Adrian Smith

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 42 disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to drug testing of unemployment compensation applicants. The goal of the 2012 bipartisan law signed by President Obama in February 2012 is to reassure employers who fund the unemployment compensation system that unemployment compensation claimants reentering the workforce are truly able and available for work. When I speak with employers in Nebraska's Third District, they express a strong desire to hire individuals in a way that is beneficial for both the employer and the employee. According to UWC, the national association representing businesses in the areas of unemployment compensation and workers' compensation: ``The regulations adopted in final form not only severely limited the circumstances under which a state may conduct a drug test, but also unduly limited the types of tests that a state would be permitted to conduct. . . .'' States, which are responsible for administration of the unemployment compensation program, are also concerned. Back in 2014, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker wrote to the Secretary of Labor saying: ``Providing States more flexibility in defining occupations that regularly conduct drug testing not only better serves the public interest, but recognizes the unique labor force and diversity in industry in each State.'' In recognition of the support we have received from employers who fund the system and States which administer it, I include in the Record their letters of support. February 10, 2017. Hon. Kevin Brady, Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Brady: We write to you today in support of H.J. Res. 42, your legislation that would disapprove of the United States Department of Labor's recent regulation regarding states' ability to drug test individuals who apply for unemployment insurance (UI). Congress authorized the Labor Department to craft a rule that would provide states the option to drug test unemployment insurance applicants. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration drafted the rule too narrowly, undermining the intent of Congress and permitting drug testing in too few instances. Drug testing UI applicants can help individuals suffering from substance abuse to access necessary care and treatment so they may re-enter the workforce as healthy and productive members of society. We believe this rule should be replaced with a new rule that allows increased flexibility for states to implement UI drug testing that best fits the needs of each state. Thank you for introducing this important legislation and we look forward to working with Congress on this issue going forward. Sincerely, Scott Walker, Governor of Wisconsin. Gary R. Herbert, Governor of Utah. Greg Abbott, Governor of Texas. Phil Bryant, Governor of Mississippi.

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution to repeal a rule which would arbitrarily revoke the Second Amendment rights of certain Social Security beneficiaries. The inability to manage one's Social Security benefits does not correlate with the capacity to judiciously use firearms. By adding Social Security beneficiaries to the NICS list with no judicial review and forcing them to go through an appeals process to be removed, this rule would also violate the due process rights of these Americans. I would also like to focus on the component of this rule which would inhibit the ability of Social Security disability beneficiaries to be approved by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to work with or around certain materials. Mr. Speaker, there is bipartisan agreement we should be investing in and rebuilding our infrastructure. There is also bipartisan agreement we should be empowering people receiving benefits, like disability insurance, to return to work if they are able to do so. However, this rule will create a new barrier for beneficiaries seeking to return to work in industries like construction by forcing them to navigate a complex appeals process before they can be reemployed. Let me say again, if we do nothing about this rule, it will prevent law- abiding Americans who are able to do so from getting off the disability rolls and returning to work. We can work together on constructive ways to prevent those who would do us harm from having access to firearms and explosives. This rule is not the way to do so. I urge support for the resolution.

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. ``The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several State legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.''

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Volleyball and Men's Soccer teams from Hastings College in Hastings, Nebraska, on their 2016 national championships. This is the Bronco Volleyball team's first national title. Despite trailing by two sets in the final match, the Broncos confidently swept their final three sets for the championship. The team ends their season with a record of 33-3. Katie Placke of Grand Island and Logan Drueppel of Schuyler were selected as first team All-Americans, with Katie also receiving a CoSIDA College Division Academic All-American and Logan being named the 2016 NAIA Volleyball National Championship MVP. They are joined by first team All-American Jill Bax of Lincoln, who is the 2016 NAIA Libero of the Year. Coach Matt Buttermore was named the 2016 NAIA Volleyball Coach of the Year. The Bronco Men's Soccer team is celebrating their second national title, having first won a championship in 2010. The team finished with a record of 24-0-1 under head coach Aaron Champenoy in his first season at Hastings College. The team's roster includes players from seven states and nine countries. Daniel Whitehall was named the 2016 NAIA Player of the Year and the tournament's Most Valuable Offensive Player, Joe White was the tournament's Most Valuable Player and a second team All-American, and Marc Tautz is a third team All-American. On behalf of the people of Nebraska's Third District, I commend these talented men and women on their athletic and academic achievements. They certainly have made our state proud, and it's a great day to be a Bronco.

