OPM IG Act

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am afraid the bill before the House today, H.R. 3362, the Exchange Information Disclosure Act, is simply an effort by Republicans to continue to impede the efforts of the administration to implement the Affordable Care Act.

Transparency and enrollment information is important for Members of this body to receive. But this bill's requirements on the Secretary go way above and beyond what I think is necessary and valuable information. This is just an attempt to pile so many requirements on the administration that they are taking away from the true job of enrolling people in the law.

Enrollment numbers and visitors to the site are important pieces of information, and we certainly all know that, but this bill is simply unnecessary. There is already extensive disclosure of data on health insurance enrollments being provided. The administration releases enrollment data monthly, just like they do with Medicare and the children's health insurance program and other Federal programs. The monthly HHS enrollment reports are excellent, detailed reports. In fact, the newest HHS monthly enrollment report, which was issued this Monday, which covers enrollment through December, has even more extensive data than the two earlier monthly reports.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to providing data on total enrollments nationally

and in the States, the latest report includes data both for the Nation and the States on, first, greater breakdown of those who have selected marketplace plans; second, age breakdown--I stress, age breakdown--of those who have selected marketplace plans; third, financial assistance status of those who have selected marketplace plans; and, lastly, a breakdown of the coverage level--or metal level--of the plans people have selected.

So these numbers show that there is a very strong demand for the quality, affordable coverage options now available to Americans because of the Affordable Care Act. More than 6 million Americans have now either signed up for a private health insurance plan or for Medicaid, including the nearly 2.2 million who signed up for private insurance through the marketplace. Nearly 1.8 million of these consumers signed up for private plans in December, and that is nearly five times as many people as signed up in October and November combined.

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged and excited by these numbers. Americans aren't going to the Web site because they are forced to, like the Republicans claim. They are going to the Web site because they want and need access to health insurance. This should be no surprise. Thirty percent--nearly one in three--of people who have enrolled in a marketplace plan are younger than age 35; 24 percent are between 18 and 34 years old; and there was a more than eightfold increase in December enrollments in the Federal marketplace. In addition, more than 3 million young adults have gained coverage because the Affordable Care Act allows them to stay on their parents' plan until they turn 26. So we are getting more of the younger people as well.

Meanwhile, healthcare.gov and State Web sites have received more than 53 million visits, and State and Federal call centers have received more than 11 million calls.

The administration has committed to release this information monthly, the way they have done with every other Federal program to date. So I am sorry to say that I simply do not believe this is a serious effort in any sense of the word by Republicans. This bill is nothing but a weak effort to smear the law.

I urge Members to oppose the bill. There are only so many resources out there. Why would we want HHS to have to provide this excessive information? I would rather they spent their time trying to enroll people, doing more outreach, and encouraging people to sign up so that they actually have health insurance.

So again, Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina, G.K. Butterfield, a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, may I just ask how much time remains.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), who has spent so much effort in passing and drafting the Affordable Care Act.

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Mr. Speaker, again, this GOP bill is designed to harass the Department, preventing it from doing its job. It is an unworkable, unnecessary bill that places onerous, unrealistic, and costly reporting requirements on HHS, with no benefit to the general public.

I heard my colleagues say over and over again, Oh, nobody is going to enroll. Now people are enrolling, and they say they want to know whether they paid or not.

Where does it end? Why don't you spend your time trying to get people to enroll, trying to give people information and do more outreach so people actually are able to get health insurance? That is what we are trying to do with the Affordable Care Act--make people who don't have insurance get insurance, make people who do have it, have it more affordable and have a better benefit package.

All these things are wonderful. This is what people want. That is why so many people are, in fact, signing up. And I just cannot help but think that this is nothing but another effort to make it more burdensome, to scare people to make it less likely that people actually enroll.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to mention that the administration opposed the bill. The administration said that they oppose the passage because it would require unfunded, unprecedented, and unnecessary reporting requirements that exceed those of other public and private programs.

I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 3362.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 455, I call up the bill (H.R. 3362) to amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to require transparency in the operation of American Health Benefit Exchanges, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3362, the Exchange Information Disclosure Act. This bill is fundamentally about transparency. Since healthcare.gov's disastrous launch, the public has received confusing and conflicting information about the site's functionality and the number of individuals actually able to purchase insurance through the Web site.

