Jared Polis

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna).

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire if the gentleman has any remaining speakers.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is no surprise that nobody wants to come to the floor and talk in favor of this bill because it is such an awful bill. This bill would allow your broadband provider of internet services to sell all of your personal information. So, again, the other side is trying to conflate two entirely different things. When you do a transaction within an e-commerce site or search site, you are agreeing to their terms of service, and you are engaging in a discrete transaction, and the information that you enter is subject to their terms of use--completely appropriate. A competitor is only a click away. Whether there are any monopolistic content providers is a different matter for a different day, and a different Federal agency--the FTC. What we are talking about here is the access piece, the broadband access piece. They actually, through the pipes, get to see all of the information that is entered that you see: every email; all of your credit card information; if you use the internet for any personal medical research, all of your personal medical research; your kids' information, everything your kids and minors in the family do. And what this bill says is: you don't have to require people to opt in to have their information used. Consumers should be in control of their own information. They shouldn't be forced to sell and give that information to who knows who simply for the price of admission for access to the internet. Again, we all want there to be a reasonable capital return on infrastructure and on broadband. That is something we can agree on. If there is a case to be made that we can do better in providing an economic return to encourage rural broadband, I am for it. I know many of my colleagues on the other side would be for it. Let's do it. What we don't want to do in that process is turn over the entire value chain of the internet to the infrastructure and provider side, rather than the dynamic innovative content and e-commerce side. I would like to read an excerpt from two letters from groups who are opposed to this bill. The first is a coalition of 19 media, justice, consumer protection, civil liberties, and privacy groups. Their concern that: ``Without these rules, ISPs could use and disclose customer information at will. The result could be extensive harm caused by breaches or misuse of data.'' They remind us that: ``The FCC's order simply restores people's control over their personal information and lets them choose the terms on which ISPs can use it, share it, or sell it.'' Consumers should be in control of their own information. The second letter is from Consumers Union, the policy arm of Consumer Reports. They say, in part, that this bill ``would strip consumers of their privacy rights and . . . leave them with no protections at all.'' I include in the Record those two letters, Mr. Speaker. January 27, 2017. Hon. Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,

Mr. POLIS. I also include in the Record an op-ed that I had the opportunity to publish last week on this topic. My piece is entitled ``Why Americans should be worried about their online broadband privacy,'' talking about this very bill that Congress has the tenacity to try to bring to the floor under this rule to force the most personal information pieces of information about every aspect of your internet behavior, and that of your family members, to be given to the broadband provider to do whatever they want with. [From the Huffington Post, March 22, 2017] Why Americans Should Be Worried About Their Online, Broadband Privacy (By Jared Polis) Over the last couple of months, the dialogue surrounding government surveillance and consumer privacy has shifted in a troubling direction. While news outlets are covering everything from false claims of wiretaps to outlandish claims of reconnaissance microwaves, Republicans are quietly taking real and dramatic steps to protect corporate profits at the cost of your privacy. A few weeks ago, Senator Jeff Flake (R- Ariz.) and Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) filed bills in both the House of Representatives and the Senate that, if passed, will permanently eliminate broadband users' privacy protections, affecting nearly everyone who uses the Internet. The legislation allows broadband providers to access and sell consumers' information without their permission. As our gateway to the Internet, Broadband Internet Service Providers--commonly referred to as ISPs--have access to a wealth of personal information, from our physical location to our shopping habits and the medical issues we research--can reveal potentially sensitive details about our personal lives. Every search, every website visited, every article read online, see how often you log into and use your various online accounts and even, in some cases, collect your location. Think about what someone could conclude from this information about you--your overall health, risk activity, political affiliation, preferences. What could they do with that information? Could they change pricing of goods and services depending on your income and past purchasing behaviors? Could you face challenges obtaining insurance due to perceptions on your health or risk behavior based on your search activity? This rule change will literally allow broadband providers to have access to your entire personal life on a network and sell it. After years of advocating for further consumer protections, in October 2016, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) took a responsible and commonsense step to establish broadband privacy protections--but only months later Republicans are trying to roll back the progress made and repeal the existing rules, fighting alongside corporate broadband providers. The legislation is unnecessary, as the FCC has already taken steps to review the rules, pausing implementation to conduct a careful examination of the complexities of implementation. The Republican legislation, would stop this process, bypass public comment, and eliminate the privacy protections permanently and irrevocably. That is why I am drawing attention to this critical issue, before it's too late.