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to again thank Mr. Stewart for his efforts. This is a good bill that, as the gentlewoman from Hawaii mentioned, will help many folks--certainly, those that she has heard from and I know others have as well. I support more veterans having more options. I support the bill's passage and urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5458) to provide for coordination between the TRICARE program and eligibility for making contributions to a health savings account, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Stewart), the author of this bill.

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of H.R. 5458, the Veterans TRICARE Choice Act of 2016. This legislation, introduced by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Stewart), addresses a gap in current law which prevents veterans and their families with TRICARE coverage who also choose to participate in a high-deductible health plan from utilizing a health savings account, or HSA. While veterans or their family members who participate in TRICARE may also have private health insurance coverage, including high-deductible plans, they are prohibited from contributing to an HSA affiliated with a high-deductible plan. In order to contribute to an HSA under current law, an individual must permanently renounce their TRICARE eligibility because no mechanism to allow reenrollment currently exists. H.R. 5458 addresses this issue by allowing certain TRICARE-eligible individuals to voluntarily pause their TRICARE coverage for a period of time in which they choose to contribute to an HSA. The bill also creates special enrollment periods should these individuals choose to reenroll in TRICARE at a later date. Our veterans devoted their lives to defending our freedoms. We should not allow arbitrary, bureaucratic obstacles to stop them from making the best healthcare choices for themselves and their families. This bill creates a mechanism to improve veterans' health coverage options and provides them greater opportunities to save toward their own healthcare needs. It also ensures patients can be more engaged in their own care while eliminating the inconsistency in our Tax Code. I applaud the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Stewart) for bringing us this good idea today. I urge support. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, November 17, 2016. Hon. Kevin Brady, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I write concerning H.R. 5458, the Veterans TRICARE Choice Act of 2016, which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services. There are certain provisions in the bill that fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on Armed Services. In order to expedite this legislation for floor consideration, the Committee on Armed Services will forgo action on this bill. This decision is conditional on our mutual understanding that forgoing consideration in no way diminishes or alters the jurisdictional interests of the Committee on Armed Services in this bill, any subsequent amendments, or similar legislation. I request you urge the Speaker to appoint members of the Committee on Armed Services to any conference committee convened to consider such provisions. Please place a copy of this letter and your response acknowledging our jurisdictional interest into the Congressional Record during consideration of the measure on the House floor. Sincerely, William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry, Chairman.

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 5458, currently under consideration.

