree does not in any way, shape, or form replace the protections of the affordable care act. this is a bill that's narrow in scope . when we marked it up in our committee, that very same day the energy and commerce and ways and means committee were marking up a bill to create brand new entitlement program, remove health care from 24 million americans who have it today, and increase costs by 15% to 20% by those who are paying for their insurance today. at that time the republican health care bill had only be public for 24 hours. when the committees marked it up, we didn't even know how much the bill cost or how many people would lose coverage as a result. that information only came later
after committee members voted to amend or not amend the bill. frankly, it's unconscionable that to deny people from health care insurance, maybe a life or death proposition. we need to do better job understanding bills before we vote on them. which is one of the reasons tt we need to make sure we know the costs of this so-called manager's amendment. these midnight changes to the repeal of the affordable care act. you know what's interesting, with this proposed american health care plan, the republicans plan to bring to the floor, it was just reported, and i'll be submitting the article, that the republican bill actually results in more people being uninsured than if obamacare was simply appealed outright. rather than repealing it outright, the republicans are giving a tax break to billionaires, creating a brand new entitlement program, throwing 24 million people off the insurance rolls, increasing costs by 15% to 20% t would actually throw less people off
insurance if they simply repealed obamacare. mr. speaker, i have an article from "the new york times" i would like to submit for the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. polis: margo said in part, but one piece of context has gone little noticed. the republican bill would result in more people being uninsured than if obamacare were simply proceed. getting rid of the majority major coverage provisions of obamacare would cost 23 million americans, in other words one million more americans would have health care with a clean appeal. it's just unclear what the republicans are trying to do here. if the goal is to come up with something worse than repealing the affordable care act, they certainly reached that goal, less people will have coverage. more tax breaks for billionaires. higher rate increases for most americans on every account it actually underperforms a cleaner repeal. now, look, what democrats want
to do is improve the affordable care act. i want to be clear. none of us have ever argued the affordable care act is perfect. i push for fixes. so many of my democratic and republican colleagues have pushed for fixes to strengthen the law like preeling the medical device tax -- repealing the medical device tax which adds costs to health care being. altering the cadillac tax on insurance premiums. in committee i offered three amendments to show some of the ideas that i and some of my colleagues had to improve the affordable care act. offered an amendment to establish a public option in the exchange to provide a baseline competition in every zip code in this contry. defeated on a partisan vote. i should add that proy poe -- proposal for a public option would reduce the budget deficit by over $50 billion. i also offered an amendment for pricing transparency to help make the market and health care work. one of the major market fallacies in health care is a bye zn teen pricing structure where frequently different entities and people are paying
different things, different amounts for the same price. we would go a long way towards making markets work in health care hfpblgt defeated -- in health care. defeated on a party vow. finally i offered an amendment that would allowed reimportation of prescription drugs. when you have a situation where we have a popular example of this in the epipen, costing americans who need access to the epipen over $400, and yet in neighboring countries, canada, australia, epipens cost $40 or $50. 1/10 as much. it's not unique to the epipen. by no means is that an exception. it is the rule. by allowing reimportation of prescription drugs, proposal that was backed in the senate in a bipartisan way by many of my democratic and republican colleagues as a budget amendment, we could actually reduce costs in health care. making the goal of expanding coverage even easier with those
reduced costs. you know, when i think about health care, i think it's important to think about who in our districts and states it most effects. i think of pat hayward, a constituent from my district. pat has so many family members who would be directly impacted by the repeal of the a.c.a. for instance, her husband who has melanoma. over the years has needed several procedures to remove cancerous cells from his skin. those procedures not been done in a timely and efficient manner, it could cause major complications, including premature death for pat's husband. prior to the affordable care act when they tried to change insurance carriers, her husband was told that any coverage would exclude coverage of cancers. th very pe of coverage he needed -- need because it was a pre-existing condition. they literally would have had to choose between bankruptcy or being forced out of their home
and into destitution. or not getting the lifesaving melanoma treatments he needed. it's not just pat's husband who has been fitted and perhaps is alive and thriving today because of the protections of the affordable care act. pat's eldest son took advantage after provision that allowed him to stay on his parents' plan until he got a job with health insurance at age 25. their younger son has struggled with anxiety and panic attacks. thanks to comprehensive mental health treatment and the protections and mental health parity that are in the affordable care act and being rolled back under the american health care act, the republican bill to replace t. their son is back in college and thriving. pat herself expressed gratitude the affordable care act covers wellness visits and tests like mammograms which can detect problems early. reduce costs and save lives. i share this store rain pat wanted me to because families like the haywards are like families never state in every county in every zip code in the country.
american families have faced their share of medical challenges as have mine and i'm sure yours has as well, mr. speaker. medical challenges crop up unexpectedly. they don't have any bias on political party. they affect democrats and republicans. and independents and greens. and apathetic voters and diligent participants in our civic system. they make no dis continuation. but the affordable care act is there to make it easier for families across our country to stay healthy, to get better. to save their lives so that kids can grow up with their parents healthy. kids can grow up and be able to go to school and get good jobs. like so many of my constituents, pat told me she would rather see the current system improved rather than thrown out and i agree. that's why i offered the pricing transparency amendment, the public option amendment, and the reimportation of prescription drug amendment. there are dozens of others ideas to improve the affordable care act from my side of the aisle.
i offered amendments in committee that would codified these provision noose law. and i plan to continue to fight to improve access and lower health care costs. dismantling the affordable care act is simply counterproductive towards that end. the republican proposal to create brand new entitlement program would cost 24 million americans to lose their insurance, over a million more than preeling the affordable care act. for those who are lucky enough to still have their insurance, it would increase rates by 15% to 20%. but also for reasons unknown, have an enormous tax cut for billionaires and millionaires, we know republicans republicans want to do that but they should do it through a tax bill but not a health care bill. enormous taxuts. we're not even talking the wealthiest 1%. most of those tax cuts go to the wealthiest one tenth of a%. that doesn't help reduce the cost of health care. look, while, again, this bill can be debated and frankly many
of us feel that pre-- it prevents a problem in the risk pools that removes consumer protections. there is a solvency issue around some these groups, there is a legitimate debate to be had. we certainly haven't her anybody presented present that somehow this bill is any kind of answer to making health care more affordable or expanding coverage. and what we have before us over the next couple days is a bill that not only is the answer, but is a bill that creates an even bigger problem. the republican health care bill would dig us in a deeper hole with regard to health care. leaving more americans without coverage. creating a costly brand new entitlement program, raising rates for those americans who are lucky enough to still have their insurance after republicans remove it from tense of millions of people. if that bill is the answer, what's the question? is the question, mr. speaker, how do we make health care costs more for american families? is the question, mr. speaker, how do we have less people covered and throw 20 million people off of health care
insurance? is the question, mr. speaker, how do we make sure rather than work hard and try to get a raise or work two jobs americans are forced to quit their jobs and be lazy and not work just so they can have medicaid eligibility, which is what the brand new republican entitlement program would do, or is the answer to move forward in a bipartisan way to improve the affordable care act. a discussion that so many of us are excited to v i was disappointed my three amendments were shut out in partisan votes in committee. and i'm hopeful that by resetting this process we can work together to reduce costs and expand coverage. and defeating the rule today will be the first step towards accomplishing that. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. burnes: thank you, mr. speaker. -- mr. pirns: thank you, mr. speaker. my colleague from colorado raised and important question. what are the republicans trying to accomplish here?