Mr. POLIS. Like these groups, I also believe that privacy is worth defending. In the wrong hands, information can be damaging and used for the wrong reasons. Simply put, this bill is about conveying the value of the internet to the infrastructure side rather than the content side. And rather than finding common ground to establish reasonable ROI for broadband and internet investments, this bill would hurt the entire internet ecosystem by breaking down the trust between consumers and service providers. What they are really trying to do here is shift the reasonable burden for cybersecurity measures from the internet servers onto consumers. At the same time, they want to eliminate the requirements of cybersecurity measures, even notify consumers of violations, and they want to collect more and more consumer data without any protections to do what they want with. Supporting this bill would make each and every user of the internet vulnerable to violations of our privacy and vulnerable to cybersecurity threats without even receiving notifications of when our own intimate information, like credit card numbers, is compromised. The FCC took a responsible, deliberate, and commonsense step to establish broadband privacy protections in October 2016. If they need to be tweaked or changed, let's have a process to do that. This bill is not that process. It not only undoes those privacy protections but prevents the FCC from ever issuing a rule that has those privacy protections in it. Mr. Speaker, if passed, this bill would be an irrevocable step in the wrong direction. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, look, first of all, this rather outrageous Republican healthcare bill still will cost 24 million Americans their healthcare insurance; and if you are lucky enough not to be one of those 24 million Americans, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the head of which was appointed by a Republican, says it will also increase the cost by 15 or 20 percent for those who are lucky enough to keep their insurance. In addition to that, it has a crushing age tax that forces people aged 50 to 64 to pay premiums five times higher than what other Americans pay for health care. As if that age tax wasn't enough, in this new amendment, which most of us only saw for the first time at 6:30 this morning, they increased the Medicare tax for another 5 years by 1 percent, so Americans will have to pay even more in taxes. The last manager's amendment, which we just got the information on, actually would increase the deficit by over $150 billion more than their original bill, somehow without covering even one additional American. So what is going on here? They are creating a bill that has more taxes with this manager's amendment, creating a bill that costs the American people more and reduces the deficit more, and then pawns off the hard decisions to the States, without giving them enough to maintain the essential benefits that Americans rely on, like prescription drugs, rehabilitative care, and mental health services. They are not giving the States enough money to maintain those. And then they are saying: But you, States, be the bad guys and you guys make the cut so we in Washington can pat ourselves on the back and look good, even while we increase the deficit by more than $150 billion more than the original healthcare bill that was introduced last week and even though we maintain the age tax that forces people between the age of 50 and 64 to pay up to five times more than other Americans. This is simply the wrong way to go. Sometimes you need to reboot, restart, get together, look at real ideas that Democrats and Republicans have put on the table to reduce costs and expand coverage. That is what this discussion should be about. Yet, to do that, we need to defeat this rule now and go back to the starting point.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. POLIS. Point of parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, how many Members must come before the Speaker establishing that this qualifies under the privileges of the House affecting the integrity of the House until the Speaker rules in our favor?