States trying to enroll individuals in Medicaid and insurance companies trying to sign people up for private insurance have received incomplete and inaccurate applications from the Web site.

H.R. 3362 would require the Secretary of HHS to provide a State-by- State breakdown of the number of unique Web site visits, the number of individuals who create an account, the number of individuals who select a qualified health plan, and the number of individuals who enrolled in a qualified health plan or Medicaid. The report must also describe the problems Americans are encountering with the Web site and how HHS is addressing them.

The American people have a right to firm data and an accurate picture of the exchanges. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry), the prime sponsor of the legislation.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, just to clarify, we hear the words ``sign up,'' ``signed up,'' ``equal to enrollment.'' We may know how many people have signed up. We do not know how many have actually enrolled and have paid their first month's premiums. Secondly, we are stewards of the taxpayers--we are not shareholders--and the lack of data is precisely what led the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee to declare this law as a train wreck in that there are no metrics, no data, to determine whether this law is working and on track.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, opponents of the Exchange Information Disclosure Act have argued that requiring weekly reports on the health care law to the American people is too burdensome, too costly for the Department of Health and Human Services. Yet, somehow, HHS managed to find money in its budget for taxpayer-funded grants spent on such things as bike lane signs, dog neutering campaigns, promoting a sport called ``pickleball,'' and lobbying campaigns for soda taxes. Clearly, HHS does not suffer from a lack of resources.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes

to the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the vice chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Cassidy, a very active member of the Health Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as Secretary Sebelius acknowledged at an Energy and Commerce hearing in December, enrollment in an exchange plan is not complete until the first month's premium has been paid.

The administration, so far, has refused to tell the American people how many people are actually enrolled by paying their first month's premium in the health care law's exchanges.

Asking the Department to provide the American people regular updates is simply a matter of transparency. Given that HHS officials were so blatantly wrong about the readiness of the health care law's exchanges, they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Regular disclosure is necessary to assess the status of the law, and that is all this bill requires. Let's make the administration, who has continually held back facts regarding implementation of the health care law, meet their pledge to be the most transparent in history.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order, and I claim the time in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, opponents of the Exchange Information Disclosure Act argue that HHS is already reporting data. Yet more than 3 months after the disastrous launch of the exchanges, we simply do not know how many Americans have actually completed enrollment by paying their first month's premium. As Secretary Sebelius acknowledged at an Energy and Commerce Committee hearing in December, enrollment in an exchange is not complete until the first month's premium has been paid.

The administration so far has refused to tell the American people how many people are actually enrolled in the health care law's exchanges. Either the administration is refusing to tell us how many people are actually enrolled or they simply do not know. Neither answer should instill confidence in a law that puts over 2 trillion taxpayer dollars on the line.

This underlying bill would require the administration to give us real and actual enrollment data. The American people deserve transparency, and this is what the Exchange Information Disclosure Act would deliver. I urge all Members to oppose this motion to recommit and vote for the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2860) to amend title 5, United States Code, to provide that the Inspector General of the Office of Personnel Management may use amounts in the revolving fund of the Office to fund audits, investigations, and oversight activities, and for other purposes.

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 the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

H.R. 2860 responds to the Office of Personnel Management Inspector General's call for increased oversight of the OPM's revolving fund by providing the IG access to a portion of that revolving fund moneys for oversight.

H.R. 2860 recognizes oversight as a legitimate business cost by using existing funds to help the IG respond to the increased referrals of alleged fraud within the OPM's revolving fund operations, including especially in the background investigation used to determine an individual's eligibility for a security clearance.

The Office of Personnel Management serves as the regulator for these rules affecting the management of Federal workers, but has also evolved into a fee-based service provider that provides billions of dollars in services each year to the very agencies governed by OPM's rules.

The revolving fund budget has grown significantly over the past 15 years, from $191 million to more than $2 billion today. OPM's revolving fund budget is almost 91 percent of OPM's budget; yet the resources available for the IG to audit these funds have not kept pace with the growing amounts.

For over 30 years, both the General Accountability Office and OPM Inspectors General have been concerned about the management of resources in the revolving fund. Each has issued a number of reports and audits examining various and, often recurring, problems.

