Holding Company Registration Threshold Equalization Act of 2014

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, supporters of this legislation claim that it is simply an effort to get more information about how the Affordable Care Act is being implemented, but it is not really that. It is an effort to slow down the implementation of the new law by drowning the Department of Health and Human Services in red tape.

They want enrollment information, but this week, they got enrollment information from the administration. That enrollment information showed that 2.2 million Americans have signed up for private coverage. They want demographic information. HHS has given them demographic information. HHS is going to release all of the information that they are asking for every month, but the Republicans say, ``Oh, that is not good enough. We want it every week.'' They want more than what otherwise might be available to them because they want to know some things that I can't understand why they would want to know them.

They want to know the ZIP Codes of everybody who has signed up. They want to know what the details are of a chat between somebody who is asking a question on the Web site and what answers he got. I can't understand why that is important. They want to know what transpired in the call centers. In other words, they want to know what somebody said in a call center. Is it their business to know what questions are asked in a call center? They want a list of the people who are the adjusters and the brokers. There are thousands of them around the country, so there is no purpose to knowing that. They are not accredited by the government. If they are by the States, it is up to each State. They could ask each State that information.

Let me put this in perspective.

If anybody had a bill asking the private sector to come up with reports every single week on information that they could wait a couple of more weeks to get, it would be looked at as just straight harassment, government red tape, bureaucracy that is intruding into the business for no purpose. That is what this bill is all about. They want to intrude in a government agency. I guess, if they have a bureaucratic intrusion and the harassment of a government agency, it is okay, but if it were to happen to a private sector business, it would be inappropriate. If we asked polluters this information, you could get the information. If you asked them to give you the information every week, why do you need it every week?

I ask the Republicans: Why do they need this every week if they are going to get it every month?

It is obvious. This law is working, and they don't want to come again to the floor and ask for its repeal because people have insurance. Millions of people now have insurance. If they want to repeal the law, they are going to take that insurance away from them.

They want to continue to say: What are they hiding? What are they hiding that they are not giving you on a weekly schedule but that they are giving you on a monthly schedule?

Absolutely nothing that is significant. The enrollment reports we already have indicate that over 6 million people have signed up for coverage since October 1. The Web site can handle 80,000 simultaneous users, and it has been stable even though there was a surge of enrollment in late December.

The law is working. Republicans don't want to hear these facts. They don't want to know about it, but they think they should get everybody at HHS--maybe even have them hire more people--to report to them every week so they can still not recognize that there is good news in what is actually happening.

This is a goofy bill--it is absolutely unnecessary--and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Madam Speaker, my thanks to the subcommittee chairman and to Chairman Hensarling for shepherding this bill through committee and bringing it to the House floor. I, too, would like to express my gratitude to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, particularly Representative Himes, with whom I worked in the previous Congress on similar legislation that has already been articulated, and Representative Delaney and Mrs. Wagner for working with me on this bipartisan measure.

As you know, Madam Speaker, we have been talking about jobs. The House has passed bill after bill to create a better environment for private sector growth and job creation. These conservative solutions would help create new jobs today, would make life for families better across the country, and would expand opportunity for everyone without expanding government. That is

exactly what this bill, H.R. 801, does as well, and I am proud to rise and urge support for its passage.

Small financial institutions are essential to the communities they serve. Their boards are made up of community leaders. Their employees are our neighbors. They sponsor Little League teams and softball leagues and support the United Way. On Friday nights, you see their logos on the scoreboards at high school football games.

These institutions have a deep and abiding love for the towns that they serve, and our constituents--small business owners, farmers, and hardworking Americans--rely on them to meet payroll, to purchase equipment, or to buy a car or a home.

Unfortunately, these institutions are coming under increased pressure from Washington, forcing them to spend more and more of their resources not to put capital into the community but to comply with onerous new regulations and requirements--requirements intended for larger banks-- instead of serving the needs of their communities. Our small community banks and savings and loan holding companies were not the cause of the financial crisis, and they should not be treated as though they were.

That is why in the last Congress the House and Senate acted to eliminate some of these unnecessary burdens by passing the JOBS Act. Among other things, the bill raised the registration threshold for bank holdings companies from 500 to 2,000 shareholders and increased the deregistration threshold from 300 to 1,200 shareholders, better positioning banks to increase their business lending and, in turn, promote economic growth in our communities.

Due to an oversight, the JOBS Act did not explicitly extend these new thresholds to savings and loan holding companies. As a sponsor of the original legislation, this wasn't our intent, and I supported report language in the House FY 2013 Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill clarifying that savings and loan holding companies should be treated in the same manner as bank and bank holding companies. Additionally, Representative Himes and I wrote to SEC Chairman Schapiro to ask that the SEC use its authority to carry out our original intent.

Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, we are still without a successful resolution to the problem. At a time when our economy is struggling, Congress must address the issue and ease the burdens on these institutions to allow them to deploy more of their capital throughout the communities they serve. H.R. 801 does this by correcting this oversight and ensuring that savings and loan holding companies are treated in the same manner as bank and bank holding companies.

I urge my colleagues to support this job-creating legislation.

Mr. Speaker, to clarify one thing, we did have a legislative hearing on this bill with robust debate on it in that committee hearing. Evidently, you didn't get the notice of that hearing.

No, I only have 3 minutes. If I have extra time, I will.

Today we are taking what should be an easy vote and, frankly, a bipartisan vote.

My legislation, the Exchange Information Disclosure Act, does nothing more than ask the administration to provide Congress, Governors, State insurance commissioners, and the American people with information.

By the way, the information that is outlined in this bill to be provided or accessible on a weekly basis is simply what most States already require to be done by health insurance companies within their States. This is a request by State insurance commissioners, especially ours from Nebraska that are very frustrated with the lack of information that they are receiving about who is signing up for what plans in the State of Nebraska.

This should be easy. What we are talking about here today is basic transparency so we all have the data to assess what is working and what is not. This bill is a mechanism for accountability so we can get the answers that both Democrats and Republicans and State insurance commissioners and Governors need to know in order to understand what is working and what is not.

We are asking for information that an entity overseeing a health insurance operation should have at the tip of their fingers at all times.

Our metrics are not complex. We are simply asking for: How many people have enrolled? How many of these people have paid their first month's premiums, which means they are actually insured, that they have been effectuated? What plans did they pick? What ZIP Codes are they from so we know if people from Nebraska or Iowa or Kansas have signed up? Were they already eligible for Medicare or are these new enrollees from the expansion? These are critical issues in determining the safety and soundness of the policies being issued, and is, again, information that State insurance commissioners usually receive.

This administration and some on the other side say that this information that we are requesting is extraneous and costly and burdensome, but yet this data is already being obtained; it is already on a realtime basis being calculated. It is just the issue of when and in what form this is released to the public. As to cost, here is the CBO score--zero--not the millions that we are being told by our friends on the other side of the aisle and the White House. This is necessary, usual course of business data.

We do add another part in here and another frustration from our State insurance commissioners, which is that they don't know who is selling the insurance. They would like to have the names of the people who are the navigators out there. Grants go to organizations, but we don't know who is actually sitting down and selling policies or helping them through the exchange. That is, again, basic information that is the normal course of business in the insurance world. We are just asking that they provide the same information that the State law would require of an insurance company that has had a salesman who is out signing people up.

So that is the totality of this bill, and you have to ask the question: If they are fighting so hard, what are they trying to hide?

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am.

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

This is the final amendment to the bill. This amendment will not kill the bill; and should it pass, the House will immediately take up the bill, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, having just been sworn in a month ago, may I first say, it is an honor to serve the Fifth District of Massachusetts. My district is looking to us to focus on jobs, rebuild the economy, and extend unemployment benefits. Instead, Republicans have scheduled the 48th vote to undermine the Affordable Care Act.

We have a job to do. We have to ensure that the hardworking families we serve are able to navigate the health care law and are able to make informed decisions about their health care coverage. Our job is to ensure that should problems arise, we are able to direct resources toward a timely fix.

Some of my colleagues believe that an increase in transparency will help us achieve those goals. So why not do that? Why not let Americans know exactly what has been going on since this law has been implemented? Why not let people understand all facets of this law? I support transparency and making the law the best it can be for millions of families and children who will benefit from it.

I know firsthand how good this reform will be for the American people because I watched it happen in my own State. In 2006, Massachusetts implemented health care reform which today is benefiting hundreds of thousands of families. It took hard work, and it meant lawmakers who didn't always agree on everything had to work together to do right by those they served. Today, 98 percent of the people in Massachusetts are benefiting from some form of health care coverage.

Because I was not yet elected last fall, like millions of Americans, I watched from home as the destructive and irresponsible fight against the ACA shut our government down. It is time to stop the obstruction over this issue and get back to work for the American people.

If our goal is truly transparency--not just harassment to make sure the law never works--why not give the full picture? Let's give families and businesses all of the information they need regarding what is available to them, as well as what we are going to do to make the law work better.

My motion to recommit will better inform those we serve with facts about the benefits which millions of American families are seeking. My amendment will provide the full picture, not just data handpicked to support a partisan argument.