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Chair will rule favorably on behalf of the American people. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I have a privileged resolution at the desk.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, under rule IX, clause 1, questions of the privileges of the House and those affecting the rights of the House, its safety, dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings, that is the section we are talking about here today when we are talking about privilege. Mr. Speaker, truly, there is nothing more of a threat to the very integrity of the legislative branch in the House than ignoring our duty to provide a check and balance on the executive branch. To restore the dignity of the House inherent in rule IX, clause 1, we absolutely must use our authority to request that President Trump's tax returns are given to the American people. The American people demand to know the full scope of the President's financial background because there are legitimate concerns which, frankly, were worsened this very week by the hearing in the Select Intelligence Committee where the FBI and NSA testified there is an ongoing investigation to determine if there was coordination between the President's campaign and Russia. The Internal Revenue Code already has language that lays out a path for the Ways and Means Committee to obtain those tax returns and review them in a respectful manner; and, frankly, there is precedent for that provision being used. Fifty-one tax returns of Americans were requested the last time they used it. The House needs to demonstrate that our Members are listening to the valid concerns about the integrity of the Republic. The House needs to show that we care about protecting our Constitution and our system of checks and balances. When I look at the language, the privileges of the House, those affecting the rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings, I can see nothing that fits that language more than this motion before you today. Let's shine a light on the President's conflicts so we, as a Congress, and the American people can judge what is occurring, where the conflicts lie, whether his decisions are being made for himself or his business interests or foreign interests or for the greater good of the American people. I call upon the Speaker to rule in favor of allowing this privileged resolution to move forward and for the President to disclose his tax returns immediately.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule today, one that provides for consideration of H.R. 372, the Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act of 2017, a good bill that I support. Mr. Speaker, the Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act amends the McCarran-Ferguson Act so that the health insurance companies would no longer be exempt from Federal antitrust regulation. Currently, unfortunately, most types of insurance, including property or life insurance, are exempt from Federal antitrust regulations and statutes. The McCarran-Ferguson Act makes it clear that the insurance industry heretofore has been regulated only 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 the more transparency in our healthcare system, the better off consumers will be. Repealing the health insurance exemption of the McCarran-Ferguson Act may improve competition, but it would almost also result in more transparency in health insurance. It is something that we sorely need. So I intend to join many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in supporting the underlying bill because it increases transparency. The reality is that 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 healthcare legislation, the American Health Care Act. Mr. Speaker, so I don't want anybody listening to this to be distracted by a bipartisan bill that we hope becomes law. In any way, shape, or form, this bill does nothing when, in 2 days, we are considering a bill that threatens the health care for 24 million Americans, increases prices for Americans who are currently insured by 15 to 20 percent, and throws millions off of the rolls of the insured. The Republican healthcare bill that is coming to the floor Thursday will 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 to 20 percent. How is that a good idea? It is not. This bill today does nothing. Nothing. I don't even think the advocates of it 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 Nikita, Coloradoans who have shared their stories with me, the passage of the American Health Care Act, the Republican healthcare bill, would devastate their lives. Greg was diagnosed with a rare form of cancer in 2014, in his midforties. After several surgeries, his doctors told him his condition is inoperable and could only be treated chronically by medication. It is a very expensive injection that has so far been successful, thank goodness, at keeping the tumor from growing and allowing Greg to live an ordinary life. Now, Greg needs this shot every 3 weeks. It is thousands of dollars each time. And despite working at least two jobs, it is not something that Greg could afford to have--Greg would not have health care without the Affordable Care Act. He would have to quit his jobs and become destitute and go on Medicaid. The Republicans are basically saying to people like Greg: We want you to be lazy. We want you to quit your job so you could have health care. We want you to live off the government dole of this brand-new entitlement program that we created to hand you money rather than work for yourself and pay for your own insurance. That is the message the Republicans are sending to people like Greg across the country. Nikita lives in Boulder and has spent much of her life battling endometriosis. In 2014, she was having trouble walking because of her condition and she missed work for a few weeks. After the passage of the Affordable Care Act, she was able to afford the surgery that she needed to improve her mobility and manage her pain. In her message to me, Nikita emphasized that affordable health care is what allows her to work and to be a citizen that pays taxes and contributes to society rather than somebody who is shut in at home, living off the government dole like Republicans are trying to force her to do with the new entitlement program that they are creating. If Nikita didn't have the healthcare coverage she obtained through the Accordable Care Act, she said that 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 Nikita expressed 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 threatens to pull the rug out from so many of my constituents and millions across the country while simultaneously raising rates by 15 to 20 percent for people who are currently insured and paying for their own insurance. Look, H.R. 372 is a fine bill. Republicans are using it as a talking point, claiming that somehow it addresses costs in some meaningful way. And given how complicated the healthcare system is and the critical role that we all have to play in it and every little piece plays, it is important to lay out the facts of the Republican plan, which H.R. 372 does nothing to address. It is a fact fewer people will be covered under the Republican plan. The Congressional Budget Office says 24 million people will lose their healthcare coverage over the next decade. It is a fact that middle-aged Americans will pay five times more in premiums. The age tax is a big part of the Republican healthcare bill. Americans ages 55 to 64 will see their cost increase by over $8,000. Most of my constituents in that age group simply can't afford that every year. It is a fact that those currently enrolled in Medicaid programs are at risk of losing their coverage. The Republicans' concern that Medicaid expansion to the Affordable Care Act was coercive, they should be equally concerned about the per capita cap in the Republican plan. It is the flip side of the same coin. Those are just some of the many troubling facts about the Republican healthcare bill. H.R. 372, removing the antitrust exemption, is a fine bill. It 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 Nikita not to work and to be destitute in order to get health care and go on the government dole, creating a brand-new entitlement program that States administer, increasing the costs of insurance for people who are already insured by 15 to 20 percent. Mr. Speaker, if those are the answers, what is the question? Is it how to make health care cost more and how to have less people covered? If that is the question, the Republican bill is a good answer. That is not the question my constituents are asking me, and I don't think it is a question their constituents are asking my Republican colleagues. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Two weeks ago, the Republicans pushed ahead with their healthcare 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 and increase costs by 15 to 20 percent for those who currently have insurance. Mr. Speaker, late last night the Republicans introduced a major manager's amendment that changes the bill, frankly. Mr. Speaker, just as it was irresponsible to move forward without knowing the full effects of the original bill, it is completely reckless to even know whether this manager's amendment makes it better or worse and the impact that it has on health care for American families. It is reckless to consider and vote on their amended bill before the Congressional Budget Office even says how much it costs, or how much it will increase insurance by, or whether it throws people off insurance rolls. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule that would require a CBO 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 to be made publicly available before the bill may be considered on the House floor. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth), the ranking member on the Committee on the Budget, to discuss our proposal.