it's simple. we're trying to give freedom and choice back to the american people who lost their freedom and choice to control their health care plans. who lost freedom and control over their health care because of an ill considered law passed by this congress several years ago. he taed about the cost to the american consumers. if you want to pass something that's going to increase cost, american consumers, this congress did that several years ago. look at the dramatic increase in health care insurance premiums, the dramatic increase in people's deductibles that have occurred since the affordable care act, the so-called aaffordable care act was passed here in the congress several years ago. we're trying to reverse that. we're trying to get control back. and in fact, we know from the congressional budget office score that it will lower premiums by 10%. we haven't seen premiums go lower in years. so if they want to know what we're trying to accomplish it's plain on its face. the gentleman referred to some amendments that he offered in
committee. every one of those amendments was ruled nongermane. and for those of us maybe don't understand about what germane means, it's simple. you can't offer amendments to a bill that aren't related to the subject matter of the bill. the chairman of the committee ruled that he offered amendments that weren't germane to the bill that we have today. he offered amendments that had nothing to do with the underlying bill. he talked about the underlying bill for the rule we have today will lure away young and healthy workers. let me say it again. principal in my remarks. under this bill, none of these association health plans can discriminate against anybody. they can't do that. they can't say we're only going to let in young or healthy people in the plans. they have to admit everyone. so there is no discrimination
here. everyone will be covered. remember how many people in america w for small businesses. all types of americans work for small businesses. we're not trying to hurt them. we're trying to give them more opportunities to get better health insurance that will cost less money, and if there was anything in here that would cause discrimination we would have heard long and hard about that before this point. i would suggest to you, mr. speaker, that that's not a relevant argument to this particular bill. everybody, every plan that's going to be under this bill must comply with the regulations of the department of labor, just like big corporation plans have to comply with the regulations of the department of labor. we're simply treating small businesses through these associations the same way we treat big corporations. we've essentially denied to the
employees of small businesses the same opportunities to get good health insurance at a lower cost that their colleagues that work for bigger corporations get. and the reason the bigger corporations had this, because the department of labor comes up with a nationwide rule and you don't have all these different variations from state to state and allows for those big companies to do the things that they can do so very where will because of their size to get better health care for affordable costs to their employees. we're giving the same thing to these small businesses for their associations. and remember, this is not just one bill. we actually just passed a rule that will exempt from mccarran-ferguson health insurance so we get more competition into the health insurance market. this bill is on top of that, it's on top of the h.c.a. we will be considering later this week and other bills that will be coming because there are a
host of things that we are doing on this side of the aisle to make sure we restore freedom and choice and affordable care to the people of our country. we are not removing people from health insurance in any of the bills that we're doing. we're giving them the freedom to choose, and that's what america is really all about, the freedom to choose. right now we are coercing by law people to go out and buy health insurance that they don't want. that shouldn't be done in america. we're going to give them their freedom back, and if they choose not to buy health insurance, that's their right as americans. that's not taking something away from somebody. that's giving them their freedom back. so i would suggest to the gentleman that if he wants to look for something that's going to help the workers of america, this bill and the other bills that our side of the aisle is proposing, will do just that.
mr. speaker, i'd like to yield throw minutes to the gentleman dunn. orida, mr. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for three minutes. mr. dunn: i rise in support of h.r. 1101, the small business health fairness act. as a surgeon in north florida, i witnessed firsthand the disaster that is obamacare. after obamacare was passed and implemented, small medical practices across the country were faced with new crippling regulations that threatened their very existence. i ran a small urology practice in panama city and faced the very devastation that these new regulations on small business imposed. thankfully i was able to work with several other small practices to create the advanced urology institute, a 47-physician practice with over 400 employees and offices throughout north florida. cooperation and pooling of our resources allowed our practice
to reduce costs and to better serve our patients. my experience underscores why the small business health fairness act is so crucial. this small business health fairness act allows small businesses to operate under the purchasing health insurance for their employees. by joining together across state lines through associations, small businesses can achieve the economies of scale enjoyed by big businesses and unions when purchasing health care. it will empower small businesses to purchase better plans at a lower cost which means working families can get the care they need at a price they can afford. it's time to put small business employees on a level playing field with those of large businesses and those in unions. the health insurance market and this bill does just that. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentleman yields back. heentleman from alabama reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr.olis mr. speaker, amendments by ms. bonamici germane. republicans shut it down. amendment brought forward by norma toress, germane, not allowed to be debated for five minutes, not even one minute. mrs. torres is not allowed to offer her amendment that only allowed republican amendments. and finally amendment, yes, germane. he was nevertheless shut out by a party line vote and not allowed to present his amendment before the floor that would simply allow states to continue protecting the benefits and consumer protections and rating restrictions in associated health plans, very simply. mr. speaker, we're here considering the rule for h.r. 1101. we still don't have a cost estimate from our nonpartisan experts at c.b.o. we certainly believe this legislation will increase premiums for middle class and seniors but we don't idea how
much so. it's becoming a pattern, mr. speaker. two weeks ago the republican majority pushed ahead with their health care repeal bill without a cost estimate. a week later, it turned out it will cost 24 million americans their insurance and 15% to 20% increases for those who would still have it. late last night, there was a back room, secretive manager's amendment that was proposed which we don't know the cost of or how it will affect coverage and it's responsible for the republicans to move forward without knowing the effect of the bill, as amended. if we defeat the previous question i'll offer an amendment to the rule that would require c.b.o. cost estimate that analyzes the impact of any legislation amending or repealing the affordable care act as well as the impact of any manager's amendment to that legislation and be made publicly available before the bill may be considered on the house floor. mr. speeri ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment inhe record along with extraous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. polis: to discuss our proposal to make sure we
actually know the cost of what's before this body, i'm proud to yield three minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from california, ms. barbara lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for three minutes. ms. lee: thank you very much. i first want to thank the gentleman from colorado for yielding and for your tireless advocacy on behalf of the american people. mr. speaker, i rise in opposition, first, to this terrible rule, of course, which made no democratic amendments in order, but also in strong support of congressman polis' amendment that requires the nonpartisan congressional budget office to score the final bill, which is the bill to take away health care from 24 million people, to score it as amended by the republicans' manager's amendment before the bill is on the house floor. this clearly is nothing new for republicans, though. in fact, just two weeks ago republicans shamefully pushed