This includes information regarding how many families and individuals have received tax credits. It will include disclosures on the number of Americans who are no longer subject to discrimination based on preexisting conditions. Families at home will know how many people are no longer subject to annual and lifetime limits on coverage. They will know how many people who were previously uninsured are now able to access health care and plan for the future.

If we are to do right by those we serve--do what we were elected to do, which is to make health care reform work for the American people-- then we should spare the partisan agendas and pass this commonsense amendment.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for the great work that he has done on this bill.

What is so interesting and one of the reasons we find it necessary to come and address these issues is Secretary Sebelius told us in December that 5,000 people a day were getting access to health care that they had not had before.

The other side of that story, which was not told, is 74,000 American families a day were getting cancelation notices. They were looking at one another across the dinner table and saying, Guess what, our insurance has been canceled.

It has had a devastating effect. And as we try to do oversight and due diligence and continue to push for that oversight and due diligence and carry it out, even this morning at the Energy and Commerce Committee, where we had Mr. Cohen, what we have found is it is very difficult to get information, even when we are sometimes hearing from employees admitting what they told us was wrong; but then we do not get the straight story.

So it is very appropriate that we require HHS to release weekly detailed reports about the exchanges, including their enrollment, their functionality, and efforts to address the technical issues at healthcare.gov.

It is absolutely appropriate because this is all being done with the taxpayers' money. The American taxpayers have paid for every bit of this. It is not the Federal Government's money. It is not President Obama's money. It is not Congress' money. It is the taxpayers' money. This is a failed rollout and a failed program.

This administration was supposed to be the most transparent administration in history. It has not been that. It is well documented that it hasn't been. Indeed, the rollout and the implementation of this law have been even less transparent. The reason, I think, is because there have been so many problems, such as millions of Americans losing access to their health insurance.

None of the information being shared by the administration regarding enrollment means much of anything. We talk about people that enrolled, but we don't know how many people have paid and how many people have completed that process. What are the demographics of the individuals that are enrolling?

All of this is information that the individual that is paying for this--the American taxpayer--deserves to know.

Who has paid for this insurance? The White House has backed away from using any measure of enrollment as a means to determine success.

As recently as September, Secretary Sebelius herself said that 7 million enrolled by the end of March would define success of the law. Well, is that 7 million that go to the Web site, put an insurance product in their cart, and then go think about it?

Mr. Speaker, when I was growing up, I spent a lot of time working in the retail industry selling clothes in a little dress shop. Every once in a while we would have somebody that would come in and put something on hold. They would say, I'm going to be back.

Well, we called them the ``be-backs'' because, guess what, more often than not, they did not come back and complete that purchase. Yes, they put it on hold. Yes, they put it in an online shopping cart. But then they move away from it because this program is broken, it is too expensive to afford, and the American people do not want it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the sponsor of this legislation, Mr. Womack of Arkansas, as well as my Democrat colleagues, Mr. Himes of Connecticut and Mr. Delaney of Maryland, for their work on this important issue. I also want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee for his very hard work in getting this bill to the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, the JOBS Act was a big win for the American economy. Since the law was passed a year and a half ago, a number of American businesses, including more than 40 biotechnology companies, as well as companies such as Kayak and Twitter, have gone public using provisions of the JOBS Act.

Additionally, dozens of community banks across the country have already taken advantage of the updated SEC registration thresholds which made up title VI of the JOBS Act.

Perhaps most encouraging is the frenzy of activity we have been seeing from entrepreneurs around the country, whether it is small technology startups lining up at the gate to begin crowdfunding or small businesses being able to share their story with more investors, now that they are allowed to advertise. We certainly see this kind of activity in the greater St. Louis region, which has become a major hub of innovation.

This is exactly what the JOBS Act was intended to do: allow entrepreneurs and small businesses to focus on innovating and creating jobs, not only complying with outdated government regulations.

Unfortunately, as we all know, Washington tends to move a little slower than the private sector, which is why this legislation is necessary. Title VI of the JOBS Act updates outdated SEC registration thresholds for community banks, and it will allow banks to focus more time on serving their customers than on complying with unnecessary red tape. And while Congress intended to include savings and loans as a part of these new registration thresholds, the SEC, to date, has not interpreted the law in this way.

Savings and loans perform essentially the same function as banks. They are overseen by the same regulators and are a pillar of many small towns and communities across this country.

Missouri is home to about 20 savings and loans that could one day benefit from the provisions in title VI. Many of them have under $200 million in assets and are located in rural areas that rely on their savings and loans for credit. Increasing the ability of these institutions to lend will help increase economic activity in Missouri and all around our great country.