Mr. POLIS. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am awaiting the graphic presentation about some of what is at stake in this debate about the Affordable Care Act, the fundamental debate about whether we try to fix health care in this country, make insurance cost less, or whether we move backwards under this Republican healthcare proposal. The Republican healthcare proposal would create an entirely new entitlement program administered by the States. In creating this program, it would throw 24 million people who have healthcare insurance today off of the insurance rolls. They would become uninsured Americans. It would add an age tax on older Americans. It would also increase the cost of health care for people who have health care today and pay for it, by 15 to 20 percent. Now, they wouldn't be getting more for that 15 to 20 percent. Mr. Speaker, if you can believe it, they would actually be getting less insurance for that 15 to 20 percent because many of the requirements that insurance has to have are rolled back, the Federal protections under this Republican healthcare 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 by 15 to 20 percent--and, by the way, these figures are from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the head of which was appointed by Republicans. These are solid predictions that are done by people who were appointed by Republicans. We are not citing any outside group or naysayers who don't like the bill. These are the objective Congressional Budget Office numbers that we are citing here in their entirety. So, in addition to costing people 15 to 20 percent more, this bill also, for reasons unknown, gives an enormous multibillion-dollar tax break to millionaires and billionaires in New York and California. That is where most of them live. Now, there are a few in other places, of course, too. But it is just unclear why, at the same time Republicans are trying to change the healthcare law, they want to go back to giving enormous tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans. We are not even talking the wealthiest 1 percent. We are talking, like, one-tenth of a percent who are going to see the bulk of the benefit from these tax cuts, at the same time that health care is being taken away from 24 million people who have insurance today, and at the same time those who are fortunate enough to be able to continue to have it will have to pay 15 to 20 percent more. That is why, Mr. Speaker, this bill is so unpopular. If you are going to go through the trouble of creating an entirely new entitlement program, at least do it in a way where it actually helps people afford coverage versus hurts their ability to afford coverage. Now, I gave the example in my remarks of Greg, and that is far from unique because people today, who rely on the subsidies to be able to get health insurance within the Affordable Care Act, if the Republican bill passes, would have to quit their jobs and rely on Medicaid instead, or they would have to take a lower-wage job. Instead of earning $40,000 or $50,000 a year, they would have to quit that job and try to take a minimum-wage job so they could qualify for Medicaid. Essentially, this Republican healthcare bill is telling Americans, you need to be lazy and not work if you want health care because, if you want to work a job, we are going to take it away. We are only going to provide it if you quit your job or take a minimum-wage job under Medicaid. So that is not the message or the incentives that we want to send to the American people. One of the great aspects of the Affordable Care Act is 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 Act, we were locked into a scenario where people who were on Medicaid lost their Medicaid benefits if they got a raise at work, depending on the size of their family. It could have been a raise from, let's say, $14 an hour to $16 an hour. They couldn't work overtime. They couldn't work a second job, as so many people do to escape from poverty because they would lose their health care. The Affordable Care Act said: You know what? We are 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 help people work their way out of poverty, and leaves no alternative for people like Nikita and Greg, other than you have to quit your job or work a minimum-wage job because, otherwise, we are going to take your health care away from you. That is the reason that the projections came back--no surprise--that 24 million people will lose their healthcare insurance. It is the reason that healthcare insurance rates will increase 15 to 20 percent. We don't know the reason that they are also giving a tax cut to billionaires in the same bill. We know they want to do that, but they should do that in a tax bill. There is an effort at tax reform. I think they are talking about giving an additional tax cut to billionaires in that bill. That will be debated separately. But it is unclear how--or it is more than unclear as to why it would help make health care more affordable to give a tax cut to billionaires. It just doesn't make any sense. Let's debate that under a different bill. I am happy to do that. As part of a broader tax