Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Yes, I am opposed.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill nor send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended. Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill would undermine workers' access to overtime pay and provide them with no real benefit in return, and that is why all of the groups representing workers oppose it. So, instead of undermining employment protections that boost wages for working Americans such as overtime pay, we should work towards ensuring that American workers can remain healthy while on the job. Critical to that goal is guaranteeing true workplace flexibility by ensuring that workers do not have to choose between their health and their paycheck. So, if the majority is truly concerned about American workers, then the majority should work with us to provide workers the paid time off they need to care for themselves and their families. They could easily do that by supporting the Healthy Families Act, which would give workers the right to earn up to 7 paid sick days. This motion to recommit would protect workers by ensuring that only employees who are subjected to this comp time arrangement would be those who have at least 7 paid sick days. Providing paid sick days is not only good for working families, it is also good for business, public health, and our overall economy. Providing paid sick days decreases employee turnover and prevents illness from being spread throughout the workplace. If we are truly concerned about workers, we should not ask them to spend more time away from their families and forfeit their overtime pay in order to take the time off when they are sick or when they need to care for a sick child. Mr. Speaker, while we are considering this bill, we are also considering healthcare legislation that Republicans are trying to pass which would rob American families of protection under the Affordable Care Act that requires coverage for preexisting conditions. We know that President Trump has promised to repeal the ACA on day one, and Republicans have spent 7 years complaining about the law and voting time after time to repeal all or parts of the law, but they have never developed a comprehensive proposal to actually deliver on their promises of better care at lower costs. If we are going to make changes to the Affordable Care Act, we should improve health care for working families, not make it worse. Incredibly, every proposal the Republicans have come up with actually makes things worse. Under the recent Republican plan, 24 million fewer people would be covered, and everybody else will pay more and get less. While their plan inflicts pain on those most in need, the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans get massive tax cuts. Under that plan, the typical working family would suffer an increase in healthcare coverage costs of about $2,000 a year, for the average family with a head of household age 55 to 64, the bill would increase costs by over $7,000. Recent changes in the Republican health plan would unravel many of the protections that American families currently enjoy in their healthcare coverage, including ending current protections for people with preexisting conditions. The Republican health plan would return us to the days when health insurance coverage was unaffordable for many individuals with preexisting conditions. That bill directly violates the commitment made by President Trump and House Republicans to protect individuals with preexisting conditions. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to drop their attempts to take away quality health insurance coverage for those with preexisting conditions. Instead, we should adopt this motion which takes a small step in ensuring that workers can access paid sick leave that allows them to remain healthy, including accessing medical treatment needed to treat or address preexisting conditions. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the motion, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1242, the 400 Years of African-American History Commission Act, which was introduced earlier this year by Senators Tim Kaine, Mark Warner, Roy Blunt, and Cory Booker. I was proud to introduce the House version, which has the support of Representatives Taylor, Richmond, Wittman, Beyer, McEachin, Lewis, Comstock, Connolly, Griffith, Goodlatte, and many others. I would like to thank Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking Member Cummings, Mr. Comer, and Mr. Connolly for their assistance in bringing the bill to the floor today. This bill would establish a commission to begin the planning of programs and activities across our Nation to recognize the contributions of African Americans since their first arrival as African slaves in the English colonies at Point Comfort, Virginia, in 1619, almost 400 years ago. Slavery was an abhorrent institution, but the history of Virginia and our Nation cannot be fully understood without first recognizing the role played by the slave trade. This institution was the foundation of the colonial and early American agricultural system. The 20 slaves who arrived at Point Comfort in Hampton, Virginia, in 1619 were the first on record to be forcibly settled as involuntary laborers in the English colonies. This bill will establish a commission to recognize