In order to put savings and loans on equal footing with community banks and to codify congressional intent, today we are considering H.R. 801, which will extend the updated threshold in the JOBS Act to savings and loans. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this legislation, because Congress must continue to take steps, no matter how incremental, to increase lending and investment in our economy.

As an added bonus, this legislation comes to the floor today with strong bipartisan support, and I want to again thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their work and their support on this issue, Mr. Speaker.

I urge passage of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3362, the Exchange Information Disclosure Act.

This bill would require that HHS provide weekly progress reports regarding the President's health care law and attempt to ensure greater transparency from an administration that has done everything that it can so far to bury the facts when it comes to its signature health care law. Remember, this is the administration that knew millions of Americans would receive cancelation notices, but they only acted to allow people to keep their health care plans that they had and liked after we forced their hand back a few months ago. Perhaps by acting today we can again force them to do the right thing and share basic information with policymakers and the public about how the law is working or not.

In building healthcare.gov for the October 1 start of open enrollment, the administration chose not to allow Americans to window- shop and find accurate and reliable prices of health care plans in the exchange.

Over the last 17 weeks since the law was launched, this administration has released enrollment figures on just a handful of occasions. We are still left asking the most important question: ``Who's paid?''

Instead, the administration has gone to great lengths to redefine enrollment as the number of folks who have selected a plan through the exchanges. These numbers simply don't tell us the true status of the law, however. More than 3 months after the start of open enrollment, we still don't know how many Americans have actually enrolled in health plans by paying their first month's premium.

Just 1 day before the start of open enrollment, Secretary Sebelius defined success as enrolling 7 million Americans by the end of March of 2014. The administration has since distanced itself from enrollment being a measure of success at all. If enrolling individuals in health plans is not the goal, what is?

Preventing access to reliable data about the exchanges is not exactly what you would expect from the self-proclaimed ``most transparent administration in history.'' It should not take a vote in Congress to get basic information from the administration, but without voluntary transparency, we don't have any other choice.

The bill before us would require HHS to provide accurate, useful figures about enrollment and the operation of the exchanges on a weekly basis. It also is going to require HHS to report to the American people other key metrics, including demographics of enrollees, Medicaid enrollment, regular reporting on ongoing problems with healthcare.gov, and HHS' efforts to address those issues.

The President's health care law will cost the taxpayers an estimated $2 trillion over the next decade. At the very least, the administration should provide the American people regular and ongoing information about its implementation. There is no reason for the administration to keep the public and the Congress in the dark. Whether the news is good or bad, it is time for full disclosure.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I applaud Mr. Terry for his leadership.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I think informed people are asking why are we taking up this bill this morning. I guess one reason is the Republicans will do anything they can to undermine ACA. Indeed, the more it is successful, the more desperate they become.

The administration says it quite clearly:

To implement this new reporting system, contracts may need

to be modified and new staff would need to be hired on an

expedited basis, adding millions of dollars in costs to

States and the Federal Government, without additional funding

from the Congress, for information that is already largely

being provided on a monthly basis, consistent with other

publicly funded health care programs.

Maybe a second reason we are taking up this bill is because the Republicans in this House think there is nothing else to do. This bill is going nowhere in the Senate, and you know that. You know that. But there is something else that we should be doing.

We are leaving here for 11 days. The House Republicans have said we are not going to be in session next week. 1.5 million Americans have lost their unemployment insurance because of inaction from this House of Representatives. Next week, 72,000 more will be added to the 1.5 million people, 50,000 in the State from which Mr. Camp and I come, 50,000 left out in the cold--left out in the cold--left, really, to their own devices, without a single bit of assistance that they really worked for. These are people out of work through no fault of their own, looking for work, and essentially they get, from this institution, action this morning on a bill going nowhere when there is somewhere we should be going.

I think this morning represents maybe more vividly than in recent times a reprehensible distortion of priorities of the majority in this House. There are 50,000 people in Michigan looking for work at a time when there remains a historically high percentage of the unemployed who are long-term unemployed. There are three people looking for work for every job that is available. And we come forth here with a bill that is going nowhere? Reprehensible. Inexcusable. You can go home.

I suggest you go home and talk--I guess you haven't done this yet--to the long-term unemployed. Every single person who votes for this bill should go home and talk to those out of work and out of luck, because the majority in this institution, in this House, are simply out of synch with the needs of the American people.

We shouldn't vote ``no'' on this bill, because we need the opportunity to vote ``yes'' on what really matters.

I reserve the balance of my time.

The SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE. Members are reminded to address their remarks to the Chair and not to others in the second person.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), a member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, how much time is left on either side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

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