proposal, we will see what else is in it. We know Republicans want to do that, but they shouldn't do that under the guise of health care. So, again, Mr. Speaker, what you have here in this Republican bill, which this current bill does nothing to change--and this bill will pass, it has passed before, and we hope the Senate acts on it to remove the antitrust exemption. This bill does nothing to change the facts on the ground that the Republican healthcare bill that creates a brand new entitlement program would make Americans pay more for less, 24 million people would lose their insurance, there is an age tax on older Americans, guts Medicaid, huge tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, increases of 15 to 20 percent for Americans who are lucky enough to retain their insurance, and discourages work and encourages people to be lazy at home to get health care. It is the opposite of what we want to do. It is contrary to the American work ethic, and it is contrary to all incentives around cost containment. I hope--I really hope, Mr. Speaker--that the House defeats this awful bill to replace the Affordable Care Act, even as we pass some of these commonsense bipartisan measures like the one before us today that, around the edges, could potentially affect antitrust within insurance companies. Mr. Speaker, the bill under consideration today is a commonsense piece of legislation. It has passed the House before. Ultimately, however, it distracts from the elephant in the room. The American Health Care Act is the Republican bill to roll back and change the Affordable Care Act and create a brand new entitlement program while increasing the insurance rates for American families, providing tax cuts to billionaires, and throwing 24 million people off of the insurance rolls. My colleagues across the aisle had 7 years to work with us to improve the Affordable Care Act, but they refused to work with us to make health care more affordable and to expand coverage. Instead, they have drafted a bill that does the exact opposite. No wonder we were unable to find common ground when our goals were different. The goals of myself and Democrats have always been to reduce costs and expand coverage. Reading into what the Republican goals must be if this bill meets them, it seems like they are working to decrease coverage and increase costs--the opposite of what we are working for. How will my colleagues look into the eyes of a former veteran or a small-business owner or a middle class family or my constituents like Greg or Nikita and somehow tell them that 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 healthcare coverage? What will my colleagues say to 24 million people who lose healthcare coverage entirely under this bill? The Republican healthcare bill that this body will consider on Thursday will do extraordinary damage to the healthcare system and leave millions of Americans guessing as to how much healthcare costs will cost and what will be covered. The American healthcare bill threatens to roll back important protections in coverage gains delivered by the ACA, and 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 even changes the bill for better or worse. My colleague, Mr. Yarmuth, made a very compelling argument about 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 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. Mr. Speaker, 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, but never, not once, to take our eye away from the ball of trying to decrease costs rather than increase costs and trying to expand coverage rather than retract coverage. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, there is kind of a rather ridiculous healthcare bill that this body may or may not be considering soon. First of all, it creates an entirely new entitlement program at the State level rather than the Federal level. Second of all, in an unrelated matter, it provides huge tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires--mostly in New York and California--which has nothing to do with making health care affordable. I mean, it is fine. Republicans want to do that. We get that. They always want to cut taxes for millionaires, but don't put it in the same bill as we are here trying to provide health care for people and bring down our insurance rates. Third of all, this bill that is supposed to somehow help is going to increase insurance costs to American families by 15 to 20 percent. Most families can't afford that, and 24 million people will lose their insurance. So there is just no way, shape, or form that this bill makes any sense. There are a lot of positive improvements and suggestions that we can make to the Affordable Care Act. There are a lot of great ideas with us providing a public option, more pricing transparency, a lot of great ideas that probably Democrats and Republicans support; but, frankly, they missed the mark on this bill. These aren't ideas that Democrats or Republicans support, because they are bad ideas that cost families money.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) to discuss our proposal to make sure we actually know the cost of what is before this body.