and highlight the resilience and contributions of African Americans since 1619. From enduring slavery to fighting in the Civil War, to working against the oppressive Jim Crow laws, to struggling through the civil rights movement, the rich history of African Americans in the United States and their contributions to our Nation began hundreds of years ago. Obviously, this history does not end there. The commission established by this bill will be charged with the important task of planning, developing, and implementing a series of programs and activities throughout 2019 to tell the full story of African Americans over the last 400 years. This 15-member commission will include historical experts instead of politicians. Therefore, the true legacy of African Americans will be truthfully told. It would be a great disservice not only to African Americans, but to all Americans, if we fail to appropriately recognize this important milestone in our Nation's history. Mr. Speaker, I again thank the chairman and ranking member of the committee, Mr. Comer and Mr. Connolly, for their leadership in bringing this bill to the floor. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention and recognize the Eastern Star Lodge No. 13 in Hampton, Virginia. Eastern Star Lodge No. 13 is celebrating its 150th Anniversary tomorrow and has worked in continuous and faithful service to the Commonwealth of Virginia over this time. Prince Hall Masonic lodges have a long history in the Commonwealth, tracing their history to 1775 when Prince Hall and fourteen other free blacks joined a British army lodge of Masons stationed in Boston, Massachusetts and, following their departure, formed their own lodge: African American Lodge No. 1. Prince Hall became the lodge's first Grand Master. By establishing this organization, Prince Hall and his compatriots were, in 1775, taking some of the first steps to form one of America's first formal African-American institutions. Organized in 1866 and charted a year later in 1867, Eastern Star Lodge No. 13 was placed at the forefront of growth and development of Prince Hall Masonry in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and in our nation. For 24 years, Eastern Star Lodge No. 13 was one of the only Prince Hall Masonic lodges in Hampton Roads, before helping to expand Prince Hall Masonry throughout the Tidewater region. More recently, resulting from a number of lodge mergers, Eastern Star Lodge No. 13 is one of the largest Subordinate Prince Hall Lodges in Virginia. I have heard the question asked: ``when is a man a Mason?'' According to Joseph Fort Newton's ``The Builders,'' a man becomes a Mason when he has sympathy for others, the ability to empathize, when he looks for the upside in things, and when he keeps faith in himself, in his fellow men, and with his God. The real secret to Masonry, Newton writes, is the ability to give all to the world. In this spirit, countless members of Eastern Star Lodge No. 13 have served in their community and in leadership positions. Through their service and through their commitment to their community, members of Eastern Star Lodge No. 13 have done their part to provide mentorship, dispense charity, and ``aid in the uplifting of humanity'' through their charitable endeavors. Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my enthusiastic congratulations to Mr. Antonio Hinton, Sr., who currently serves as the leader of Eastern Star Lodge No. 13 and all the members of this historic lodge on the celebration of 150 years of continuous service to Hampton and the Commonwealth of Virginia. It is my profound hope that through their work, members of Eastern Star Lodge No. 13 continue to provide support and service to their community.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor ``The First Lady of Song'', Ella Fitzgerald on her 100th birthday. Born on April 25, 1917 in Newport News, Virginia, Ella Jane Fitzgerald went on to define Jazz music for more than half a century. Fitzgerald's career first began when she performed at an amateur night contest at the Apollo Theater in 1934. She was just 17 years old and received first place. After overcoming a tumultuous childhood, Fitzgerald recorded her first major hit, ``A-Tisket A-Tasket,'' in 1938 just four short years after her appearance at the Apollo Theater. In 1958, during the inaugural Grammy Awards, Fitzgerald won best jazz performance and best female vocal performance. Remembered for her humble demeanor, effortless stage presence, and inventive voice, Fitzgerald recorded more than 200 albums in her lifetime and sold over 40 million records. During her impressive and lengthy career, Fitzgerald worked with many other great jazz artists of the time including Duke Ellington, Nat King Cole, Frank Sinatra, and Dizzy Gillespie. Ella Fitzgerald won 13 Grammy's during her lifetime, and was awarded the National Medal of Arts by President Ronald Reagan in 1987 and the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President George H.W. Bush in 1992. Mr. Speaker, although Ella Fitzgerald is no longer here with us, her music is still celebrated throughout the world, especially in her birthplace of Newport News, Virginia, and I hope that it continues to inspire well beyond her 100th Birthday.