Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to point out a few letters that we have received, one from the Diabetes Association, which includes, in part: ``The Association has serious concerns that AHPs would lead to a two- tiered market, in which AHPs offer inadequate coverage to healthy groups only, while State-regulated plans provide adequate coverage with consumer protections but at an increasingly higher premiums. For these reasons, we urge you to oppose the Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2017, H.R. 1101.'' We have also received a letter, Mr. Speaker, from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. They said in their letter: ``The legislation as written would eliminate all State consumer protections and solvency standards that ensure consumers receive the coverage for which they pay their monthly premium. These protections are the very core of a State regulatory system that has protected consumers for nearly 150 years . . . history has demonstrated that AHP- type entities have done more harm than good to small businesses.'' Mr. Speaker, we also received a letter from The Main Street Alliance, which said: ``In short, H.R. 1101 would result in higher premiums and poorer coverage for the most vulnerable small-business owners, would destabilize the small group market, and would lead small-business owners and employees to assume unnecessary financial risks.'' We also heard from the Consumers Union: ``Consumer's Union has long raised the inadequacies of AHPs . . . and urges Congress to reject them as likely to fragment the insurance risk pool and provide minimal and nonuniform benefits exempt from State benefit mandates.'' We also heard from a long coalition of consumer groups, providers, and labor unions which said that this bill would just move backward to a two-tiered system that makes it harder to purchase comprehensible, affordable coverage for all but a minority of small businesses. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record these letters. American Diabetes Association, March 21, 2017. Hon. Paul Ryan, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Ryan and Leader Pelosi: On behalf of the nearly 30 million Americans living with diabetes and the 86 million more with prediabetes, the American Diabetes Association (Association) is writing to express our strong opposition to the Small Business Health Fairness Act (H.R. 1101). This legislation is nearly identical to legislation considered by previous Congresses and that last passed the House of Representatives in 2003. The Association opposed that legislation and writes now to express our strong concerns with this bill and the impact it will have for people with, and at risk for, diabetes. The legislation would create federally certified association health plans (AHPs) with the goal of making coverage more affordable for small businesses by allowing them to band together to purchase coverage on behalf of a larger insurance pool. We share the goal of making coverage more affordable, but not at the expense of required consumer protections, signed into law in 47 states, which ensure people with diabetes have access to the services and financial protection they need. H.R. 1101 would broadly exempt AHPs from critical state benefit standards, solvency rules, and consumer protections, including requirements to cover health services essential to those with diabetes. Specifically, H.R. 1101 would confer on AHPs wide authority to: Determine benefits to be covered: Other than requiring AHPs to meet limited federal requirements for ERISA-governed plans, H.R. 1101 would give AHPs broad discretion to omit important health benefits. Determine eligibility for coverage: While H.R. 1101 would require AHPs to comply with ERISA non-discrimination provisions, the AHP board would retain sole discretion to approve applications for participation in the plan and to set premiums based on an employer's health care claims experience. Maintain inadequate reserves: H.R. 1101 applies federally determined solvency standards that are weaker than state standards, exposing plan members to the risk of insolvency and unpaid medical bills. Because AHPs would compete with state-regulated plans on an uneven playing field, they would likely cherry-pick healthy small employer groups, making the risk pool in the state- regulated market less healthy and more costly. In addition, those who obtain coverage through an AHP would likely have benefits that lack coverage for essential services and would expose them to higher out-of-pocket costs and potential plan insolvencies. In fact, numerous AHPs offered in the past have gone insolvent and left consumers uninsured and with unpaid medical bills. The Association has serious concerns that AHPs would lead to a two-tiered market, in which AHPs offer inadequate coverage to healthy groups only, while state-regulated plans provide adequate coverage with consumer protections but at increasingly higher premiums. For these reasons, we urge you to oppose the Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2017,

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

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