ahead with the markup of their terrible a.c.a. repeal bill without a score from the congressional budget office. and this week on the seventh anniversary of the affordable care act, republicans' terrible plan to repeal this lifesaving legislation will make it to the house floor. one thing is clear, republicans' proposals, of course, written in secret back rooms would be a disaster for struggling families, seniors, people with disabilities, low-income individuals, the poor and the middle class. it would, yes, rip away health care from 24 million people, reduce benefits, increase rates for those who can least afford this and transfer $600 billion in tax cuts to the very wealthy. that's outrageous. it gets even worse. late last night in secret back rooms, republicans introduced a dangerous manager's amendment that doubles down on the war on women's health and the poor,
low income and struggling families. yes, once again, republicans are attempting to move forward with a vote on the final g.o.p. takeaway health care from 24 million americans bill that includes a manager's amendment without an updated congressional budget office score. the american people deserve to know the full damage of this disastrous bill, so i urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question and support congressman polis' amendment to ensure that we have updated congressional budget office scores before this bill is brought to the house floor. i thank you for this amendment and i thank you for yielding. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. byrne: thank you, mr. speaker. the manager's amendment that's been referred to was put on a public website last night. so everyone in the house of representatives will have three days to read the manager's
amendment. there's nothing secret about it. bills are not written in front of cameras. they're written -- i'm continuing with my remarks. they're written so that they can be put on public websites for all of us to see it. this manager's amendment is handled like many, many other managers' amendments are handled, including the way managers' amendments had been handled by the democrats when they were in the majority. remember in 2010 when the reconciliation bill was passed that established the a.c.a., no amendments were allowed on the floor. none. zero. so if there's a precedent that's been set in this house, it was set by my friends on the other side of the aisle when they passed the affordable care act and wouldn't allow any amendments by any member of the house. that's the precedent. there's nothing new about the way this manager's amendment was handled. it's handled the way managers' amendments are handled all the
time and now everybody has a copy of it, has plenty of time it. ad the truth is we are moving forward with our plan, as we said we were, to repeal and replace obamacare to give freedom and choice back to the people of america so that patients control their health care and not a bureaucrat in washington and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: first of all, mr. speaker, over 150 amendments by democrats were rejected to this health care bill before us today. contrary to the process of eight years ago when over 120 republican amendments were not only made in order but actually incorporated into the health care bill despite the -- despite the fact that not a single republican voted for it. when we talk about the record and precedent, you couldn't have more than a night and day difference between what's occurring today when democrats were locked out and the effort eight years ago when republican
ideas were welcomed in the process. i want to ask my colleague from alabama, was hoping he would yield me the time to do so and i'll have to yield him time to answer, he mentioned this manager's amendment has already been posted and we'll have three days to look at it. the version we saw posted, is it the actual version that will be brought to rules committee and presented to the floor and there will be no further changes to the manager's amendment if the gentleman can reassure me of that? mr. byrne: as far as i know, speaking back to the gentleman from colorado, the manager's amendments that were posted last night will be the ones considered tomorrow in the rules committee. mr. polis: reclaiming my time. reclaiming my time. mr. byrne: i know of no plan -- mr. polis: reclaiming my time, mr. speaker. reclaiming my time. i also would like to ask if we're going to have a score from the congressional budget office prior to this house having to vote on that manager's amendment. happy to yield to the gentleman from alabama. mr. byrne: i'm ready to answer
the question. we believe that we will be receiving the c.b.o. table prior to the vote on the floor of the house of representatives. mr. polis: thank you. so, again, with -- that simply confirms what our previous question would simply require, that before the bill is voted on, we'll simply know how much it costs and who it impacts. what could be more important than finding that out? and i think it's important to note that democrats have been shut out of the process at the committee level, in the amendments i offered. even the germane amendments of this particular bill before us today, democrats were locked out. and rather than allow members of both parties to participate in reducing the cost of health care and increasing coverage, republicans have come up with a bill that actually increases costs and decreases coverage. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. byrne: yes, sir, mr. speaker. from what i saw in the c.b.o.
core of the bill, the bill reduces government spending, reduces taxes and reduces health insurance premiums over the window of the c.b.o. score. so it does the exact opposite what the gentleman suggested. it does exactly what the american people sent us here to do, and i reserve the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: is the gentleman prepared to close? mr. byrnes: i am. mr. polis: i yield my southwest balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: mr. speaker, look, the statistics we're talking about, the fact that it will cost americans 15% to 20% more to get health care, the fact that it will cost 24 million americans their insurance, these are not statistics that are made up by some group that wants to oppose the republican effort.
they are facts that are arrived upon by the congressional budget office ahead of which is appointed by republicans. they do diligent work to determine how much bills cost and what their effect is. of course those are best estimates. maybe instead of 24 million people. that will lose coverage under the bill. maybe it will be 25%. maybe it will be 23 million. there is always a little bit of variation on what those predictions are. but whether it's 23 million or 25.6 million, the fact that americans, millions, tense of millions of americans will lose coverage under this republican bill should be a flashing warning sign that it's time to slow down and work in a collaborative manner to improve the affordable care act rather than create a brand new estimate program that throws 24 million people off the insurance rolls and increase the cost for those who remain by 15% to to% -- 20%. look, this bill immediately before us is a diversion from the real story in health care. in my home state alone, 600,000
coloradoans would likely loose coverage is the american health care act is rammed through congress. as my republican colleagues intend to do. the american health care act would roll back important protections and coverage games. it would create a brand new entitlement program while delivering record tax breaks for billionaires in new york and california. it's clear that this bill threatens the health and welfare of hundreds of thousands of families in colorado alone, tens of millions across the country. it's time that we get this process right and slow down rather than cramming a midnight bill through the house of representatives that we don't even know the costs of before we're voting on. this is simple, mr. speaker. democrats are excited to roll up our sleeves and work together to create a plan that reduces health care costs. if you don't like the amendment i offered for allowing reimportation of prescription drugs, let's talk about other options. what about medicare negotiating prescription drug rates? what about removing tax deductibility for the advertisements for pharmaceutical companies?
what about expediting approval process at the f.d.a. which petroleum president trump himself mentioned in this--- in this very chamber. to reduce the costs passed along to consumers to a much lower cost and thereby passing the savings to consumers. there are plenty of good ideas. the democrats and republicans can work together on. none are in this bill before us today. none of them are in the repeal of the affordable care act. so let's just stop this ridiculous partisan process. i don't want 24 million americans to be victims of partisanship in washington. i don't want other americans who pay for their health care insurance to be victims of partisanship in washington. i want to make sure that people in my district who are working hard and only able to afford coverage under the affordable care act because of the health care subsidies are not forced into medical bankruptcy and to give up their jobs and rely on medicaid because the republican efforts to ram through this brand new entitlement program.