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise with great pride to call attention to a group of young students who have distinguished themselves, their school, their community, and the city of Portsmouth, Virginia. The I.C. Norcom Greyhounds boys' basketball team had a remarkable season and I believe the Greyhounds deserve formal recognition for their accomplishments. On March 10, 2017, the I.C. Norcom Greyhounds beat the Northside Vikings of Roanoke, Virginia, to win the Group 3A boys' state basketball championship, becoming the first basketball team, boys or girls, to win four consecutive state championships. The Greyhounds completed their 2017 season with an impressive 22-8 record. I.C. Norcom won the championship in dramatic fashion, with a steal in the last six seconds of the game leading to a two point victory of 67 to Northside's 65. I.C. Norcom's boys' basketball team has had a consistent run of excellence in recent years, and has become a dominant force in Virginia high school sports. I.C. Norcom was founded in 1913 as the High Street School, the first public high school for black students in Portsmouth. It was later renamed in honor of its first supervising principal, Israel Charles Norcom, a businessman, fraternalist, and leader in the Portsmouth community. Now, more than 100 years after its founding and three locations later, I.C. Norcom High School is still striving to ensure academic excellence for its students. In addition to excelling on the basketball court, the Greyhounds are also doing great things in the classroom. I.C. Norcom has been nominated for Steve Harvey's Neighborhood Award and has partnered with community businesses to help tutor students. I.C. Norcom students have been participating in the First College program--attending Tidewater Community College this semester and taking up to 14 college credits before they graduate. I.C. Norcom is doing a great job cultivating excellence both on and off the athletic field. I would like to extend my enthusiastic congratulations to the I.C. Norcom players, their families, Principal Dr. Laguna Foster, Coach Leon Goolsby and the rest of his coaching staff on this most recent State Championship and on the team's continued excellence. On behalf of the citizens of the Third Congressional District of Virginia, I commend the team for this historic win, this historic run of championships, and wish the program years of continued success.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1304, the Self-Insurance Protection Act, purports to protect stop-loss insurers from being regulated at the Federal level. It appears that we are considering a bill that is a solution in search of a problem. I am not opposed to stop-loss insurance or the purpose of stop-loss insurance. It can be helpful in shielding employers from unforeseen risks in many instances when they choose to self-insure and want to protect themselves from unexpected and unusually high expenses. Now, while many self-funded plans, in conjunction with the purchased stop-loss, look like a traditional fully insured plan, stop-loss coverage itself is not regulated at the Federal level. There is no indication or suggestion that the administration would seek to regulate stop-loss insurance, so the bill prohibits Federal regulation of stop- loss insurance. The Federal Government does not regulate stop-loss insurance today, and doesn't look like it is going to seek to regulate self-insurance in the foreseeable future, so it is difficult to ascertain exactly what the purpose of the bill is. But employers, particularly small ones, do face risks when self- insuring. I think it is important that we ensure that employers are aware of the risks and protect them and their employees when appropriate. They can incur tremendous losses if the employee incurs a serious injury or illness. Employees are also at risk of receiving fewer benefits because many consumer protections do not apply to self-funded plans. Employers are legally prohibited from discriminating on the basis of health status, but stop-loss insurers are not. Many policies have provisions that will trigger immediate, even retroactive, increased premiums when the stop-loss insurer receives greater-than-expected claims. To date, many States have taken action to regulate stop-loss insurance in order to protect both businesses and workers. Some have required a minimum, what is called attachment point. That is when the stop-loss insurance kicks in. Others have restricted the selling of stop-loss insurance with certain small group markets. New York prohibits the sale of stop-loss insurance to small employers, and prohibits employers from serving as their own third- party administrators. North Carolina has chosen to regulate stop-loss insurance as if it were normal health insurance, holding stop-loss insurance to the same standards of others in the market. Now, if States want to ban stop-loss insurance altogether, that should be a State prerogative. States have taken these steps because, frankly, self-insuring and stop-loss insurance come with greater risks to both employers and employees. Stop-loss plans place annual limits on services. Some place annual limits on services or exclude coverage for certain benefits, such as prescription drugs. Furthermore, the renewal of stop-loss insurance is not guaranteed, so if an employer suddenly has high medical costs, the stop-loss insurer can refuse to renew or charge so much that it is no longer