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, the bad idea in this plan has been exposed in one of the letters that I mentioned. I said there are a lot of consumer groups, and I just want to name the groups that signed the letter. The American Nurses Association; the Alliance for Retired Americans; the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network; the American Diabetes Association; the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals; Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law; Community Catalyst; Consumers Union; Families USA; International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America--the UAW; NARAL Pro-Choice America; the National Council of La Raza; the National Education Association; the National Institute for Reproductive Health; National Partnership for Women and Families; National Women's Health Network; Raising Women's Voices for the Health Care We Need; and the Service Employees International Union all oppose this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I just want to quote from another letter that we received from Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. They say: ``We have very serious concerns that H.R. 1101 would create preferential rules that would allow an AHP to be entirely exempt from State regulation by being self-insured or follow the rules of a single State nationwide. Research clearly shows that creating special rules for AHPs and exempting them from State regulation would lead to major problems, including . . . increased insolvency risk . . . increased costs for older, sicker workers.'' Therefore, they are also in opposition to this legislation. I include in the Record the entire letter. BlueCross BlueShield Association, Washington, DC, March 7, 2017. Hon. Virginia Foxx, Chair, Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Robert C. Scott, Ranking Member, Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Madam Chairwoman and Mr. Ranking Member: The Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association shares your commitment to ensuring small employers are able to provide their employees with high quality, affordable health coverage. However, we are concerned that H.R. 1101, the ``Small Business Health Fairness Act'' would not accomplish this critical goal, as it does not reflect key principles that are essential to ensuring a viable private health insurance market: (1) all competitors should abide by the same set of rules; and (2) states should have clear authority to regulate. Today, small businesses are able to join together to purchase coverage through association health plans (AHPs). AHPs are currently regulated by the states, just like other insurance in the small group market, and can be a good option for small employers who want to provide their employees with affordable coverage. We have very serious concerns that H.R. 1101 would create preferential rules that would allow an AHP to be entirely exempt from state regulation by being self-insured or follow the rules of a single state nationwide. Research clearly shows that creating special rules for AHPs and exempting them from state regulation would lead to major problems, including: Increased insolvency risk: The legislation as drafted would allow for some AHPs to be entirely exempt from state regulation, and instead operate under very limited federal rules and oversight. Past experiences with these kinds of arrangements left millions without health coverage and unpaid claims due to insolvencies. Increased costs for older, sicker workers: Ultimately, H.R. 1101 would make it much harder for small employers with older, sicker workers to obtain coverage. This is because lower-cost groups would move to a more loosely regulated AHP with fewer benefit and rating rules, while older and/or high- cost groups would remain in traditional insurance plans. Attached is a compendium of research findings, which provides overwhelming evidence that AHP legislation would make health insurance less accessible, less affordable and less secure for small employers and individual consumers. We look forward to working with you on solutions that can be taken to improve access and affordability for small employers. Sincerely, Alissa Fox, Senior Vice President.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. 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, association plans will help the fortunate few who can get in so long as the members of that association remain healthier than average. But everybody else will pay more. Furthermore, these plans, when they are formed under the bill, will evade important State regulations that could improve solvency and provide important consumer protections. This is not unlike the philosophy, I guess, on the other replace bill where 24 million fewer people will have insurance; the rest will pay more and get less; while millionaires benefit with huge tax cuts. In this, the fortunate few benefit to the expense of everybody else. I would hope we would defeat the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intent of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Washington, which seems to allow health association plans that are currently in existence to continue to operate under existing State and Federal law. In fact, giving States the ability to regulate association plans is very important. That is why I oppose the underlying bill. The amendment also points out another interesting fact, and that is associations currently exist under current law, and the underlying bill simply unravels most of the regulations that apply to them, and this amendment would at least maintain State regulations. We know that this bill creates winners and losers. The winners are those who are young and healthy enough to be invited into an association. The losers are small businesses and employers who are older, sicker, or just have more costly health bills. There is no guarantee that plans under this legislation will have the standard level of benefits or consumer protections, and that is why I am disappointed that the majority failed to rule any Democratic amendments submitted to the Rules Committee in order, although each and every one was germane. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat), who is a member of the committee, offered an amendment that would have protected the ability of the States to regulate any association health plan, including regulation related to benefits, consumer protections, and rating restrictions. Representative Torres from California offered an amendment to ensure that association plans cover 10 essential health benefits under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. One amendment was offered by Representatives Susan Davis of California and Suzanne Bonamici from Oregon--both committee members-- would have required association plans to provide for women's health benefits, including maternity care. Representatives Bonamici, Davis, and Wilson also offered an amendment to prevent this legislation from taking effect if it would lead to increased premiums for older workers. These older workers will not be able to get into the associations because they would increase average costs of the association, and the point of the association is to get away from high-cost enrollees like older Americans. So these older people will be left out of the pool with other older and sicker workers where they will necessarily be paying more. It is simple arithmetic. Their amendment would have been particularly important because we know that the Republican replacement plan contains an age tax that will severely disadvantage older populations. None of the Democratic amendments, although germane, were allowed under the rule, and there does not seem to be any earnest attempt to look to try to correct the shortcomings of the bill. So while I do not intend to oppose this amendment, I do not think the amendment is enough of an improvement of the bill, nor does it change the underlying fact that the legislation does not adequately protect small businesses, workers, and their families, nor does it help those left behind who are not invited into the association who will necessarily be paying more. Mr. Speaker, if those on the other side of the aisle want to go on a rescue mission, they ought to improve things, not make things worse. For most Americans, this bill will make things worse, and, tomorrow, 24 million Americans will be left out while many others will be paying more for less while millionaires get huge tax cuts. That is not an improvement. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I would point out that when one size fits all, everybody can benefit; but when you start picking and choosing winners and losers, some will benefit and many others will lose. Under this bill, a fortunate few who get into association plans will benefit; everybody else loses. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in opposition to H.R. 985. In addition to the legislation's many problems that have already been mentioned by my colleagues, I am particularly concerned about what the bill does in the so-called FACT Act, which will have a devastating impact on workers exposed to asbestos. I am acutely aware of the devastating impact that asbestos exposure has on working men and women in this country because I represent an area with several shipyards. In the last few decades, in my district alone, several thousand local shipyard workers have developed asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma from asbestos exposure that occurred between the 1940s and 1970s. Hundreds of these workers have already died, and asbestos deaths and disabilities are continuing due to the long latency period associated with this illness. I believe that we cannot consider the legislation affecting the victims of asbestos exposure without remembering exactly who caused the problem. Court findings show that the companies made willful and malicious decisions to expose their employees to asbestos. Here are a couple of examples. One case, in 1986, after hearing both sides, the New Jersey Supreme Court declared: It is indeed appalling to us that the company had so much information of the hazards of asbestos workers as early as the mid-1930s and that it not only failed to use that information to protect the workers, but, more egregiously, it also attempted to withhold this information from the public. A few years earlier, the Superior Court, Appellate Division, in New Jersey said that: ``The jury here was justified in concluding that both defendants, fully appreciating the nature, extent, and gravity of the risk, nevertheless made a conscious and coldblooded business decision, in utter and flagrant disregard of the rights of others, to take no protective or remedial action.'' In a separate case in Florida, after hearing both sides, the court declared that: The clear and convincing evidence in this case revealed that, for more than 30 years, the company concealed what it knew about the dangers of asbestos. In fact, the company's conduct was even worse than concealment. It also included intentional and knowing misrepresentations concerning the danger of its asbestos-containing product. That is who we are talking about. These are the types of companies who will benefit from this legislation. Any suggestion that people are getting paid more than once is absurd. The