Jared Polis

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, 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 2017. 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 from presenting our ideas for improving this bill. We are not even allowed a 10-minute debate or a vote on any of the ideas that many of my colleagues brought forward. The gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici) proposed an amendment to require the legislation only take effect if the Congressional Budget Office determined premiums for older workers wouldn't increase. Sounds like a reasonable idea to at least debate for an hour, 10 minutes. It is important to do. The gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Torres) offered an amendment that would have required all association health plans to continue the 10 essential health benefits of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to obtain State certification--again, not even allowed to vote on her amendment. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat) offered an amendment to allow States to continue regulating any association health plan, including regulations related to benefits, consumer protections, and rating restrictions--not allowed. 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. I 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. But 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 repeal of the Affordable Care Act, which 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 ACA changed that practice by requiring health insurance sold through an association to meet the same insurance standards of coverage sold to 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 is also little evidence that it has even been effective to expand coverage. That is why many consumer and advocacy groups, including, for instance, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, have come out opposed to this bill. But even more disturbing is the fact that we are 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 is narrow in scope. In fact, when we marked it up in our committee, the Education and the Workforce Committee, that very same day, the Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means Committees were marking up a bill to create a brand-new entitlement program, remove health care from 24 million Americans who have it today, and increase costs by 15 to 20 percent for those who are paying for their insurance today. At that time, the Republican healthcare bill had only been 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 is unconscionable to deny people healthcare insurance. It may be a life-or-death proposition, and we need to do a better job understanding bills before we vote on them, which is one of the reasons that we need to make sure we know the cost of this so-called manager's amendment, these midnight changes to the repeal of the Affordable Care Act. What is interesting with this proposed American Health Care Act the Republicans plan to bring to the floor, it was just reported--and I will be submitting the article for the Record--that the Republican bill actually results in more people being uninsured than if ObamaCare were simply repealed outright. So rather than repealing it outright, what Republicans are doing is giving a tax break to billionaires, creating a brand-new entitlement program, throwing 24 million people off the insurance rolls, and increasing costs by 15 to 20 percent. It would actually throw less people off insurance if they simply repealed ObamaCare. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from The New York Times. [From The New York Times, Mar. 21, 2017] The Upshot--Public Health Fewer Americans Would Be Insured With G.O.P. Plan Than With Simple Repeal (By Margot Sanger-Katz) The Congressional Budget Office recently said that around 24 million fewer Americans would have health insurance in 2026 under the Republican repeal plan than if the current law stayed in place. That loss was bigger than most experts anticipated, and led to a round of predictable laments from congressional Democrats--and less predictable ones from Republican senators, including Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and John Thune of South Dakota, who told reporters that the bill needed to be ``more helpful'' to low-income people who wanted insurance. But one piece of context has gone little noticed: The Republican bill would actually result in more people being uninsured than if Obamacare were simply repealed. Getting rid of the major coverage provisions and regulations of Obamacare would cost 23 million Americans their health insurance, according to another recent C.B.O. report. In other words, 1 million more Americans would have health insurance with a clean repeal than with the Republican replacement plan, according to C.B.O. estimates. The C.B.O. estimated what would happen after a simple repeal when it considered a bill that Congress passed last year. (President Obama later vetoed that bill.) The bill left parts of Obamacare in place, so the 23 million estimate didn't come with the kind of detailed analysis that accompanied last week's score of the American Health Care Act. But the similarity of the two estimates highlights some of the difficulties of the current proposal, both for Democrats, who are strongly criticizing potential coverage losses, and for the repeal-or-die crowd, who hate the structure of this new bill. ``It's reaffirmed how exceedingly complicated and convoluted the approach the House leadership took,'' said Dan Holler, the vice president for communications and government relations at Heritage Action, an advocacy group firmly in the repeal-or-die camp. Late Monday, House leadership revealed a set of amendments to the bill, which will be considered when the bill comes