affordable. In the committee markup, the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici) offered a clarifying amendment to ensure that this legislation would not be construed to restrict the ability of States to regulate stop- loss insurance. Chairwoman Foxx agreed to include such clarifying language in the committee report, agreeing with the intent of that amendment. Based on that understanding, that amendment was withdrawn. The clarifying language is in the report, and that clarification is vital to ensure that there is nothing in the bill that incorrectly can be interpreted as to preempt or restrict a State's ability to regulate stop-loss insurance as they see fit, or otherwise restrict effective oversight and regulation of these policies at the State level. I appreciate the majority's willingness to work with us on the inclusion of that clarifying language. Mr. Speaker, while I don't intend to oppose the legislation, I would note that it seems to be a distraction from the Republicans' recent failed attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act. After 7 years of complaints, the Republicans offered an alternative which was demonstrably worse than the Affordable Care Act on every measure; more people uninsured, higher prices, and the policy you end up getting is worse. Democrats will continue to resist any attempts to move this country backwards by making health insurance less accessible and less affordable to American families. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we are continuing to hear complaints about the Affordable Care Act. Whatever someone thinks about the Affordable Care Act, I think it is important to look at the replacement that was offered just over a week ago which actually would have made things worse. It would have increased the number of uninsured, it would have increased the price, it would have reduced the quality of the product, and it would have made it less likely that insurance companies would come in and offer anything at all. If we are going to amend the Affordable Care Act, we ought to improve it. We ought to make things better. We should first do no harm with the Affordable Care Act, and we should not allow this administration to sabotage the Affordable Care Act. When they said it might implode, we have to be careful that they are not doing the implosion. There are things that this administration can do to undermine the Affordable Care Act and sabotage it, and we would hope that we would join in a bipartisan effort to make sure that that does not happen. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this bill prohibits Federal regulation of stop-loss insurance. The Federal Government does not regulate stop-loss insurance. It does not affect the States' ability to regulate the insurance, and that is where it should be done. So the bill does no harm. I would hope that, after this bill, we will refocus our efforts into addressing some of the challenges with the Affordable Care Act by first doing no harm, not going backwards like the bill did several days ago where the costs went up, the number of insurers went down, and the quality of the insurance was worse. We can improve healthcare coverage in this country, but we can't do it if the first step is a backward step. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for his good work on the budget. Mr. Speaker, the budget is about choices, and those choices involve arithmetic. Apparently, the Republican strategy on the budget does not recognize arithmetic. When you start with a deficit, their strategy to deal with the deficit is to increase defense spending and to pass massive tax cuts. That will not end up helping the deficit. As we have seen with the choice in health care, they made bad choices. Whatever you think about the Affordable Care Act, their plan was demonstrably worse. Their plan would increase the number of people uninsured by 24 million, bring higher prices and worse policies, but tax cuts for millionaires. What I couldn't understand was not what were the ups and downs for politics, but who was for that--24 million more uninsured, higher prices, and worse policies? Democrats will work with Republicans to improve the Affordable Care Act, but we are not going halfway and saying only 12 million uninsured and slightly higher prices and slightly worse policies. If we are going to have a policy to increase the number of insured, lower prices, and provide better policies, we will work. We can also produce a better budget. For almost an hour, we have heard the problems with the budget introduced by the President of the United States. The Congressional Black Caucus is not just about complaints. We have a budget, and it is a responsible budget. We make choices. The choices avoid those devastating cuts that we have heard about. The Congressional Black Caucus budget is realistic. It requires $3.9 trillion in additional revenues, but it outlines over $10 trillion in choices that could be made to come up with that money, possibilities like canceling the Bush tax cuts. That is $3.9 trillion right off the bat. Over $10 trillion in total choices. First, with that revenue, we cancel the sequester both for nondefense and for defense. Then we make investments in the future of American families with investments in education, job-creating infrastructure, the environment, scientific research, and