fact of the matter is, because of bankruptcies, most of them aren't getting anywhere close to what they actually should be receiving, but the bill before us does not help those victims. It actually hurts them. The bill is nothing more than a scheme to delay the proceedings and allow the victims to get even less than they are getting now. Because of the delay, many of the victims will die before they get to court. This helps the guilty corporations that have inflicted this harm on innocent victims because, if the plaintiffs die before they get to court, their pain and suffering damages are extinguished. If they can delay the cases enough so that the plaintiffs die before they get to trial, the corporations will not only get to delay their payments, but when they finally pay, they will pay much less. These are the people who made those conscious and coldblooded business decisions. Those are the ones who will actually benefit from this legislation at the expense of hardworking, innocent victims. The victims of this corporate wrongdoing oppose this bill. Regrettably, many of those victims are our veterans because they were working aboard Navy ships. Mr. Chair, we should reject this legislation.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I don't blame the gentleman. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the Affordable Care Act. As we discuss this, as he has indicated, it helps a little bit to talk about what the situation was before the Affordable Care Act passed. We knew that costs were going through the roof. We knew that those with preexisting conditions, if they could get insurance, would have to pay a lot more for that insurance. We knew that women were paying more for insurance than men. We knew that millions of people every year were losing insurance. That is what was going on before. People talk about small businesses. Well, small businesses had trouble getting insurance because if they had a person with a chronic illness, it would be unlikely that they could afford small-business insurance. But now, the costs have continued to go up, but they have gone up at half the rate they were going up before. Those with preexisting conditions can now get insurance at the average rate. Women are no longer paying more than men. And 20 million more people have insurance, not millions of people losing insurance every year, 20 million more people have insurance. Now, the full name of the Affordable Care Act is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. There are certain protections, like insurance companies can't cut you off after they have paid a certain amount. There are no more caps. They can't rescind your policy. After you get sick, they can't just decide not to renew your policy. There is no copay or deductible for prevention and cancer screening. We are closing the doughnut hole. The average senior has saved already about $1,000 because of the Affordable Care Act support for closing the doughnut hole. Those under age 26 can stay on their parents' policies. Those are some of the benefits of the Affordable Care Act. Now, we didn't solve all of the problems. There are still problems. But if we are going to change the Affordable Care Act, we ought to improve the Affordable Care Act. Unfortunately, the bill that was introduced in the middle of the night fails on a number of areas. Now, we would know precisely how bad a bill it is if they would wait a couple of days for the CBO to score the bill. It would point out all of the flaws. But there are just a couple. One is just a fundamental principle that it purports to cover preexisting conditions without a mandate for coverage. We know that if you allow people to wait until they get sick before they buy insurance, people will wait until they get sick before they buy insurance. The average insurance pool is sicker, more expensive. Healthy people drop out, and the thing spirals out of control. We don't have to speculate how this works because we know. New York State tried it, and the cost went up so much that when the Affordable Care Act came in with a mandate, the cost for individual insurance dropped more than 50 percent. Washington State tried it. It got so bad that by the time it got going a couple of years, nobody could buy insurance. Nobody could buy insurance in the individual market. So we know what happens when you try to cover people with preexisting conditions without a mandate. So this plan, when it starts off with that policy, we know it is bound to fail. We also noticed another flaw: that it saves money by allowing people to purchase insurance that doesn't cover everything. We have people buying insurance now that have to buy the basic essential benefits package. When you can start picking and choosing, you might save a little money, but things like maternity care, if that becomes an optional coverage, then anybody that wants that will not be able to afford it. It will cost whatever it costs to have a baby. They just have to pay the bill. They might as well not have insurance. So that is because, if anybody purchases maternity insurance, it is because they expect to have a baby in the coming year, and it becomes unaffordable. If everybody pays the average, everybody pays everything, then everybody can afford the maternity coverage. So allowing people to pick and choose what they want, that might help a few, but those that need that coverage won't be able to afford it. A final flaw, as the gentleman pointed out, is massive tax cuts. Well, when you reduce the revenue available, two things happen: there is less support for Medicaid, and there is less support for people in paying their premiums. So in the fullness of time, fewer people will be insured; and so you have a plan with fewer people insured, watered-down benefits, and a plan that is ultimately going to fail. That is not an improvement. If we are going to deal with the Affordable Care Act, we ought to have an improvement; and until we have an actual improvement, we ought to leave the Affordable Care Act alone. I am delighted to be here discussing the Affordable Care Act with the gentleman, warning people that, if they go forward without a Congressional Budget Office evaluation so they know what is going on, we may have a plan that is a lot worse than even before the Affordable Care Act.