let's get this right. there's plenty of opportunity to work together to reduce cost and expand coverage. the american health care act does the exact opposite. it increases costs and reduces coverage. instead of these incremental bills like the so-called small business health fairness act which wind up removing protections and pushing more costs on to working families and seniors, we should improve upon and fix the affordable care act that we put in place seven years ago. we should support innovation to produce healthier outcomes, to reduce costs, and, yes, to expand coverage across our contry. we have a unique opportunity in this congress to put partisanship behind us. to work together to make affordable health care a reality for every american family. because you know what, when you have a pre-existing condition like i talked about pat's husband in my district who suffers from melanoma, doesn't
matter whether he's a republican or democrat. or independent or whether he's not even registered at all. what matters is he's a father to two children, a husband to his wife, and he wants the ability to work with dignity, support himself, and have medical insurance to receive his life's saving monthly injections and allow him to maintain his quality of life and continue to work and pay taxes and support his kids and family. that's what health care coverage is all about. so let's stop this silly partisanship. this republican american health care act actually kicks more people off of the health care rolls than simply repealing obamacare. by creating this brand new entitlement program, they are actually cost an additional one million americans their health care insurance. the answer's not cost 23 million people their health care insurance. it's not to take it away from 24 million people. you know what the answer is, mr. speaker, is to provide a way that more people can work hard and pay into the system and that we decrease the number of
americans who lack access to health care insurance, which in turn reduces the cost for the rest of us because of the cost shifting that occurs within health care. mr. speaker, i know so many of my friends on the republican and democratic side of the aisle dedicated public servants with thoughtful ideas they have based on life experiences they want to present before this body to reduce the cost of health care. let's let them do t let's have an open process. 150 amendments from democrats were shot down in committees. not even allowed to be debated. not even allowed to be included in this health care bill. three of mine were shot down in this very rule today amendments , miss bona tt meachy. the american people want health care to be afford afpblet and they want republicans and democrats to pork together to accomplish that end. let's vote no on this rule. let's veet the process. let's fix health care.
expand coverage, reduce costs. i look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to accomplish those important goals that my constituents have sent me here to work on. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question so that we can know the costs of any manager's amendment before we vote on it. to vote no on the rule. to vote no on the underlying bill. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado yielded back. the gentleman from alabama is recognized to close debate. mr. byrnes: thank you, mr. speaker. i certainly agree with my colleague from colorado that we should avoid silly partisanship. i hope that that means we won't see bill sily partisan procedural motions and points of order between now anti-end of the week. we have seen plenty of those up until this point in time by our friend on the other side of the aisle and i hope his statement means we won't see any more since he blives silly partisanship is bad for this body and the consideration of these important health care bills. we're not here today to talk about the ahca.
we're here to talk about the small business health fairness act. that's what this rule covers. let me go over again what has happened to small businesses but more importantly what's happened to the people that work for small businesses. an estimated 300,000 small business jobs were destroyed by obamacare. 10,000 small businesses closed because of obamacare. since 2008, 36% of small businesses that have fewer than 10 employees have stopped offering health care coverage all together. obamacare's compliance costs and mandates have resulted in $19 billion in lost wages for small business employees. the majority of people in this country work for small businesses. we're trying to give them a fair shake. we're trying to give them their freedom and their choice back. we're trying to give them affordable care because their
freedom and their choice and the affordability of their care has evaporated over the last several years. ask anybody in america. they come up to me all the time in my district and tell me this. we through this bill and the other bills we're considering are repairing the damage done to the people of america by obamacare. my colleagues can throw up dilatory points of order and other procedural items later on if they want to engage in silly partisanship, or we can get down to the business of taking care of the workers in america. this bill or concept like this bill has been on this floor before and enjoyed bipartisan support. if we're going to draw silly partisanship, let's drop it right now on this rule and this bill and adopt it for the good of the workers and these small businesses throughout america. mr. speaker, i again urge my colleagues to support house resolution 210 and the underlying bill. i yield back the balance of my time and mthe previ question on the resolution. the speaker protempore: the gentleman from alabama yields
back. all time having expired, the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. polis: on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this uestion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on the judiciary be discharged from further consideration of s. 305, the vietnam war veterans recognition
act, and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 305, an act to amend tight 4 united states code to encourage the display of the flag of the united states on national vietnam war veterans day. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the consideration of the bill? without objection, the bill is read a third time and passed anti-the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia, mr. goodlatte, seek recognition? mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 209, i call up h.r. 372, and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 18, h.r. 372, a bill to resolve the application of the federal antitrust laws to the business of health insurance to protect competition and consumers. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 209, in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on
the judiciary, printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 115-8, is adopted and the bill as amended is considered as read. shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary. the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, each will control 30 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and and include remarks extraneous material to h.r. 372. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of a bill that will move us a step closer towards restoring healthy competition in the health insurance industry. today the health insurance
industry is besieged by dwindling competition and skyrocketing premiums. insurance providers, states, and the public have been dealing with the disastrous repercussions of obamacare for the past six years and overregulation by states for much longer. congress finally has the opportunity to pass legislation to reverse the downward spiral of our health insurance industry. any such legislation must encourage a robust and competitive health insurance market in which insurance providers actively compete for customers. healthy competition ensures premiums are accurately priced and that customers are able to find a variety of policies to meet their specific needs and demands. h.r. 372, the competitive health insurance reform act of 2017, represents a step on that journey. preeling the mccarran-ferguson act as it applies to the business of health insurance. there is wide support for this bill and the judiciary committee