maintain a strong social safety net. In the end, we reduce the deficit by a cumulative amount of an over $2 trillion reduction in the deficit. So let's be clear. we are going to make choices with the budget, choices like we made a few years ago. People say a lot about the proposal by Senator Bernie Sanders and $900 billion for free college. Could we afford that? Just think, a couple of years ago, we passed, with one vote, an extension in tax cuts of $3.9 trillion. We could have, with the same amount of money, extended $3 trillion in tax cuts, and with the money left over, free college, but we didn't make that choice. All $3.9 trillion went to tax cuts. The $900 billion could have gone to free college. Make no mistake about it, we are making choices. This year, again, we will make choices with our budget: massive tax cuts, or we can focus on a better feature and produce a more humane and responsible budget. I would hope that this year we make the right choice.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to manage the balance of the time remaining.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as we talk about the Affordable Care Act, I think it is important to remind ourselves of the situation before it passed: costs were going through the roof, those with preexisting conditions could not get insurance, women were paying more than men, and every year millions of people were losing their insurance. We passed the Affordable Care Act. Since then, the costs have continued to go up, but at the lowest rate in 50 years. Those with preexisting conditions can get insurance at the standard rate. Women are no longer paying more than men. Instead of millions of people losing their insurance every year, more than 20 million more people now have insurance. The full name of the Affordable Care Act is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Now your coverage can't be canceled if your insurance company decides that it has paid too much. Preventive services, such as cancer screenings, are free with no copays and deductibles. We are closing the doughnut hole. Those under 26 can stay on their parents' policies. We also funded community health centers, made investments in education to produce more doctors, nurses, and other professionals. Through all of that, the Medicare trust fund is more solvent than it was before. Still, the law is not perfect. But if we are going to make any changes, we ought to improve the law, not make it worse. Incredibly this bill makes it worse. Now, the CBO has separated promises and press releases from reality. Twenty-four million fewer people will have insurance, and the Republicans call this choice in freedom to be uninsured. Most everybody else will pay more and get fewer benefits. All of those consequences will occur if the proposal actually works. A number of States have done what this bill tries to do, and that is cover people with preexisting conditions without universal coverage. All of those attempts failed. So the question we must ask is: Who will be better off if this bill passes? Certainly not older people who will face the bill's age tax. Certainly not veterans who will lose benefits. Certainly not senior citizens in nursing homes and people with disabilities because Medicaid is cut. Even the solvency of the Medicare trust fund will be worse. But millionaires will get tax cuts. Mr. Speaker, we have been hearing a lot of complaints and shortcomings about the Affordable Care Act, but if we are going to make any changes, we should improve it. Unfortunately, this bill makes things worse: 24 million will lose their insurance, most everybody else will pay more and get less. This bill should be defeated. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I remind my distinguished colleague from Virginia that his vote for this bill will result in 56,100 more people from his congressional district in Virginia losing health care. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the Mariana Islands (Mr. Sablan).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague that his vote for this bill will result in 63,900 people from his congressional district in Florida losing healthcare coverage and care. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague that his vote for this bill will result in 51,700 people in his district losing their coverage and care. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Physicians, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Osteopathic Association in opposition to the legislation. [From the American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Physicians, The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Osteopathic Association, Mar. 7, 2017] America's Front Line Physicians Express Serious Concerns With the American Health Care Act Washington, DC--After the release of the two budget reconciliation bills today, the physician leaders of our organizations, representing over 500,000 physicians and medical students, visited with members of the House of Representatives to urge that they ``First, do no harm'' to our patients by rolling back key coverage, benefits and consumer protections as required under current law, including the Affordable Care Act. We are concerned that by rushing to a mark-up tomorrow in the Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means Committees, there will be