Last year, OPM Inspector General McFarland informed the Committee on Government Oversight and Reform of what he described as a ``serious problem'' inhibiting his ability to perform the duties and responsibilities of his office. McFarland stated his office was at a point where it could not meet its statutory obligation to effectively oversee revolving fund activities. He noted that his office had been ``inundated with requests from OPM to audit and/or investigate different parts of revolving fund programs,'' from technical audit work to the continuing flow of allegations involving falsifications of background investigations and abuse of authority.

The OPM Inspector General has investigated a number of cases involving the falsification of background investigations, including reporting of investigations that never occurred, recording answers to questions that were never asked, and documents record checks that were never conducted. Within the military departments at 81 percent of OPM's customer base, these cases have serious national security implications.

Inspector General McFarland testified before the Federal Workforce Subcommittee in June, and he said the OPM's revolving fund programs ``have been operating in the shadows for too long,'' adding the often- cited phrase ``sunshine is the best disinfectant.''

H.R. 2860 would allow the OPM IG to use a portion of the revolving fund moneys to pay for related audit and investigation work. The OPM IG's resources would be limited to one-third of 1 percent of the revolving fund budget, and the IG would be required to submit an annual budget request and report detailing its revolving fund oversight work.

H.R. 2860 provides resources for critical oversight that can be accomplished at relatively low cost, using existing funds.

I urge the adoption of this bipartisan bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to thank Mr. Cummings and Mr. Lynch for working together in such a bipartisan manner on this very important national security bill.

It is a commonsense, good government bill that is designed to use existing funds that are brought into the OPM to oversee the OPM. They have got a huge chunk of money here that is coming from the background checks, and they don't have the resources necessary to adequately make sure these background checks are going to be done.

Mr. Cummings cited numerous examples of how the failures in the system have resulted in tragedies and have resulted in information getting out. We need to make sure these background checks are being done properly, we need to make sure this money is being administered properly, and this bipartisan bill does that.

I too urge my colleagues to pass the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, if I could inquire of the gentleman from Maryland if he has any additional speakers.

At this point, I would like to wrap it up and close.

Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Virginia and the gentleman from Maryland pointed out, this is a commonsense, good government bill that has strong national security implications and I am going to urge all my colleagues to support it.

Again, even though it was included in the omnibus that is coming through that is 1 year, this creates permanent law where we continue to do this necessary and appropriate oversight at a fraction of the percent of the cost of the budget, absolutely a phenomenal bill that we all need to get behind and support.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3362, the Exchange Information Disclosure Act. There is widespread agreement that the ObamaCare rollout was a failure. Most of us believe the administration's lack of transparency and candor with Congress and the American people caused most of the problems.

Since the beginning of the rollout, I have pressed the administration to release enrollment data to Congress. That data, including who is actually enrolling and what the mix of those who signed up looks like, are the kinds of hard facts we need before us to evaluate how this fundamental restructuring of our health care is really operating.

Yet the administration did not provide that long-promised transparency. Instead, I was forced to subpoena the administration to get any information. While I received some of what I requested, it is not enough for Congress to understand the true impact of this law.

It is clear that, more than halfway through the enrollment, the administration is failing to meet its own goal of 7 million enrollees by March 31.

Last week, the administration released data that showed it has failed to meet an even more important goal--the right mix of young and healthy enrollees. The reality is that you need a good balance of young and healthy individuals in order to offset the more expensive costs of those who are older and less healthy.

Without enough young and healthy enrollees, millions of Americans, including those who have had their plan canceled as a result of the President's broken promise, will see higher costs and fewer choices. With the little data we have, we can see this is actually what is happening.

The American people deserve better than the administration's empty promises. They deserve to know what is really going on. Additionally, the administration has not provided any information on the number of people who have completed enrollment. We don't know how many people have paid their premium.

Taxpayers don't know how many people are receiving tax credits. There is no harm to national security if the administration provides this information to Congress, the media, and the American people; but there may be harm to an individual's health security if their interests aren't protected.

Frankly, I believe this administration cares more about implementing this law than protecting the health care of American families.

The American people have every right to know this information and the future of their health care. Having this data will not change the President's broken promise that ``if you like your plan, you can keep it,'' or his promise that families will see a $2,500 reduction in their premiums.

However, it will undoubtedly affect Americans' health care future. This is not just arbitrary data. This information will determine how much premiums will increase next year, whether access to care will become more limited, how many insurers may no longer offer coverage, and whether or not you can keep seeing your current doctor.