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We need a healthcare plan that involves patients and their providers. We need a healthcare plan and healthcare coverage--insurance, if you will--that is a product that is purchased by millions of Americans on its own merit, not because of the heavy hand of the Federal Government's imposing fines and penalties even upon those Americans who are doing everything they were supposed to be doing so as to be responsible citizens in taking care of themselves. What is clear from the debate today, Mr. Speaker, is that, in the face of the failures of the ACA or ObamaCare, whichever label you might wish to attach to it--and there are certainly many failures of the plan--the administration and my colleagues across the aisle continue to advocate for the individual mandate at all costs, no matter how negatively this might impact a law-abiding individual who seeks to do the right thing. Mr. Speaker, during the markup of this bill in committee, a supporter on the committee referred to the law as a ``work in progress.'' I would say that that is a generous description of the law. If it is truly a work in progress, why would we penalize Americans--through no fault of their own for losing coverage--with fines that run hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars? We are persistently told that our only desire is to take away health insurance coverage from Americans and that we have no constructive ideas for improving the healthcare system. This bill is one small way to improve the healthcare system. It is interesting that this bill has been characterized as an effort to undermine the ACA. Is that how weak the ACA is in that a small, narrowly crafted bill like this would undermine the entire thing? I doubt it. This is a small effort to help innocent Americans who have lost coverage through no fault of their own. We should not penalize them and create a financial hardship additionally for them than they have already been experiencing. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in providing this small issue of fairness. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), my colleague from the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like the Record to reflect that hearings have taken place that have included the subject matter of the CO-OPs. In fact, I recall the chief of staff from HHS came before the Ways and Means Committee, and we had a rather extended discussion on the CO-OPs, CoOpportunity Health, and the numerous others that have failed; but, more importantly, it is crucial to establish the record on the risk corridor. The gentleman from Washington stated that it is Republicans who designed this to fail. Number one, Republicans are not responsible for the design of any part of this. Interestingly enough, we were told by the administration, and, in fact, the administration is on record, that the risk corridor program was intended to be operated on a revenue- neutral basis, that is, risk corridor payments would be offset by payments collected by other insurers. Congress simply acted, and I would add, on a bipartisan basis to codify that very statement. In fact, I include in the Record an April 2014 memo from CMS, from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, explaining how risk corridor funding would be prorated if receipts were insufficient to meet requests. Department of Health & Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Washington, DC., April 11, 2014. risk corridors and budget neutrality Q1: In the MIS Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2015 final rule (79 FR 13744) and the Exchange and Insurance Market Standards for 2015 and Beyond NPRM (79 FR 15808), HHS indicated that it intends to implement the risk corridors program in a budget neutral manner. What risk corridors payments will HHS make if risk corridors collections for a year are insufficient to fund risk corridors payments for the year, as calculated under the risk corridors formula? A1: We anticipate that risk corridors collections will be sufficient to pay for all risk corridors payments. However, if risk corridors collections are insufficient to make risk corridors payments for a year, all risk corridors payments for that year will be reduced pro rata to the extent of any shortfall. Risk corridors collections received for the next year will first be used to pay off the payment reductions issuers experienced in the previous year in a proportional manner, up to the point where issuers are reimbursed in full for the previous year, and will then be used to fund current year payments. If, after obligations for the previous year have been met, the total amount of collections available in the current year is insufficient to make payments in that year, the current year payments will be reduced pro rata to the extent of any shortfall. If any risk corridors funds remain after prior and current year payment obligations have been met, they will be held to offset potential insufficiencies in risk corridors collections in the next year. Example 1: For 2014, HHS collects $800 million in risk corridors charges, and QHP issuers seek $600 million risk corridors payments under the risk corridors formula. HHS would make the $600 million in risk corridors payments for 2014 and would retain the remaining $200 million for use in 2015 and potentially 2016 in case of a shortfall. Example 2: For 2015, HHS collects $700 million in risk corridors charges, but QHP issuers seek $1 billion in risk corridors payments under the risk corridors formula. With the $200 million in excess charges collected for 2014, HHS would have a total of $900 million available to make risk corridors payments in 2015. Each QHP issuer would receive a risk corridors payment equal to 90 percent of the calculated amount of the risk corridors payment, leaving an aggregate risk corridors shortfall of $100 million for benefit year 2015. This $100 million shortfall would be paid for from risk corridors charges collected for 2016 before any risk corridors payments are made for the 2016 benefit year. Q2: What happens if risk corridors collections do not match risk corridors payments in the final year of risk corridors? A2: We anticipate that risk corridors collections will be sufficient to pay for all risk corridors payments over the life of the three-year program. However, we will establish in future guidance or rulemaking how we will calculate risk corridors payments if risk corridors collections (plus any excess collections held over from previous years) do not match risk corridors payments as calculated under the risk corridors formula for the final year of the program. Q3: If HHS reduces risk corridors payments for a particular year because risk corridors collections are insufficient to make those payments, how should an issuer's medical loss ratio (MLR) calculation account for that reduction? A3: Under 45 CFR 153.710(g)(1)(iv), an issuer should reflect in its MLR report the risk corridors payment to be made by HHS as reflected in the notification provided under 153.510(d). Because issuers will submit their risk corridors and MLR data simultaneously, issuers will not know the extent of any reduction in risk corridors payments when submitting their MLR calculations. As detailed in 45 CFR 153.710(g)(2), that reduction should be reflected in the next following MLR report. Although it is possible that not accounting for the reduction could affect an issuer's rebate obligations, that effect will be mitigated in the initial year because the MLR ratio is calculated based on three years of data, and will be eliminated by the second year because the reduction will be reflected. We intend to provide more guidance on this reporting in the future. Q4: In the 2015 Payment Notice, HHS stated that it might adjust risk corridors parameters up or down in order to ensure budget neutrality. Will there be further adjustments to risk corridors in addition to those indicated in this FAQ? A4: HHS believes that the approach outlined in this FAQ is the most equitable and efficient approach to implement risk corridors in a budget neutral manner. However, we may also make adjustments to the program for benefit year 2016 as appropriate.

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold).

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Illinois an additional 1 minute.

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 954, currently under consideration.

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I certainly will reflect briefly on the comments of my colleague across the aisle who says that all of the problems have been worked out, that all the provisions have been met, and that anyone who lost their coverage, through no fault of their own, would find an exemption or a consideration from the bureaucracy. I just want to say that Americans who have lost their coverage certainly deserve certainty that they won't be subject to the penalties when they lost their coverage, and not just promises that the Federal Government might take into consideration their situation. There had been many characterizations of how easy enrollment would be some time ago. It hasn't worked out that way. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 893, I call up the bill (H.R. 954) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt from the individual mandate certain individuals who had coverage under a terminated qualified health plan funded through the Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan (CO-OP) program, as amended, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the majority leader.