has farabl reported similar legislatio in the past. including legislation that passed by the house 406-19 during the 111th congress. the stated goal of the bill is to help restore competition in the health care market. i support this goal and firmly believe this bill must be coupled with larger changes to the existing federal and state health care regulatory schemes. as speaker ryan has noted, states should be empowered to make the right tradeoffs between consumer protections and individual choice, not regulators in washington. this bill does not impact the states' ability to regulate the insurance market. rather this legislation levels the playing field for all health care industry participants while insurers have been exempt from federal antitrust laws for the past 70 years, health care providers and other participants have not. this bill removes this
exemption, ensuring that health insurers are better able to compete to provide quality coverage, thereby benefiting hospitals, doctors, and most importantly patients. in addition, if separate legislation is passed to allow for the more open sale of health insurance across state lines, the competitive health insurance reform act will allow uniform federal antitrust laws to be applied across the marketplace while allowing states to maintain authority as the primary regulators of the health insurance market outside of the antitrust sphere. . the mccarran-ferguson law was passed to alleviate the business of insurance with the states and to allow insurers to engage in certain pro-competitive collaborative activities. this legislation limits significant uncertainty and unnecessary litigation that would likely result from a broader mccarran-ferguson repeal through the use of safe harbors for such historically
pro-expect tiff collaborative activities, specifically the collection of historical lost data. the performance of act wearl services that do not -- actuarial services that do not have restraint. absent these safeguards, insurers will likely disengage from certain pro-consumer collaborative activities, eliminating or impeding smaller insurers from competing and disincentivizing larger insurers from exploring new products and markets. this will lead to further market consolidation and fewer product choices. the impact of which will eventually be borne by the customer. these narrow safe harbors create a presumption that certain pro-competitive activities can continue while maintaining regulation and oversight to the extent any activity crosses over into a
restraint of trade. as a result, insurers can continue to engage in pro-consumer business practices and will be encouraged to provide a diverse range of offerings at fair and reasonable prices. i want to thank mr. gosar for introducing this legislation and urge all of my colleagues to vote for the competitive health insurance reform act and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for such time. mr. conyers: thank you, sir. i rise in qualified support of h.r. 372, the competitive health insurance reform act but i d not endorse the majori exaggerated claims regarding the bill's impact on the affordability and availability of health insurance. repeal would partially
the limited federal antitrust exemption for the business of insurance established by the mccarran-ferguson act in 1945. specifically, the bill only permits federal antitrust enforcement with regard to the business of health insurance. now, house democrats have long supported a full repeal of mccarran-ferguson antitrust exemption for all insurers, not just for health insurers. and in 2010, under a democratic house majority, we passed legislation to repeal the mccarran-ferguson exemption for health insurance by a vote of 4
06-19 even though house republicans had not previously supported moving any version of a mccarran-ferguson repeal bill. ut let me be clear, enacting a . 372 would in no way be substitute for the many health insurance guarantees of the affordable care act. he two things are completely separate. to begin with, enacting h.r. 372 would not significantly improve health care affordability or coverage. according to the congressional budget office, h.r. 372's affects on health insurance premiums would probably be quite small, and enacting the bill would have no significant
et effect on the premiums that private insurers would charge for health or dental insurance. that's according to the congressional budget office. and the consumers union observes that the application of the antitrust laws to some health insurance activity by itself is simply not enough to create a vibrant insurance market because our long experience shows you can't expect a health care system to run effectively on competition alone. that's the consumers union. likewise, the majority's claim that enacting 372 would create major new competition by allowing cross-state insurance
sales is unavailable. current law, including the affordable care act, already allows states to agree with ach other to allow cross-state insurance sales. enabling federal antitrust agencies to police certain forms of anti-competitive conduct will not in and of itself incentivize health insurers to offer products across state lines beyond the incentives that already exist for offering such products. it just won't happen by itself. whatever the incentives for health insurance to offer such products, they have little to do with federal antitrust law or enforcement. finally, enacting h.r. 372
would not ensure that the affordable are act's prohibitions against discrimination and limits on premium growth would remain in place. applies to certain anti-competitive conduct and does not preserve or enhance existing protections for consumers of health insurance. for instance, it does not prohibit discrimination by health insurers on the basis of pre-existing conditions, nor does it reduce premium growth or require health insurers to be accountable for price increases. repeal of the antitrust exemption for health insurance is a complement to and not a replacement for the affordable
care act's many consumer protections. this is not an either/or situation. need h.r. 372 and the affordable care act to be in place to maximize benefits, improve quality and lower costs for consumers. so while i support the bill with some reluctance, i take issue with the majority's rhetoric. it's important, very important that we set the record straight here. i thank the speaker and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, at this time it's my pleasure to yield five minutes to the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar, the chief sponsor of the legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman fr arizonas recognized for five minutes.
mr. gosar: thank you, mr. speaker. i would like to thank chairman goodlatte and the judiciary committee for their thorough work on this bill. i would also like to express my appreciation to the broad group of stakeholders who have helped shape, improve and support this commonsense and consumer-centric legislation. as congress once again repairs our nation's health care system, first and foremost, we must have a competitive and consumer-driven marketplace that empowers the patient. the competitive health insurance reform act of 2017 will restore the application of the federal antitrust laws to help insurance and infuse much-needed competition and transparency to the industry. ending the special interest exemption is the essential first step to broader health care reform. popular cost reducing reform priorities such as selling insurance across state lines and developing diverse consumer-driven plans are
predicated on the robust competitive markets this bill will enable. as a health care provider for more than 25 years, i understand firsthand the importance of a competitive and dynamic in the health insurance market. patients, doctors and hospitals alike benefit when health insurers compete to provide a variety of quality coverage options. it's apparent after 70 years of the mccarran-ferguson, the broad stroke exemption created by congress in the 1940's was not wise. over the decades, and expeditiously, since passage of obamacare in 2009, the health insurance market has devolved into one of the least transparent and most anti-competitive industries in the united states. these antiquated exemptions are no longer necessary for health insurance. there is no reason in law policy or logic for the industry to have special exemptions that are different from all other businesses in the united states. the interpretation of antitrust law has narrowed dramatically over the decades.