up for a vote. But, if they are adopted, the changes are unlikely to have major effects on overall coverage numbers. If anything, the changes might lead to a larger increase in the number of Americans without health insurance. The people who would end up without health insurance are slightly different in the two cases. The current bill would cause more people to lose employer insurance, while a straight repeal bill would most likely cause more people who buy their own coverage to become uninsured. A simple repeal would be worse for Americans with pre-existing conditions, but the current bill would be worse for older Americans who are relatively healthy. Both approaches would lead to major reductions in the number of Americans covered by Medicaid. The bill that Congress passed in 2016 is the third scenario. It would have kept Obamacare's major insurance regulations on the books, including its rule that health insurers need to sell insurance at the same price to healthy and sick customers of the same age. It would have removed funding for the expansion of Medicaid, dropped subsidies to help people buy health coverage, and eliminated the individual and employer mandates in the law. The results of those changes would be drastic: In a decade, 32 million more people would be without health insurance, according to the estimates. The C.B.O. essentially said it was a policy combination that would break the insurance market, resulting in substantially more people losing coverage than gained it under Obamacare. The kind of full repeal that some Republicans are calling for would, of course, be hard to pass. Even if every member of their caucus supported the approach, most experts believe that repealing Obamacare's major insurance provisions would require a type of legislation that would be vulnerable to a Senate filibuster, and would thus require at least eight Democratic votes. All three approaches would result in meaningful reductions in the number of Americans with health coverage. But, in the end, it appears that the long-term effects of the current Republican plan don't look that different from full repeal.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, Margo Sanger-Katz said, in part: ``But one piece of context has gone little noticed: The Republican bill would actually result in more people being uninsured than if ObamaCare were simply repealed. Getting rid of the major coverage provisions and regulations of ObamaCare would cost 23 million Americans their health insurance. . . . In other words, 1 million more Americans would have health insurance with a clean repeal than with the Republican replacement plan, according to CBO estimates.'' So it is just unclear what the Republicans are trying to do here. If the goal was 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. What Democrats wanted to do is improve the Affordable Care Act. And I want to be clear, none of us have ever argued the Affordable Care Act is perfect. I pushed for fixes. So many of my Democratic and Republican colleagues have pushed for fixes to strengthen the law, like repealing the medical device tax, which adds cost to health care, and altering the Cadillac tax on insurance premiums. In the Education and the Workforce Committee, I actually offered three amendments to show some of the ideas that I and some of my colleagues had to improve the Affordable Care Act. They offered an amendment to establish a public option in the exchange, to provide a baseline of competition in every ZIP Code in this country--defeated on a partisan vote. I should add that my proposal for a public option--and I am a cosponsor of the bill to do the same--would actually reduce the budget deficit by over $50 billion. I also offered an amendment for pricing transparency to help make the market in health care work. One of the major market fallacies in health care is a Byzantine pricing structure where, frequently, different entities and people are paying different amounts for the same thing. If we had simple pricing transparency and quality transparency, we would go a long way towards making markets work in health care--defeated on a party vote. Finally, I offered an amendment that would have 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, one-tenth as much. It is not unique to the EpiPen. By no means is that an exception to the rule. In fact, it is the rule. By allowing reimportation of prescription drugs, a 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 is important to think about who in our districts and States it most affects. I think of Pat Hayward, a constituent in my district who lives in Loveland. Pat has so many family members who would be directly impacted by the repeal of the ACA. For instance, her husband has melanoma and over the years has needed several procedures to remove cancerous cells from his skin. Had 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, the very type of coverage he needed, because it was a preexisting 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 that he needed. But it is not just Pat's husband who has benefited and perhaps is alive and thriving today because of the protections of the Affordable Care Act. Pat's eldest son took advantage of a 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, but thanks to comprehensive mental health treatment and the protections of the 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 it--their son is now 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 story--and Pat wanted me to share her story--because families like the Haywards are like families in every 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 am sure that yours has as well, Mr. Speaker. Medical challenges crop up unexpectedly. They don't have any bias toward a political party. They affect Democrats and Republicans and Independents and Greens and apathetic voters and diligent participants in our civic system. They make no distinction. 