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 954, the CO-OP Consumer Protection Act. H.R. 954 is a simple bill rooted in fairness. If you are a consumer who complied with the Federal mandate to obtain health insurance coverage and your coverage was terminated midyear because the Consumer Oriented and Operated Plan, or CO-OP, you bought your plan from collapsed, you shouldn't be liable for the individual mandate penalty for the remainder of that calendar year. I don't need to spend a lot of time on the history of the CO-OP program, but just very briefly, more than $2 billion, largely in the form of low-interest, startup, and solvency loans, was distributed to approved CO-OPs under the ACA. Now, 17 of the 23 CO-OPs, which received more than $1.7 billion of those dollars, have closed or are in the process of closing, with the remaining six also struggling to remain solvent. The 17th CO-OP to announce its closure was Health Republic of New Jersey, which announced it would be winding down prior to the 2017 plan year 2 weeks ago, just days after we marked up this bill in the Ways and Means Committee. The first CO-OP to close was CoOpportunity Health, which sold plans covering 120 Nebraskans and Iowans in 2014 before being taken over by the Iowa Department of Insurance late that year. While health providers in Nebraska and Iowa were made whole for services provided to CoOpportunity planholders through the States' guaranty funds, consumers, and the remaining insurers in the two States are now paying back the guaranty funds for those costs. Similar situations have played out in other States covered by collapsed CO-OPs, including States like New York, Oregon, Ohio, and Illinois, where planholders lost coverage midyear. When CoOpportunity collapsed, I heard from nearly 300 constituents with concerns about what this loss of coverage meant to them and their finances. The vast majority of these people wanted to have health insurance coverage and did buy new coverage, but were concerned a brief lapse would still lead to them paying a penalty. The other side will tell you this bill is unnecessary because these people were provided a special enrollment period and could already apply for a hardship exemption. Most Nebraskans took advantage of that special enrollment. I still heard from many of them that the likelihood of accidentally incurring a tax penalty was at the front of their minds during this period of time. There are already more than 20 exemptions to the individual mandate in the law. Those who lost insurance through no fault of their own after doing their best to follow the law and whose unique circumstances led them not to seek new coverage for the remainder of the year should not be forced to file additional paperwork and rely on the opinion of a bureaucrat to ensure they aren't subject to a tax penalty. And they certainly shouldn't have to worry about this additional tax, while also searching among very limited options for a new insurance plan. Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge there is broad disagreement about the individual mandate. This bill isn't about that. It is about ensuring a small fraction of consumers in a small number of States who did their very best to comply with the law don't have to worry about the threat of a tax penalty. It is also about ensuring if any remaining CO-OPs are terminated midyear in the future that those consumers have one less concern than Nebraskans had last year. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in memory of former Congressman Bill Barrett. He passed away earlier this week in his hometown of Lexington, Nebraska. Mr. Barrett devoted his life to service. From his speakership in the State legislature to the years he spent in Congress, he was known for being true to his word and bringing people together to get things done. Serving Nebraskans was his top priority, and his dedication to the Third District and our State set a lasting example for me and all who have sought to fill his shoes. Mr. Barrett was an influential conservative leader and a champion of agriculture. The Third District is now the top-producing agriculture district in the country, and we owe much of that to Mr. Barrett's tireless work. His former staff have recounted how he would always ask: ``Does this help the Third District?'' He was a true statesman who sought to serve others rather than himself. He worked so hard representing the 60-plus counties of the Third District for the 10 years that he served. I extend my condolences to Mr. Barrett's wife and tremendous teammate, Elsie, and their family. Mr. Speaker, I would like to request a moment of silence.

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in memory of Duane Acklie of Lincoln, Nebraska, who passed away on September 17, 2016. Duane was a successful entrepreneur who built one of America's largest privately-owned trucking companies, but he was even more well- known for his commitment to his community, his state, and his country. Through numerous board memberships, appointments, and philanthropic ventures, he continually gave of himself to benefit the state he loved. Duane worked tirelessly and humbly at all levels of Nebraska politics for more than 50 years. His influence will undoubtedly be felt for generations to come. On behalf of all Nebraskans, I extend condolences to Duane's loving wife of 62 years, Phyllis, and their family. Duane will be deeply missed.