many of the practices, which insurers say they need this exemption to do, which is analyzing historical loss data, have proven to be permissible by the federal trade commission and the courts over the years since mccarran-ferguson was passed. this narrowing of scope has resulted in a law whose usefulness has long sense expired. yet, the shell of the zombie law lurks to scare off legitimate legalhallenges from patients, states and providers. these entities do not have the opportunity to -- only the federal government with its resources can rebalance the playing field for interstate commerce fairly. i would like to stress the point that this legislation does not affect any other type of insurance other than health insurance. the language of the bill was carefully and deliberately crafted to exclude the areas of insurance such as life insurance, property, casualty insurance and exempted benefits like disability income insurance. in short, the legislation before the house today does not
repeal mccarran-ferguson act for life insurance, annuity, disability income insurance and long-term care insurance. the broad stakeholders of health care professionals, insurance providers and consumers group support this narrow and important scope of the language -- this language. i'm open to efforts to strengthen the narrow scope of this language should the need and opportunity arise. repeal the specific section of mccarran-ferguson act, which applies only to health insurance, has strong bipartisan support. as labeled earlier, in the 111th congress, it passed by a vote of 406-19, and passed the republican-led house in the 112th congress by a voice vote. some legislation has been introduced by multiple democratic members in the house and the text of my bill has been included in the health care reform bill for the last four congresses in a row. the passage of the competitive health insurance reform act into law is an important first step to increasing competition in the health insurance market d will assist for having
patient-centered health care reform. at the end of the day, you can tell a lot about a bill by who supports it. h.r. 372 has the support of health care professionals that actually provide care to patientsincluding doctors, dentists, surgeons, pharmacists, on that meteorologists and others. this key law by lib -- liberates the industry and doctors and empowers the patients. doctors will see and the insurers will see their patients is empowered with new opportunities, things we can't even imagine today will exist through competition. it's the american way. i would also like to thank the chairman and the members of the committee for their work on this issue. i urge my colleagues to support this bill, and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona yields back. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i am pleased now to recognize a distinguished member of the judiciary committee, the gentleman from rhode island,
mr. cicilline, and i yield him as much time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for such time as he may consume. mr. cicilline: i thank the gentleman for yielding and for his extraordinary leadership on this legislation. mr. speaker, h.r. 372, the competitive health insurance reform act of 2017, would partially repeal a long-standing antitrust exemption established by the mccarran-ferguson act with respect to the business of health and dental insurance. to qualify for this limited antitrust exemption, an insurer must be engaged in the business while these somewhat restrain anti-competitive conduct, it does not preclude the most egregious antitrust violations such as price figuresing, bid rigging by health insurance providors. they should not be immune from antitrust scrutiny while they
reduce availability or o's engage in anti-competitive behavior. and that's why house democrats passed a measure that is similato h.r 372 in 10 by a vote of 406-19, and in 2009 as well. n 1988, 1992 and 1994, judiciary democrats likewise favorably reported legislation to completely repeal the mccarran-ferguson act. while h.r. 372 is only a partial repeal of this exemption, i encourage my colleagues to support this measure. but let me be perfectly clear about three things. first, promoting competition in health insurance markets cannot occur at the expense of the strong protections established by the affordable care act to make health markets for efficient and prohibiting discriminatory insurance policies. these protections are textbook measures that help promote competition in the marketplace,
as a professor, a leading antitrust expert, testified in 2015. second, contrary to president trump's suggestions on twitter, repealing mccarran-ferguson's antitrust exemption for health insurance will not remove state barriers or create new pathways for insurance companies to compete and offer products across state lines. . this approach overlooks the fact that the affordable care act already allows states to establish health care choice compacts to provide for cross-state insurance sales and five states have already enacted out of state purchasing laws. but these laws have done little to encourage cross state sales because insurance companies are not interested. the barriers to end the health insurance markets are not truly regulatory, they are financial and network as a professor from georgetown university's policy
institute has observed. notwithstanding president trump's exaggerated claims to the contrary, enacting this legislation is not a pre-condition for congress authorizing crows-state insurance sales. my colleagues agreed, noting in their report on the bill and i quote, the general consensus including witnesses at the most recent judiciary hearing on the competitive health insurance reform act that allows congress to allow insurance companies sell across state lines does not require pe peel of mccarran-ferguson. and there is no evidence that will improve the availability or affordability. the effect of h.r. 372 on health insurance premiums and i quote would probably be quite small. and enacting the bill would have no significant net effect on the premiums that insurance companies would charge on health or dental insurance.
h.r. 372 will not prevent concentration in the health insurance market. republicans were serious by actually enforcing the antitrust laws they would fund the antitrust agencies. but as we know, republicans plan to make deep cuts to the funding of enforcement agencies like the justice department likely to the detriment of economic opportunity and fair competition. president trump has not even nominated heads to the antitrust agencies. according to the partnership for public service, even though he has been in office for 60 days, he has not picked a nominee for 497 of the 553 positions requiring senate confirmation. worst still, president trump has reportdly considering appointing a former lobbyist for a health insurance giant to run
the antitrust division which is tasked by congress to promote economic freedom and opportunity by promoting free and fair competition in the marketplace. the international business times notes that this particular lobbyist participated in the antitrust issues associated with anthem proposed acquisition of cigna. just last month, the justice department won an important lawsuit initiated under the obama administration to block this merger which according to the department of justice would have harmed consumers and increase health insurance prices while stifling the innovation that is necessary to lower health care costs. unsurprising that president trump's corporate cabinet will include another lobbyist to pursue an extreme agenda. but the significance of this cannot be overstated and will not result in lower prices or more choices for the american
people. in closing, mr. speaker, while i support h.r. 372 as a complement to the affordable care act, i agree with the ranking member that this bill is not a solution to improving the affordability of health insurance. i thank the gentleman for yielding and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from rhode island yields back. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: we reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, have we remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan has 18 minutes remaining. mr. conyers: and what about the other side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia has 21 minutes remaining. mr. conyers: i'm pleased to recognize the gentlelady from texas, ms. sheila jackson lee for as much time as she may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for such time as she
may consume. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the gentleman very much for his leadership and acknowledge the chairman of the committee for his. and thank the gentleman for the time, although i will make the points that i think are important. but i wanted to take the time to thank mr. conyers for the thoughtful legislation he introduced over the years and it leads me to call this the conyers' bill, because of the important contributions it makes to ensuring that our health care is competitive, our health insurance is competitive and his thoughtfulness in this legislation. and so as it comes to the floor, i'm reminded of mr. conyers' influence on this legislation.
it is an interesting time in which it comes, mr. speaker. i do rise to acknowledge the importance of h.r. 372, the competitive health insurance re form act of 2017, a proposal to remove the antitrust exemption in the mccarran-ferguson act. while the previous attempts by the judiciary committee to repeal the mccarran-ferguson act antitrust exemption for health insurance does not raise new issues. opponents assume problems that cannot be documented, unlike the very tangible and economic competitive costs will be incurred if the exemption is allowed to continue. where there is effective competition coupled with transparency in a consumer-friendly regulatory framework, insurers will compete by offering plans by reducing
premiums and reducing co-payments, lowering annual out of pocket costs, managing care, improving drug coverage, offering desirable benefits and making their provider networks great for potential members. that sounds like the affordable care act which we'll celebrate tomorrow for that was the day it was signed. that is what health insurance should be for the american people. this legislation, a very thoughtful legislative initiative, i'm hoping is time to the interior is not trying to put lipstick on a pig and that is the latest configuration of the meaningless trumpcare, which the amendment that will be coming forward will again in essence, throw people off health insurance and take away all that we are intending it to do. but this legislation has reason. other enforcement tools and regulatory policies address competition issues of the state and federal level.