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Shortly after the Affordable Care Act passed and went into effect, a young lady approached me in a store--she was a clerk in a store--and said: Bobby, don't let them repeal ObamaCare because my son is alive today because of ObamaCare. I said: Well, what do you mean? She said: Late last year, he was diagnosed with a fatal disease for which there is a cure, but we couldn't afford the cure. Thankfully, he lived to January 1, when ObamaCare kicked in, and we can afford the cure. My son is alive today because of the Affordable Care Act. If it is repealed, what happens in that case? What happens in all of the other cases when people don't have insurance? We have heard it represented that, well, anybody can get health care. All they have got to do is show up at the emergency room. Well, yeah, that is fine. You can show up at the emergency room with a stroke, but you can't get blood pressure pills that could have avoided the stroke to begin with. They can stabilize you and send you home, but in terms of a cure or a surgery that may cure the problem, you don't get that. You just get stabilized in the emergency room, and that is not health care. We need people with insurance so they can obtain the preventive care and the corrective care that will get them off on the right track. The gentleman talked about stripping coverage. When you take that kind of money out of the system, less support for Medicaid, fewer people getting Medicaid, less support for premium support so that people can actually afford it--if you look at the proposal, a lot of people can't use the tax cut because it is insufficient to pay the premium and they don't have the rest of the money. So we need to make sure that CBO scores this. They will highlight all of these problems. They will show that many fewer people will be insured and that it is not an improvement. We shouldn't do anything unless we are actually improving the Affordable Care Act.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. To add insult to injury, part of the scheme is to allow insurance companies to charge senior citizens even more. Right now they are limited to three times what they charge everybody else. Their bill allows up to five times. That is a two-thirds increase in the cost. So if the tax credit wasn't enough to begin with, it is going to get worse.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. That is right. When everybody pays an average, if you allow some people to pay more, some people are going to pay less, but it is a zero-sum game. Every time they show somebody can pay less, then know that somebody will pay more. They have a scheme, for example--they call it association plans-- where you get a group of healthy people, they come from out of the insurance pool and get a better rate because the insurance company will look at the association and say: Those are the young, healthy people, I can give them a better rate. They can save money. What happens to everybody else? They have to pay more. Last time they came up with this idea, the research showed that 80 percent of the people will pay higher premiums if you allowed people to withdraw from the pool, a healthy group. Now, actually, it will always work, because the group you pull out, if the bids come in higher than average, nobody is going to buy the insurance. They are going to go right back into the regular pool. So any time you have one of these things, it will only work if you are pulling out young, healthy people, and that leaves behind, for everybody else, higher rates.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. In fact, when we passed the Affordable Care Act, the estimated cost on a family policy was about $1,000 a year on the family policy for uncompensated costs shifted on to the insured public. In fact, in Virginia, it is estimated that approximately $15 a month is paid on everybody with insurance, $15 a month to go to the 400,000 people that would have had insurance if we had expanded Medicaid. So if you have 100 employees, you can just figure you are paying about $1,500 a month extra because we did not expand Medicaid. 400,000 people will go to the hospital, won't pay, and when people with insurance go, they just have to pay a little extra, about $15 a month per person in the Commonwealth of Virginia because of that.