insufficient time to obtain non-partisan estimates of this legislation's impact by the Congressional Budget Office, or for medical organizations like ours and other key stakeholders in the health care community to offer substantive input on the bill. During our meetings with members of the House of Representatives today, we shared our joint principles for health care reform. They reflect our collective expertise, and represent the health care needs patients present to our members every day. We urge Representatives to utilize these principles to evaluate any legislation to modify current law, and ensure that patients and providers are not adversely affected. While each of our organizations individually are still reviewing the changes proposed by the American Health Care Act, released just hours ago, we share a concern that it will not meet our principles because it will likely result in less access to coverage and higher costs for millions of patients. We urge House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) and the chairs of these two committees to reconsider the decision to move forward with mark-up, and instead allow the time needed for a thorough review of the bill to ensure that it meets our overarching principle, ``First, do no harm'' to patients. About the American Academy of Family Physicians Founded in 1947, the AAFP represents 124,900 physicians and medical students nationwide. It is the only medical society devoted solely to primary care. Family physicians conduct approximately one in five office visits--that's 192 million visits annually or 48 percent more than the next most visited medical specialty. Today, family physicians provide more care for America's underserved and rural populations than any other medical specialty. Family medicine's cornerstone is an ongoing, personal patient-physician relationship focused on integrated care. To learn more about the specialty of family medicine, the AAFP's positions (5 page PDF) on issues and clinical care, and for downloadable multi-media highlighting family medicine, visit www.aafp.org/media. For information about health care, health conditions and wellness, please visit the AAFP's award-winning consumer website, www.FamilyDoctor.org (www.family doctor.org). About the American Academy of Pediatrics The American Academy of Pediatrics is an organization of 66,000 primary care pediatricians, pediatric medical subspecialists and pediatric surgical specialists dedicated to the health, safety and well-being of infants, children, adolescents and young adults. For more information, visit www.aap.org and follow us on Twitter @AmerAcadPeds. About the American College of Physicians The American College of Physicians is the largest medical specialty organization in the United States. ACP members include 148,000 internal medicine physicians (internists), related subspecialists, and medical students. Internal medicine physicians are specialists who apply scientific knowledge and clinical expertise to the diagnosis, treatment, and compassionate care of adults across the spectrum from health to complex illness. Follow ACP on Twitter and Facebook. About the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (The College), a 501(c)(3) organization, is the nation's leading group of physicians providing health care for women. As a private, voluntary, nonprofit membership organization of more than 57,000 members. The College strongly advocates for quality health care for women, maintains the highest standards of clinical practice and continuing education of its members, promotes patient education, and increases awareness among its members and the public of the changing issues facing women's health care. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), a 501(c)(6) organization, is its companion. About the American Osteopathic Association The American Osteopathic Association (AOA) represents more than 129,000 osteopathic physicians (DOs) and osteopathic medical students; promotes public health; encourages scientific research; serves as the primary certifying body for DOs; and is the accrediting agency for osteopathic medical schools. Visit DoctorsThatDo.org to learn more about osteopathic medicine.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Fudge).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague that his vote for this bill will result in making things worse by 58,600 people in his district losing their healthcare coverage and care. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wilson).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering a bill that purports to make it easier for small businesses to obtain coverage, and tomorrow we will vote on a bill that will take away health insurance coverage for 24 million Americans and force everyone else to pay more for less. So not only are we considering a bill today that will make things worse, we are considering it a day before we vote on ruining health security for working families in order to provide tax cuts for the wealthy. As we debate the possible replacement of the Affordable Care Act, I think it is instructive that we look back at what the situation was before the ACA passed. Listening to some, you would think that the costs weren't going up at all. In fact, costs were going through the roof before the ACA, and small businesses, particularly, were having spectacular cost