in this way, effective legislation can promote and improve health care delivery and improve cost control by ensuring that insurance companies are required to follow consumer basic friendly rules of the road. wouldn't it be to have the affordable care act in this legislation. all of the points that the affordable care act that eliminates pre-existing conditions, lower premiums, eliminating the -- loering or eliminating deductibles, all of that would have been the right complement to the affordable care act. the additional risk of adding new regulatory and distracting policy makers for more important ways to reduce health care costs suggests that further caution delay on this front is inadvisable given the present circumstances and conditions. but let us not fool ourselves into thinking that the legislation before us is a
panacea that will lead to affordable and accessible health care for all americans. if that goal is the objection, the best way to achieve it is to strengthen the affordable care act and abandon the misguided effort of house republicans to repeal this legislation and replace it with pay more for less. the affordable care act works and i think we in the judiciary committee know full well because we held hearings and briefings and hearings and briefings. we heard from the victims of those who did not have insurance, who lost insurance, did not have enough insurance or the insurance did not cover them. i'm reminded of a story of an eight-year-old girl in the office of an insurance company where her family was begging for coverage because she had leukemia and i understand she lost her life. the affordable care act has significantly improved the
affordability and quality of health of americans. and americans are rightly frightened by republican attempts to repeal the a.c.a. without having in place a superior new plan that maintains comparable coverages and consumer choices and protections. not throwing 24 million americans who will have no insurance. the pay more for less plan fails this test miserably. the it is a massive tax cut for the rich and on the backs on the most vulnerable. those who work and happen to have low income. this is unprecedented in its a dassity. no bill has tried to give so much to the rich by taking away from the poor. $880 billion taken away from medicaid insurance covering nursing home patients, the blind, the disabled and again then giving a great plus and a
great refund and tax credit to the richest of americans. they will be happy. it won't be health care. they have private health insurance. but it will be a big check they'll get in the mail. this pay more for less bill represents the largest transfer of wealth from the 99% to the 1% in american history. this republican scheme gives tax cuts to the rich and pays for it by taking insurance away from 24 million. republicans are giving the pharmaceutical a tax repeal, $25 billion without glanding a reduction in the cost of prescription and brand name drugs. to paraphrase winston churchill, it can be truly be said that never has so much been taken from so many to benefit so few. the pay more fr less droice the medicaid program. c.b.o. estimates 14 million will lose medicaid. so we know that these combined
policies will not help to cure some of the thoughtful deliberations that went into the underlying bill. we want more more competition. we want the insurance products to be the kind of product that we can be sure that provides health care. in short, the republican pay more get less represents a clear and present danger to the financial and health security to american families and the stability of our health care system. the marketplace is complex in how it operates and motivates providers, insurers and consumers. if i can quote the 45th president who said, i really didn't know how difficult this would be. well, we know how difficult it can be and was because you see, mr. speaker, democrats held some 79-plus hearings. we had 181 witnesses-plus. we had hundreds of hours of
hearings. we held thousands i would imagine of town hall meetings. we didn't hold one here and one there. i myself held 11 town hall meetings and we continue to hear from not only the consumer but the rural hospitals, the major hospitals, the senior citizens and particularly those senior citizens on dealing with the costs of prescription drugs. i'm proud to say the medicare part d, we closed the doughnut hole so seniors under the affordable care act do not fall into an abyss, a deep ocean and in essence not take their drugs because they don't have enough money. a regulatory framework is needed to shape this complex environment. this is a word to the administration to help safeguard consumers and keep scosses under control and make a full range of health care services. but our country's long experience shows we cannot
expect to run fairly on market competition. markets do fail on information that is lacking. the goodness of this bill has to go along with recognizing in the a.c.a., banning insurance companies from denying insurance coverage. we had to help them along. you have to help them along to be a good steward. this is a key consumer protection that the free market demonstrate time and time again that it could produce and needed to do. and that is where regulation in the antitrust laws come in to protect consumer choice. it could not produce on its own. it is a violation of antitrust laws for competing companies. the supply chain is subject to antitrust laws and will be beneficial to health care marketplace and to consumers if the health care industry joins
them. . that's why i said this is a thoughtful, important bill to dealing with complex issues of insurance and health care. i'm sad to say that tomorrow, as we celebrate the affordable care act, we will be looking toward thursday where we will be in essence debating a bill that takes 24 million people off of health insurance, period. 24 million will lose their coverage. tax giveaways will continue again to the top 1%. that will be $600 billion in tax breaks to the rich and big corporations. in fact the republican bill gives $2.8 billion to 400 of the richest families in america. but then to add to the downside, the affordable care act was known to create more jobs. and unfortunately, this will see two million jobs destroyed in lo, families will be paying more for less. young people will be hit with a
millenial penalty. and we don't know if this formula that they have still stops the 50 to 64-year-olds from paying higher premiums. women pay comprehensive care. seniors see medicare and medicaid weakened. it does not reduce the deficit as the a.c.a. does. so my final point, if i can, we're glad to come to the floor and honor mr. conyers for this important bill and support h.r. 372. i believe this legislation before us does a lot more good than it does harm. but i hope that we can, in a bipartisan manner, maybe even in a nonpartisan manner, reflect on what is needed to really insure the american people and we can work with the affordable care act that has all these positive elements and move this country forward through competition and health care that saves lives. with that, i thank the gentleman
for yielding. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas has yielded back. the gentleman from virginia is ecognized. >> i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. goodlatte: has the other side yielded back? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves. mr. goodlatte: i'm prepared to close, i'll preserve my time until they close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for such time. mr. conyers: in closing, i want to reiterate my support for this measure, 372. now, i don't know what's happening on the other side, but e have many of us that voted
a substantively identical version of this bill , in 010. and that was including speaker yan, health and human services secretary tom price. and ways ans cmittee chairman kevin brady. voted against a substantively dentical version of this bill. i don't want impugn motives that if n't know about but maybe you support 372, you're going to be making the affordable health are act, a.c.a., better. and so i want to thank my friends on the other side for
helping us out. this is -- this is very -- we passed something like this a few years ago and we were very proud voteit was an overwhelming and so this is a very important step forward. the affordable care act is not going to be affected in any kind of negative way, and that's why i'm eager to join with those that are going to be voting for h.r. 372. and i thank my friends on the other side for supporting 372 as well. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan has yielded back. all time for the -- has yielded back all time for the minority. the gentleman from virginia is recognized to close debate on this bill.
mr. goodlatte: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: our health insurance industry is in a dire situation. premiums and deductibles are skyrocketing, hundreds of percent in some cases. in thstate of the gentleman who is the chief sponsor of this bill, the state of arizona more than 100% increase in just the last year. in 017, the national state average of insurers participating in federal exchanges dropped to four, down from six the previous year. five states will only have one insurer providing plans on their federal exchanges this year. it is time to reverse this trend. the competitive health insurance reform act is an important step in restoring competition to the health insurance industry and will help set the foundation for additional essential reforms that must follow. i would say to my my friend, the gentleman from michigan, the ranking member of the committee, i appreciate very much working
with him on this legislation. but i would also say to him that this legislation, as bipartisan as it is, cannot save the affordable care act. it is drowning. it is denying people coverage. it's costs -- its costs are going up so much that somebody who likes it this year will not be able to afford it next year. the promise that if you like your health insurance, you'll be able to keep it was never true and it's still not true with obamacare. the promise that if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor was never true. the promise that health insurance premiums would go down under obamacare has been proven to be totally false. instead, what we've done is we have denied the american people the right to choose for themselves what access to health care that they need and can afford. we have denied the american people the freedom to decide whether or not they want to
purchase a product that is mandated upon them by the federal government. that's wrong. it's got to change. and that's why we're taking action this week. including the competitive health insurance reform act, but certainly not only the competitive health insurance reform act, to return a patient-crenered health care system to the american people. one that reconnects them with their health care providers. one that will make sure that they have the maximum amount of choice and maximum amount of access to real, affordable health insurance and quality health care in america. i support this bipartisan legislation, i urge my colleagues to do this same and i yield back the balance of my timele the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia has yielded back. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 209, the previous question is ordered on the bill as amened. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill.