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. And like so many of my constituents, Pat told me she would rather see the current system improved than thrown out entirely, and I agree. That is why I offered the pricing transparency amendment, the public option amendment, and the reimportation of prescription drug amendment; and there are dozens of other ideas to improve the Affordable Care Act from my side of the aisle. I offered amendments in committee that would have codified these provisions into law. I plan to continue to fight to improve access and lower healthcare costs, but dismantling the Affordable Care Act is simply counterproductive towards that end. The Republican proposal to create a brand-new entitlement program would cause 24 million Americans to lose their insurance--over 1 million more than repealing the Affordable Care Act. For those who are lucky enough to still have their insurance, it would increase rates by 15 to 20 percent. It would also, for reasons unknown, have an enormous tax cut for billionaires and millionaires. We know Republicans want to do that, but they should do that through a tax bill, not through something that is supposed to be a healthcare bill--enormous tax cuts. We are not even talking the wealthiest 1 percent. Most of those tax cuts go to the wealthiest one-tenth of 1 percent of Americans. That certainly doesn't help reduce the cost of health care. Again, this bill can be debated, and, frankly, many of us feel it presents a problem in the risk pools that remove consumer protections. There is a solvency issue around some of these groups. There is a legitimate debate to be had, but we certainly haven't heard anybody present that somehow this bill is any kind of answer to making health care more affordable or expanding coverage. What we have before us over the next couple of days is a bill that not only is the answer, but is a bill that creates an even bigger problem. The Republican healthcare 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, and raising rates for those Americans who are lucky enough to still have their insurance after the Republicans remove it from tens of millions of people. If that bill is the answer, what is the question? Is the question, Mr. Speaker: How do we make health care cost 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 that, 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 that 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 have. I was disappointed that my three amendments were shut out in partisan votes in committee, and I am hopeful that by resetting this process, we can work together to reduce costs and expand coverage. Defeating the rule today will be the first step towards accomplishing that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, the statistics we are talking about, the fact that it will cost Americans 15 to 20 percent 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, the head of which was appointed by a Republican. They do diligent work to determine how much bills cost and what their effect is. Now, of course, you know, those are best estimates. Maybe, instead of 24 million people who will lose coverage under the Republican healthcare bill, maybe it will be 25 million, maybe it will be 23 million. There is always a little bit of variation on what those predictions are. But whether it is 23 million or 25.6 million, the fact that Americans--millions, tens of millions of Americans--will lose coverage under this Republican bill should be a flashing warning sign that it is time to slow down and work in a collaborative manner to improve the Affordable Care Act, rather than create a brand new entitlement program that throws 24 million people off the insurance rolls, and increases the cost for those who remain by 15 to 20 percent. This bill immediately before us is a diversion from the real story in health care. In my home State alone, 600,000 Coloradans would likely lose coverage if 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 gains. It would create a brand new entitlement program, while delivering record tax breaks for billionaires in New York and California. It is 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 is 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 cost of, before we are voting on it. This is simple, Mr. Speaker. Democrats are excited to roll up our sleeves and work together to create a plan that will reduce healthcare 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 FDA, which President Trump himself mentioned in this very Chamber as a proposal that can reduce the cost of approving drugs from the $1.2 billion it costs today, which is passed along to consumers, to a much lower cost, thereby passing the savings along to consumers. There are plenty of good ideas the Democrats and Republicans can work together on. None of them are 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 healthcare 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 healthcare subsidies are not forced into medical bankruptcy and to give up their jobs and rely on Medicaid because of Republican efforts to ram through this brand new entitlement program. Let's get this right. There is plenty of opportunity to work together to reduce costs and expand coverage. The American Health Care Act does the exact opposite. It increases costs and reduces coverage. And instead of these incremental bills, like this so-called Small Business Health Fairness Act, which actually winds up removing protections and pushing more costs onto working families and seniors, we should improve upon and fix the Affordable Care Act that we put in place 7 years ago. We should support innovation to produce healthier outcomes, to reduce costs, and, yes, to expand coverage across our country. 