increases--and that is until somebody got sick. At that point, you were unlikely to be able to afford any insurance at all. Every year before the ACA, small businesses were dropping insurance right and left, particularly after somebody got sick. Also, before the Affordable Care Act, people with preexisting conditions couldn't get insurance. Women were paying more than men. Millions of people were losing their insurance every year. Since then, the costs have continued to go up, but at the lowest rate in the last 50 years. People with preexisting conditions can get insurance at the standard rate. Small businesses can cover their employees through the Affordable Care Act at the average cost, whether or not anybody in their small business has cancer or diabetes. Women are not paying more than men. Instead of millions of people losing their insurance every year, 20 million more people have insurance. In addition to that, families now enjoy strong consumer protections. The full name of the Affordable Care Act is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Now there are no caps on what an insurance company pays, and they can't cancel your policy for anything other than nonpayment. Preventive services such as cancer screenings are available with no copay or deductible. Those up to 26 can stay on their parents' policy, and the doughnut hole is being closed. The ACA did not cure every problem, but it went a long way to making Americans healthier and giving them some economic security. It could have gone further if, in the past 7 years, Republicans would have been willing to work with Democrats to build on the progress instead of forcing over 60 votes to repeal all parts of the Affordable Care Act. If we do anything now, we ought to improve the situation, not make it worse. The Republican plan makes things worse. The CBO analysis concluded that 24 million fewer people will have insurance, and most of those that get insurance in the future will be paying more for policies that don't deliver as much. For seniors, particularly, the costs will skyrocket. And, in fact, the prediction that the rates will go down in the future are a result of the conclusion that so few seniors will be able to buy insurance that they will no longer be in the insurance pool. The insurance pool would be younger, and, therefore, the costs would go down. But that is only because seniors won't be able to afford the insurance. Therefore, the insurance pool will be younger and cheaper for those who can actually afford it, but that is not a good thing for seniors who need the insurance and can't afford it. So today we are considering another failed policy. The association plan ideas have been studied for years, and it has been concluded that it is a bad idea. Under the Affordable Care Act, essentially everybody pays average. If you change that arithmetic so some can pay a little less, then arithmetic matters. Everybody else is going to pay a little more. In the association plans, quite frankly, I will admit, they will always work for the few that can get into them. That is because, if you can draw out your own group, if they are healthier than average and can pay less, they will pay less and the association will work. But if you pull out a group and it turns out they are a little sicker than average and the bids come in above average, then the association will dissolve and everybody will go back into the insurance pool. So if you can pull out a group, they will always pay less until somebody gets sick, and then everybody jumps back into the insurance pool. The higher cost groups will be left behind. The lower cost groups will segment out, and then the rates will go down for a few and up for everybody else. This is exactly why the American Academy of Actuaries has said that expanding association plans ``could result in unintended consequences such as market segmentation that could threaten . . . viability and make it more difficult for high-cost individuals and groups to obtain coverage.'' One of the other problems is a lack of regulation. If a group is allowed to circumvent State regulations, that policy may be cheaper because the policy is not as good. There are a lot of ways that you can save money. You can pull out a group of just young men and save on maternity benefits. That would be cheaper for them but more expensive for everybody else. And what happens when a new spouse needs coverage and tries to get it as an optional benefit? They won't be able to afford it. Workers and businessowners are likely to get fewer benefits under the association approach and will be disadvantaged compared to those in the regular pool getting comprehensive benefits. This is exactly why Consumers Union has stated that the legislation is ``likely . . . to provide minimal and nonuniform benefits.'' Mr. Speaker, this bill will make it easier to set up these kinds of associations and let them avoid State regulations, which could require solvency, nice solvency requirements, and consumer protections. The protections in this bill are not sufficient to protect consumers, and most States would require stronger capital requirements than the bill requires. Much like the Republican replacement bill, this bill goes in the wrong direction, so I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, would the Chair advise us how much time is available on both sides?