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, well, that part of the Affordable Care Act has actually improved the quality of service. There are other things in the Affordable Care Act, such as funding for education of more providers, more doctors and nurses, and other providers because we have a lack of professionals. One area, for example, is psychiatry. If the Veterans Administration hired all the psychiatrists they need, there wouldn't be any for anybody else. We are so far behind. And the Affordable Care Act provides for that service. As you pointed out, there is a difference between the ability to pay for the services and the services that are there. People frequently compare the single-payer plan in Canada, which in many areas is a rural area. So you don't have the critical mass of population to support a high-tech medical system. So if you are going to have a baby, it is probably going to be delivered by a family doctor, not an obstetrician. In some areas, you have to go 200 miles to find a neurosurgeon. That doesn't have anything to do with the fact that they can pay for the services. It is just that the services aren't there. So when people talk about the health delivery system, as you pointed out, that is different. The fact that you can actually pay for services doesn't diminish the opportunity to have those services there; it actually increases the possibility that those services will be there.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman indicated, in rural areas, one of the things that we have done is funded community health centers, which provides, where there are no professionals, a community health center where you can actually go to get comprehensive primary health care and then referred to a specialist somewhere if that is needed. That funding would be obviously in jeopardy. As you pointed out, when you have tax cuts in terms of resources, that will translate into fewer people actually insured. They will have watered down benefits. And because there is no mandate to ensure that everybody is in the pool and they are trying to cover preexisting conditions, you have a prescription for disaster. That is not an improvement of the Affordable Care Act. We need to insist that CBO score the legislation before we start taking votes so that people know exactly what they are getting into.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the clinics will shut down. Insurance companies will stop writing insurance if people can wait until they get sick before they buy insurance. The insurance companies reacted to that system in Washington State by selling nobody any insurance. So we know what is going to happen. The CBO, when they score this, will point that out, and we will know exactly what the problems are.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for organizing the Special Order so that we could actually discuss some of the problems with going forward without a CBO score, without knowing what we are doing. Certainly, it is not an improvement in the Affordable Care Act.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 83, the Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval that will undermine workplace safety and health. It does so by overturning a clarifying rule issued by OSHA on December 9, 2016, to ensure accurate occupational injury and illness reporting. Now, first of all, it is strange that we are reversing a rule through the Congressional Review Act that creates no new compliance or reporting obligation, imposes no new costs. It simply gives OSHA the tools to enforce an employer's continuing obligation to record injuries and illnesses. Spurred by the court of appeals decision, which blocked OSHA from citing continuing violations outside the 6-month statute of limitations, OSHA updated its recordkeeping rule. This new rule makes it clear that employers have a continuing obligation to record serious injuries and illnesses on an OSHA Log if they failed to comply with the requirement to record the injury at the time the injury or illness occurred. Since the enactment of OSHA in 1970, accurate data on workplace injuries and illnesses has been recognized as an important tool for protecting worker safety and health. Since 1972, employers in higher hazard industries have been required to record the occurrence of each serious occupational injury or illness within 7 days on a ``Log of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses.'' An annual summary of this law must be posted for 3 months starting in February of each year in a conspicuous place where employees' frequent records must be kept for 5 years. While most employers faithfully comply with OSHA's rules, there are a number of well-documented incentives for employers to underreport workplace injuries. These incentives include lower workers' compensation rates, more favorable treatment in public contracting, and a lower chance of having a future OSHA inspection. Underreporting means that workplace hazards are masked, making it less likely that employers or employees become aware of patterns that would indicate the need to take corrective actions to prevent future injuries. If injuries and illnesses are not on the log, OSHA may overlook hazards at a worksite during an inspection and consequently leaving workers exposed to correctable dangers. Mr. Speaker, because of underfunding, OSHA only has sufficient resources to inspect a workplace once every 140 years on average. So the likelihood that they might show up in the next 6 months is obviously remote. To be effective, OSHA must have reliable injury and illness data to target its scarce resources towards work sites where employees are facing the greatest dangers. Understated injury rates may mean that OSHA will bypass work sites that need to be inspected. Without reliable recordable injury rates, private contractors and public sector officials will not be able to make sufficiently