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 preexisting condition, like I talked about Pat's husband in my district who suffers from melanoma, it doesn't matter whether he is a Republican or a Democrat or Independent or whether he is not even registered at all. What matters is that he is 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 lifesaving monthly injections that allow him to maintain his quality of life and continue to work and pay taxes and support his kids and family. That is what healthcare coverage is all about. So let's stop this silly partisanship. This Republican American Health Care Act actually kicks more people off of the healthcare rolls than simply repealing ObamaCare. By creating this brand new entitlement program, they are actually costing an additional 1 millions Americans their healthcare insurance. But the answer is not to cost 23 million people their healthcare insurance. It is 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 healthcare insurance which, in turn, reduces the costs 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 that they have based on their life experiences, that they want to present before this body to reduce the cost of health care. Let's let them do it. Let's have an open process. So, 150 amendments from Democrats were shot down in committees, not even allowed to be debated, not even allowed to be included in this healthcare bill. Three of mine were shot down. In this very rule today, amendments by Mr. Espaillat and Ms. Bonamici were not even allowed to be debated. The American people want health care to be affordable, and they want Republicans and Democrats to work together to accomplish that end. Let's vote ``no'' on this rule. Let's reset the process. Let's fix health care. Let's expand coverage. Let's 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 we can know the cost of any manager's amendment before we vote on it; to vote ``no'' on the rule, and to vote ``no'' on the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first of all, amendments that were brought forward by Ms. Bonamici, germane. Republicans shut it down, didn't allow a debate. Amendment brought forward by Norma Torres for this very bill, germane--not allowed to be debated for not even 10 minutes, not 5 minutes, not even 1 minute. Mrs. Torres wasn't even allowed to offer her amendment under this rule that only allowed Republican amendments. Finally, Mr. Espaillat's amendment to this bill, yes, germane. He was, nevertheless, shut out in a party-line vote by the Rules Committee 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 are here considering the rule for H.R. 1101 and we still don't have a cost estimate from our nonpartisan experts at CBO. We certainly believe this legislation will increase premiums for the middle class and seniors, but we don't have any idea how much so. It is becoming a pattern, Mr. Speaker. Two weeks ago, the Republican majority pushed ahead with their healthcare repeal bill without a cost estimate. A week later, it turned out it will cost 24 million Americans their insurance and 15 to 20 percent increases for those who would still have it. Late last night, there was a backroom, secretive manager's amendment that was proposed which we don't know the cost of or how it would affect coverage, and it is irresponsible for the Republicans to move forward without knowing the effect of the bill as amended. 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, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. POLIS

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

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. 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. 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. 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. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, does delaying consideration of this resolution mean that we won't even vote on whether we can find out if the President has financial ties to a foreign entity for 2 more days?

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, one additional parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, previous motions by Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Pascrell, and Mr. Crowley were ruled upon immediately. What is different about today's resolution?

Mr. POLIS. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I rise to give notice of my intention to raise a question of the privileges of the House. The form of the resolution is as follows: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the President shall immediately disclose his tax return information to Congress and the American people. Whereas, in the United States' system of checks and balances, Congress has a responsibility to hold the executive branch of government to the highest standard of transparency to ensure the public interest is placed first; Whereas, according to the Tax History Project, every President since Gerald Ford has disclosed their tax return information to the public; Whereas, tax returns provide an important baseline disclosure because they contain highly instructive information including whether the candidate can be influenced by foreign entities and reveal any conflicts of interest; Whereas, Article I, section 9 of the Constitution states that no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of Congress, accept any present, emolument, Office or Title, of any kind whatever from any King, Prince, or foreign State;

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, does today's hearing of the Select Committee on Intelligence provide additional relevant information to the Speaker in order to make this decision?