This administration's failed rollout has given the American people little confidence that they can effectively oversee the overhaul of one-sixth of the economy. What possible reason, other than politics, could there be for the administration not releasing this information? This is data that Congress and the American people deserve to know and that the administration should readily and willingly provide.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill today, and I call on the Senate to take quick action to move this commonsense legislation forward.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the Chair for that admonition, and I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young), the distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the reason this legislation is important is that, from what little information we do have, we know the administration is not meeting their stated goals, and they are not on track to meet 7 million people by March 31. We don't know the mix of people that have enrolled. We don't know how many of them are young and healthy. We don't know how many of them have paid a premium. The reason these things are important for us to know and to track is, this is a big deal. This is one-sixth of the American economy. There is probably no legislative area that affects people more than their health care.

The reason we have to know this information is because if they aren't meeting their stated goals and their projections in terms of the cost of this bill, it could mean that people's premiums skyrocket next year. It could mean that the physician that they are used to seeing and being treated by, many times for an ongoing illness, may not be available to them under their insurance plan.

So these are important issues. These are important benchmarks for us to know. It is important for the American people to know. It is important for the media to know. Because then, if we can understand what is really happening as we are in the middle of this, constructive changes could be made to this bill. What they want to do is keep us in the dark. They say vote ``no.'' Make sure we don't know what is going on, and then we will have a health care crisis even greater than the one we have now.

So I urge a ``yes'' vote on this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding.

First of all, I want to say that as the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, I rise in strong support of Mr. Farenthold's measure here, H.R. 2860, the OPM Inspector General Act, legislation that will enhance oversight of the background check process for the issuance of government security clearances.

At the outset as well, I would like to thank the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Farenthold, for working in a bipartisan manner to sponsor H.R. 2860. I would also like to thank our full committee chairman, Mr. Issa, and ranking member, Mr. Cummings, the gentleman from Maryland, for their hard work and their leadership on this legislation as well.

Recent events involving Edward Snowden and his leaking of classified information and as well Aaron Alexis and the tragic shooting at the Washington Navy Yard have called attention to the need to reexamine and improve the Federal Government's background investigation and security clearance process.

H.R. 2860 is a key component of our examinations. This legislation provides the Inspector General of the Office of Personnel Management with the resources that he needs to assist Congress in our review and oversight of a process that is critical within our national security framework.

We rely heavily on our Inspectors General. They are at the front lines of investigating fraud, waste, and abuse in government programs. We as Members of the legislature rely heavily on them in getting accurate information.

In particular, H.R. 2860 would give the Office of Personnel Management the authority to access a portion of OPM's revolving fund to pay for audits, investigations, and oversight of the agency's revolving fund program, which includes the Federal Government's background investigations process, their leadership training, and personnel management solutions.

I think OPM Inspector General Patrick McFarland did a great job on this in making us aware of the necessity for this legislation. During a June 2013 Federal Workforce Subcommittee hearing, as has been noted, Mr. McFarland stated that his office was handicapped in its ability to conduct proper oversight of the OPM's revolving fund activities.

Under existing law, the Inspector General's oversight costs cannot be charged to the revolving fund. As a result, for fiscal year 2013, the Inspector General had only available $3 million to conduct oversight of OPM's program involving $2 billion.

Because of these limited resources, the OPM Inspector General was not able to thoroughly investigate issues regarding falsification of background investigations, conduct audits of the revolving fund, or examine the fund's high-risk areas.

However, H.R. 2860, if enacted, would allow the OPM Inspector General's oversight costs to be paid from the revolving fund up to a maximum of one-third of 1 percent of OPM's revolving fund budget. Assuming a revolving budget of $2 billion, the Inspector General may be authorized to receive up to a maximum of $6.6 million to fund oversight costs.

Common sense indicates that giving the OPM Inspector General authority for this funding is a sensible and prudent investment. Moreover, if national security is implicated, the importance of preventing or mitigating national security threats is, of course, immeasurable.

Let me also add that this proposal was included in the President's fiscal year 2014 budget request, and the Senate passed, by unanimous consent, substantially similar legislation last October. In addition, a provision granting the OPM Inspector General access to the revolving fund was included in the omnibus appropriation bill released just last night. I would note, however, that that provision expires after 1 year.

So Mr. Farenthold's legislation, which I have cosponsored, is incredibly important and should be adopted. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join with myself and Mr. Cummings and Mr. Farenthold.