informed decisions when assessing the safety records of prospective contractors and subcontractors. Mr. Speaker, OSHA's practice for the last 40 years and the decisions of the bipartisan and independent OSHA Review Commission have upheld the principle that every day an employer fails to record an injury was a continuing violation for the purpose of calculating time limits under OSHA's statute of limitations. That is not totally open-ended but limited to the 5-year requirement that employers are required to maintain these injury records. In spite of this 40-year precedent, a 2012 D.C. Court of Appeals decision known as Volks Constructors upended the 40-year precedent when it held that OSHA did not have the authority to issue a citation for an occurrence of a violation that extended beyond the 6-month statute of limitations as set forth in OSHA. The court noted that OSHA's previous regulation provided for no specific articulated continuing obligation to record injuries beyond 7 days. There was a concurrent opinion in the Volks decision which made it clear that a regulation, which expressly provides for an employer's continuing obligation, would be lawful. Now, when you talk about what the court decided and what Mr. Garland wrote, that was on the previous regulation, not on this one. Informed by the guidance of the court, OSHA has issued a new rule which does make it clear that an employer's duty to maintain an accurate record of workplace injuries and illnesses is, in fact, an ongoing obligation. So let's be clear, eliminating this rule means that employers who want to underreport injuries will face no sanctions if the injuries go back more than 6 months. Rolling back this rule essentially creates a vast safe harbor for noncompliance and creates the perverse incentive for underreporting. The premise behind the resolution today is that it is unlawful. If that is the case, Congress should repeal the regulation. But no court has reviewed this new rule, only the predecessor. There has been no appeal of the new rule that has been lodged since the new rule was issued in December. The proper course of action is to have the courts decide the legal question since arguably they are in the best position to interpret the laws and evaluate the precedents. This especially makes sense since one of the concurring opinions in the Volks case identified abundant legal precedent for tolling the statute of limitations when there are continuing violations in other laws that are nearly identical to the reporting requirements in OSHA. These include the Consumer Credit Reporting Act and the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act. On the other hand, if the purpose of passing this resolution is just to eliminate the possibility of OSHA's clarifying rule could ever be found lawful, then it is obvious that H.J. Res. 83 is an ideological attack without any regard for consequences to worker safety. On the other hand, if there is a bona fide view that OSHA lacks the adequate legal basis for the rule, then the constructive solution would be to amend OSHA and provide for the clarifying statutory authority. We should not be repealing the rule because we know what happens when this deterrent is eliminated. After OSHA lost its authority to enforce the violations outside the 6-month window under the Volks decision, there was a 75 percent reduction in the number of citations issued for underreporting, and that is according to OSHA data. So, Mr. Speaker, there has been no hearing held on this final rule or this resolution. There has been no assessment of the consequences of underreporting of injuries which will occur if this resolution is adopted, and there has been no evaluation of any alternative way to ensure accountability for employers who flout the law. There has just been a headlong rush to push this resolution to the floor just a few days after its filing. So given the complete lack of deliberation regarding this new rule, this Congressional Review Act resolution is premature, at best, but it will definitely have regrettable consequences to the health and safety of the people that we are charged to protect. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, prior to yielding, I just want to make a comment that the court struck down the previous rule, not the rule which is the subject of this resolution. The previous rule did not have a specific citation about a continuing obligation. This rule does. The excerpts from the Garland concurring decision says: None of this is to say, as the petitioner suggests in its opening brief, that a statute of limitations like OSHA's statute of limitations can never admit to a continuing violation for a failure to act. To the contrary, where a regulation or statute imposes a continuing obligation to act, a party can continue to violate it until that obligation is satisfied. This regulation specifically cites the obligation as a continuing obligation. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume before I yield to the gentleman from Florida. The law requires the keeping the records for 5 years. If there are bogus records, you ought to have an obligation to keep them correct. That has been the interpretation for 40 years, up until this decision. We need the money to do their job. If they do their job, if we provide them with some funding, they can show up more than once every 140-some years. We keep talking about a court decision that affected another resolution, not this one. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Soto).