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to a departed Colorado expert in and asset to wise trade relations. Frank Schuchat (``Shook-It'') sat on the U.S. Commerce Department's Rocky Mountain District Export Council. He provided myself and other members, of the Congress news and local perspective on trade policy. His perspective will be missed. A graduate in history at the University of Colorado and with a law degree from Georgetown, Frank was counsel in the U.S. International Trade Commission and a clerk on the DC Court of Appeals. After that he honed his legal craft in firms both in Washington and Denver. This is where he learned that words matter in trade relations. An eager globe trotter, Frank developed respect and admiration for citizens abroad. He was a kind and friendly traveler, a global mensch. With that attitude, in 1997 he was named as honorary counsel to Belgium. Through that position he facilitated a greater understanding of trans-Atlantic partnerships and, most importantly, crafted beer. He did his best to enlighten beer brewers and consumers. But Frank was at his personal best as a successful stand-up comic. Fluent in Dutch, he could deliver political satire in two languages. He knew that words matter here too. Even in his memorial he shows his true colors, asking that donations be sent to the Southern Poverty Law Center. In short, Frank Schuchat displayed deep intellect, a conscience for others.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I rise before this body of Congress and this nation today to recognize Mr. Stan Zemler of Vail, Colorado who is leaving local government after having served the public for over thirty years in the State of Colorado. Mr. Zemler has served the Town of Vail as Town Manager for the past thirteen years, the City of Boulder as Acting and Deputy City Manager, the Boulder Urban Renewal Authority as Executive Director, as well as the Boulder Chamber of Commerce as CEO, with a career that has produced positive impacts for both residents and visitors of Colorado. Zemler's leadership is about community partnering and consensus building, an approach that has helped foster public and private relationships in an effort to achieve the best outcomes for the communities he served, including such partnering for the Billion Dollar Economic Renewal effort in Vail, the completion of numerous public safety infrastructure improvements, and the launch of numerous environmental and forest health initiatives. During his tenure serving local governments, Zemler has worked with various agencies, including both the federal and state government branches, and closely with the U.S. Forest Service and the Colorado Department of Transportation. The collaborative work has enhanced Vail's local community, international guest services and amenities and strengthened its economic position as a sustainable international resort. The outcomes have included federal legislation and cost sharing with the USFS in protecting forest lands surrounding the Vail Valley as well as the implementation of the Interstate 70 Vail Underpass Project, federal-state-municipal-cost-shared project, which benefits many guests and residents of Vail. Zemler's longstanding commitment to the State of Colorado is represented by his efforts to showcase and protect its natural and beautiful environment and balance that with an economy that supports tourism and recreation in the Rocky Mountains. His support of the Congressional legislation that expanded recreational uses on forest service lands has allowed for the debut of Epic Discovery on Vail Mountain, an offering of enhanced recreational opportunities. And the Vail community's support of an initiative that was developed because of Vail's surrounding public lands was used as the inspiration for declaration of Colorado Public Lands Day to be celebrated on the third Saturday in May. This acknowledged day recognizes the significant contributions that national, state and local public lands within Colorado make to wildlife, recreation, the economy, and to Coloradans' quality of life. Zemler has also been very active and influential in his roles serving both the 1-70 Coalition and Colorado Association of Ski Towns, leading these two prominent Colorado organizations that are often heard on topics related to improvements for the 1-70 highway corridor and the future positioning of ski resorts located in municipalities, having served as both Boards' Presidents. Zemler has been successful in working with his elected officials and community to strategically achieve results that speak to their vision of 1) growing a balanced community; 2) enhancing the town's economy; and 3) elevating the resort experience; all of which have a direct impact on the people who live, work and play in the area, and has resulted in Vail's success in becoming North America's Premier International Mountain Resort Community. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise to pay tribute to Mr. Stan Zemler on behalf of the residents of the 2nd Congressional District and myself. His distinguished service and contributions to the Town of Vail and municipal governments in the State of Colorado will remain his legacy for many years to come.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I rise before this body to recognize Mr. Stan Zemler of Vail, Colorado, who is leaving local government service after a career of over 30 years in our great State of Colorado. Mr. Zemler served as the town of Vail's manager for the past 13 years. Before that, as the city of Boulder's acting and deputy city manager, as the Boulder Urban Renewal Authority's executive director, and as the CEO of the Boulder Chamber of Commerce, where I met Stan almost 20 years ago. What a terrific career with positive impacts on both Boulder County and Eagle County, two very important counties in my district. Stan's leadership is about community partnering and consensus building. He really worked hard with various agencies, including Federal, State, local government, with the U.S. Forest Service, and the Department of Transportation to enhance Vail's local community, international guest services and amenities, and strengthened its economic position as a sustainable international resort. He has been active in working with others in the I-70 Coalition and Colorado Association of Ski Towns. He has won numerous awards for his service. He will be missed in Eagle County for his service. We remember him fondly in Boulder County. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise to pay tribute to Stan Zemler on behalf of the residents of the Second Congressional District and myself personally. His distinguished service to the town of Vail and municipal government is an important legacy for many years to come.