those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to restore the application of the federal antitrust laws to the business of health insurance to protect competition and consumers. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from nevada seek recognition? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the chair: is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill? i am opposed to the -- >> i am opposed to the bill in its current form. the chair: the gentlewoman qualifies the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: ms. rosen of nevada moves to recommit the bill -- the chair: without objection the reading is dispensed with. without objection, the gentlewoman from nevada is recognized for five minutes in support of her motion. ms. rosen: thank you, mr. speaker. this is the final amendment to the bill which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted, the bill will
immediately proceed to final passage as amended. last night in an effort to secure more votes to pass the so-called american health care act the g.o.p. made another last-minute attempt to modify ts replacement plan for the affordable care act, a replacement i can only describe as a it's a rouse piece of legislation by offering a short-term fix to try and regulate the massive rise in premiums that americans over the age of 50 are expected to incur under their current plan. h.r. 372 is a measure that simply ends health insurance antitrust exemptions. what's ironic is that the proposed legislation is being managed by the -- messaged by the g.o.p. as a bipartisan bill. a in-prayner. but -- a no-brainer, but the republicans have never lifted a finger to end the antitrust exemption. for years, congressman john conyers and the democrats have advocated ending insurers
special treatment. the reality is, while this is not an objectionable bill on its, it will do nothing to correct the g.o.p. bill that will be unleashed on this country. it will not help us stall the g.o.p.'s bill. yet instead of fixing what we know isn't work, the g.o.p. offered this mandate to help mend a bill that needs major surgery. h.r. 372 is a complement to help fix our health care system, not an alternative. one of the worst aspects of the g.o. perform's repeal is the fact that it implements an age tax. americans over the age of 50 will be forced to pay up to five times more than what young americans would pay for coverage. in my district alone, we have roughly 89,000 people between the ages of 50 and 64 who would see their premiums an the cost of their insurance rise significantly. i recent he heard from one of my
constituents within that age bracket. he's a retired firefighter, served our country for 29 years, and is now disabled. so after many years of service, ted is worried if the g.o.p. plan becomes a new law he and his wife would be kicked off their insurance plan simply because their insurance would become unaffordable. if this is what the g.o.p. has offered to fix their disastrous repeal, then i am sad to say, my friendsing you have missed the mark once again. according to the congressional budget office, if the g.o.p. repeal is enacted, 14 million americans nationwide will be kicked off their insurance coverage by the end of is year alone. so let me be clear. the problem with the g.o.p. repeal is that as americans age they get less and less coverage. we need to protect those americans who are fast approaching their medicare eligible years, but who, for now
are still baring the heaviest cost of private insurance. my motion to recommit make this is possible by turning this band-aid of a bill into something that actually helps drive down costs for older americans. it does this aallowing insurance companies to take part in the bill's safe harbor protections only if they charge individuals over 55 less than three times as much as younger americans. since insurance companies consider these safe harbors critical for their survival, this will reverse one of the worst parts of the republican health plan, allowing insurance companies to charge older americans five times or even more for health insurance. i call on my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to show that they aren't tone deaf and that they haven't lost touch with the needs and wants of their constituents. and i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the motion to recommit so that we can protect our seniors an this midwest vulnerable of americans among us. -- and the most vulnerable of
americans among us. thank you and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlen from virginia seek recognition? >> to oppose the motion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. goodlatte: the mccarran-ferguson act was passed to leave the business of insurance with the states this legislation limits significant uncertainty and unnecessary litigation that would likely result from a broader mccarran-ferguson repeal through the use of safe harbors for such historically pro-competitive, collaborative activities, specifically the collection and distribution of historic call loss data, the determination of loss development factor the performance of actuarial services that to not involve restraints of trade and the use of common forms that are not coercive. absent these safe forwards, insurers will likely disengage from certain pro-consumer
collaborative activity, eliminating or impeding smaller insurers from competing and disincentive sizing larger insurers from harger markets. this will lead to further market consolidation and fewer product choices, the impact of which will be borne by the consumers. these narrow safe harbors create a presumption that certain pro-competitive activities can continue while maintaining regulation and oversight to the extent any activity crosses over into a restraint of trade. as a result insurers can continue to engage in pro-consumer business practices and will be encouraged to provide a diverse range of offerings and fair and reasonable prices. there is no there is no reason to make an exception and therefore i oppose the motion and i urge my colleagues to reject this motion to recommit and support the underlying bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentleman from virginia has yielded back. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the motion is not agreed to. ms. rosen: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8, rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess subject to the pro te
gentleman from georgia is recognized for one hour. mr. collins: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis. pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. during all time yielded is for purposes of debate only. i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include ex-trainus material on house resolution 209 currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. collins: i'm pleased to bring forth this rule on behalf of the rules committee. it provides for consideration of h.r. 372, the competitive health insurance reform act. it provides for one hour of debate for the bill equally divided between the chair and ranking member of the judiciary committee. it also provides for a motion to recommit. yesterday the rules committee had the opportunity to hear from the judiciary committee chairman bob goodlatte and congressman david cicilline on behalf of the judiciary committee. i want to thank chairman goodlatte and the judiciary committee staff for their work
on this legislation. i had an opportunity to review this legislation in the committee hearing and markup. we have heard from several sponsors and witnesses at the judiciary, including the primary sponsor, congressman paul gosar of arizona. in addition to the bill's sponsor, i'd like to recognize one of my colleagues from georgia, austin scoth, for his interest in this topic and leadership on this legislation. congressman scott testified before the judiciary committee on this bill and worked actively to highlight this issue. the issue of this issue is not a new one but one that deserves more attention. one similar to the health reform act won under 2010 and under a republican congress in 2012. mr. speaker, much of our attention on the floor this week is focused on making health care more affordable and accessible to the american people. the competitive health insurance reform is part of that plan. -- reform act is part of that plan. we saw soaring costs that
hamstrung by a.c.a. regulations. as a result, insurers have fled the exchanges while access to quality care have disappeared along with them. today more than ever we need to institute reforms that restore options for americans by encouraging healthy competition in the health insurance market. the problem actually dates back to the 1940's. and the competitive health insurance reform act helps address the problem that's increasingly demanding attention. you see in 1944, mr. speaker, the supreme court held for the firns time that insurance was part of interstate commerce and was therefore subject to the antitrust laws. congress responded a year later by passing the me karan ferguson act which established certain exemptions from the federal antitrust regulations for the business of insurance. that law remains in place today and reexamining it in the context of health insurance market has received bipartisan support. the competitive health insurance reform act would amend the 1945 >> we are going to leave this here to get testimony from