Mr. POLIS

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

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to the rule and both underlying bills, H.R. 1009, the OIRA Insight, Reform, and Accountability Act; and H.R. 1004, the Regulatory Integrity Act. These two bills that would be debated under this rule were both reported out of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform without a single Democratic vote. So these are not bipartisan bills. They were reported out of committee only by Republicans. The bills threaten transparency, undermine the independent authority of government agencies, and weaken the separation of powers between our three branches of government at a time in our history when we need it the most. I sat in this Chamber last night as President Trump spoke about fixing healthcare and immigration systems, but we haven't seen those plans yet. Instead, all we have seen are these kinds of not-bipartisan bills that don't accomplish a lot. Now, these two bills claim to offer accountability and integrity in the rulemaking process, but when you look past their title, you see what they really are is just another backdoor attack on American workers, an attack on our environment and protecting our public health. First with regard to H.R. 1009, much has been said since the start of this Congress about the importance of our checks and balances in our system. We have a new President who isn't shy about blurring the lines of separation between the executive, legislative, and even the judicial branches of government. He publicly condemned a judge based on his ethnicity in a private case. He also attacked a judge who struck down his order on immigration. I find it troubling to be debating a bill that would make government agencies even more dependent on the judgment of the White House when many of us question the judgment of the gentleman currently occupying the Oval Office. Under current law, independent agencies, like the Environmental Protection Agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, and many others don't need approval from the administration to move forward with a new rule or regulation. Misleadingly characterized as simplifying the existing executive order, what this bill would actually do is require all rules made by independent government agencies to be sent to the White House, centralizing the power of the White House and the power of the President. This bill effectively mandates improper influence by the White House. In addition, the bill repeals language that exempts rules considered to be lifesaving from having to undergo a full review process. If those reasons weren't enough to dissuade my colleagues from voting in favor of this rule, let me briefly discuss the unlimited review window this bill would create to derail and delay important rules. Frankly, important provisions like this are the reasons why the American people, often rightfully, accuse the government of waste, fraud, and abuse. By giving the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs unlimited time to review rules, Congress would effectively allow the White House to bury rules in red tape and paperwork, the very red tape and paperwork and bureaucracy that the American people are frustrated with. This bill is a recipe to make government less efficient rather than more efficient. It would grind the rulemaking process to a halt by burying the very limited staff of the White House under a whole array of rules from independent agencies that, with no timeline, would simply sit in the White House either going nowhere or being studied by committee after committee after committee. Perhaps, after several years, they will see the light of day after even more bureaucrats have had the chance, at your taxpayer expense, to read those rules. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim that this bill makes the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs somehow more accountable by Congress by authorizing the statute, but that is not the case. This bill, like many other bills we have seen in this Congress, frankly, is a solution in search of a problem. I don't disagree that the rulemaking process should be simplified, but there is a collaborative, bipartisan way to do that. This bill does not represent that idea. If passed, H.R. 1009 would reduce the ability of independent government agencies to work effectively, create additional paperwork and bureaucracy, and transfer significant power and authority to the White House and the President. Frankly, this bill is a serious threat on our checks and balances at a time we need it the most. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take that into account when voting on the rule and the bill today. The second bill under this rule is H.R. 1004, the so-called Regulatory Integrity Act. It is another example of Republican attacks on health and safety protections. The Regulatory Integrity Act of 2017 requires executive agencies to provide extensive and, often, gratuitous information on their websites related to any pending regulatory action they are seeking to make. Again, it is difficult to find a Member of this body who doesn't believe that we want more transparency, more accountability, and more streamlining of regulations. Of course, those are priorities for the country. This bill does not do that. I don't believe an outright attack on our rulemaking process meant to protect our health, meant to protect people from fraud and abuse, and giving yet more hoops for agency officials to jump through in doing the job that Congress has asked them to do, in no way is that the correct way to go about increasing transparency in government. This bill makes it more difficult for all of the agencies that we have set up, that we have directed, to do their job: to protect the American public. The new reporting requirements that are included in this bill will distract agencies from their core missions of keeping Americans safe and, again, bury them under mounds and mounds of additional paperwork requirements. Many of these agencies have seen their budgets cut by the Republicans, and the reporting requirements will take up even more of their very limited capacity that they have under the budget constraints they operate at. As many of us know, this bill was born out of a 2015 GAO study that determined that the Environmental Protection Agency had violated certain restrictions during the rulemaking process for waters of the U.S. To me, the fact that that determination was made by an independent government agency is proof that our oversight process works. If there is a bipartisan bill we can do to implement best practices, I think that we could have strong Democratic support for that. This bill does not do that. Republicans are ignoring the fact that the GAO also concluded that ``the agency complied with the applicable requirements,'' and were so concerned with providing the public with opportunities to comment that the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers conducted over 400 meetings across the country. If this bill passes the House, the ability of agencies to do those kinds of outreach efforts and stakeholder involvement efforts would be limited. It would be limited by vast and unnecessary additional work, red tape, and bureaucratic reporting requirements that would be mandated under this bill with the same limited resources they have today. I think that it would be better use of their limited resources to do those kinds of field opportunities across the country, giving American stakeholders and people involved the opportunity to testify about how those rules affect them. The most immediate and certain effect of this bill would be to virtually prohibit agencies from disclosing to the public any benefits that agency actions would have in protecting the American people. If an agency is no longer allowed to explain how the rulemaking process would benefit and protect the American people, the public, of course, would view this as some sort of burdensome regulation. Perhaps that is the goal of this bill from a propaganda perspective. Finally, this bill will ban agencies from soliciting support for their regulations, seemingly forgetting that current law already does this. If there is need to clarify it again, we can certainly do so in a bipartisan way. This unsettling trend of trying to, in fact, regulate regulations actually leads to additional bureaucracy and paperwork. It is a disservice to American workers and families, to our environment, and to many Americans who don't know if they can make their rent or have health insurance at the end of the month. It is a disservice to the thousands of military and civilian workers no longer able to seek employment in the Federal Government and a disservice to so many American children and adults. The fact that we are even considering these bills illustrates that the priorities in Congress are not in line with the priorities of the people that we represent. I have not heard an outcry from my constituents on any of these issues. I hear about health care. I hear about immigration reform, improving our schools, making college more affordable, not that we need more administrative hurdles to the rulemaking process. I haven't heard it once from a single constituent at 51 townhalls I had last session. The passage of this bill will put a significant administrative burden on government agencies that issue rules to protect Americans. It would limit the ability of the agencies that we set up under our authorizing statutes to do their job: to protect the health and safety of the American people. I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and reject these bills. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS

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

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of Congresswoman Bonamici's amendment, which I am also proud to cosponsor. When ESEA, or the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, was first passed in 1965, it truly was a landmark and important piece of civil rights legislation. It is written with the intent that every student-- no matter their race, their economic background, their ZIP Code-- deserves a great education in our country. Title I of ESEA gets at the heart of the civil rights spirit for providing additional funding for schools with significant populations of high-needs and at-risk students. Now, title I also provides important performance and equity parameters for States and districts and gives some direction about how States can comply with these requirements to support our most struggling schools. Of course, the text of the law doesn't do everything, which is why we rely on the protections that have been put in place through rule. The SCRUB Act would allow an unelected panel to carelessly do away with important civil rights protections and transparency, the opposite of the legislative intent in the ESEA. The Department of Education regularly goes through an extensive process for finalizing regulations, and to do away with these protections on a whim by an unelected, all-powerful panel may somehow score political points, but it is at the expense of students across our country. I strongly support Representative Bonamici's amendment that would exempt title I from this harmful bill, and I urge its passage.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of Congresswoman Bonamici's amendment. Today, our country owes over $1.3 trillion in student debt. In Colorado, the average student loan borrower owes $26,000. Why would we want to risk abolishing consumer protections for our borrowers? These are very personal numbers. The stories I hear, the burden of student loan debt affects people's ability to own a home or buy a car. A recent report from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau found that the number of student loan borrowers over the age of 60 has quadrupled. People haven't even paid off their loans as they enter retirement age. Now, the Obama administration did take important steps to protect and support student loan borrowers. They made it easier for them to pay back their loans and ensured they were treated fairly by student loan services. Rolling back these protections would have far-reaching negative effects for our borrowers. I strongly support Congresswoman Bonamici's amendment, exempting Federal protections that support consumer protections for student loan borrowers from the SCRUB Act. The last thing we need to scrub away is protections for people to take out student loans. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''