Increasing Access to Lower Premium Plans and Expanding Health Savings Accounts Act of 2018

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to debate this rule, but I would urge my colleague from Texas to be mindful that this ain't going nowhere, so we really are, when all is said and done, wasting our time. This is not likely to be taken up by the Senate in August, and why we are not doing other things, I simply cannot understand.

The Protect Medical Innovation Act and the Increasing Access to Lower Premium Plans and Expanding Health Savings Accounts Act are worth considering. The gentleman from Texas certainly is an expert in this area and is most sincere. It is regrettable that the legislation, ultimately, that will pass the House of Representatives ain't going nowhere.

Taken together, these measures do nothing to ameliorate the Republican attempt to eviscerate the Affordable Care Act, do nothing to curb rising drug costs, and do nothing to curtail skyrocketing premium hikes. Instead, H.R. 6311 continues the Republican majority's destructive path of undermining and destabilizing our health insurance markets.

This package of six bills will likely lead to fewer choices and competition for moderate- and low-income families who do not have the disposable income to pay premium costs up front.

In bringing up the second measure, H.R. 184, my friends across the aisle seem intent on ignoring the pressing issues facing our country, like passing sensible legislation that will address the country's ongoing gun violence epidemic, passing legislation that will protect our election infrastructure from hostile foreign hacking, or passing legislation that will help reunite the more than 2,500 separated children with their families. Rather, the Republican majority wants to waste valuable legislative time in repealing a tax that won't even be active until 2020.

This is the last week before we go on a 5-week recess and we are doing nothing. Even worse, these bills are not offset and, taken together with tomorrow's bills, will add up to $90 billion to our deficit. They are not paid for. And I challenge my colleague on the floor handling this rule to tell me where the pay-fors are and, if there are none, why are they not paid for--$90 billion.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe that the epidemic of gun violence that plagues our communities must be addressed in a comprehensive manner and without further delay. Unfortunately, our Nation has witnessed far too many senseless deaths caused each day by firearms, and that continues to rise.

Under a Republican majority, many commonsense reforms, such as the assault weapons ban--and somebody please tell me why anyone other than the military and law enforcement needs an assault weapon; I just, for the life of me, cannot understand it--were allowed to expire. I might add, flood insurance is getting ready to expire. We are not taking that measure up.

Providing nearly unfettered access to a variety of firearms does not make any sense. Someone said to me, well, there are 103 kinds of automatic weapons; and I say ban them all because they don't have any business in the hands of people in the streets at all.

While we need to preserve the rights of responsible gun owners--and I am one of them; I believe in the Second Amendment--we must focus more of our attention and efforts on keeping weapons out of the hands of dangerous individuals instead of attacking and undermining the healthcare for millions of hardworking Americans.

While the present administration works to further the majority's aim of dismantling the most popular aspects of the Affordable Care Act, like keeping children on their parents' health insurance until the age of 26 and protecting people with preexisting conditions, these bills continue to balloon Federal spending and deficits.

While we were promised increased revenue from the GOP tax cuts of 2017, with the GOP falling back on tired talking points like tax cuts paying for themselves, we now have the Congressional Budget Office projecting over $1 trillion in budget deficits in 2020, even before legislation like this passes.

Whatever happened to the conservative Republicans? Where did the fiscal conservative Republicans go, who are blowing up the deficit in this country? The amount of fiscal irresponsibility demonstrated by my friends across the aisle is shocking and will be a great detriment to all Americans in the future.

Moreover, these pieces of legislation do nothing to holistically solve the most pressing concerns hardworking Americans have with healthcare: ever-increasing premiums, unstable health markets, and exploding drug costs. In fact, in the last year and a half, the majority has gone out of their way to destabilize health markets as much as they can.

Instead of encouraging Americans to enroll in health insurance, the Department of Health and Human Services has created an advertising campaign explicitly undermining the individual insurance markets created under the Affordable Care Act. Republicans have cut the Department's budget for those grassroots organizations whose sole purpose is to assist folks in signing up for health insurance. How much of the budget did they cut? 92 percent.

In addition to this, HHS has threatened States that try to lower premiums, and the Trump administration has even canceled cost-sharing reduction payments to insurers, which the CBO projects will leave 1 million more people uninsured, raise premiums by 20 to 25 percent over the next 2 years, and increase the Federal deficit by $200 billion.

Listen, people, when we started this business of the Affordable Care Act--as much as my friends on the other side who have the prerogative, in the majority, to be in disagreement with this measure as well as any others and to offer this thing that ain't going nowhere here today--the simple fact of the matter is, some few years back, we had 42 million Americans who were uninsured. We now have more than 42 million Americans uninsured, and that is wrong.

I said yesterday in the Rules Committee, all of us, 535--the Senate and the House--and the six delegates, ought to be locked up up here until we come up with a sensible solution for the American people with reference to a crisis.

It was said yesterday by the chair of this committee that the plan that is going to be offered--that we did offer and then they voted against--would be the best healthcare plan in the world. Well, it ain't the best healthcare plan

in the world. The best healthcare plans in the world are in Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, Australia, and a whole bunch of other places other than America.

And while the Trump administration has pushed junk healthcare plans, even the organizations that originally lobbied the administration for access to these plans now say they no longer want to use them.

All in all, as a result of these policies, as I have indicated, 4 million fewer Americans have health insurance than when Donald John Trump took office, and healthcare costs continue to rise unabated.

I need not remind my colleagues that people in the United States pay far more for healthcare than in any other industrialized nation on Earth, and, in most cases, they get far less. We spend over 18 percent of our gross domestic product on healthcare, compared to most other countries, which spend less than 10 percent, with much of the disparity occurring thanks to higher drug prices and administrative overhead.

Despite the money we pour into our healthcare, the United States has the shortest life expectancy and highest infant mortality of any modern industrialized nation--let me repeat that--the shortest life expectancy, and the highest infant mortality of any modern industrialized nation.

We have far fewer physicians--and we had better do something about that; not in this measure, not in the Affordable Healthcare Act. We had better get busy trying to figure out how to provide more physicians, more nurses, more research for a variety of measures that are oncoming that our Nation is going to be confronted with.

We have fewer hospital beds and, in perhaps what is the most depressing statistic of all of U.S. healthcare, the United States is one of only 13 countries in the world where the rate of maternal mortality, defined as the death of a mother in the year after she gives birth, is now worse than it was 25 years ago.

And here we are, continuing to jaw jack about something that ain't going nowhere, and we have situations in our country that all of us know something about, all of us care about. There is no Republican in the House or Democrat in the House that doesn't care about their constituents and their healthcare. And at the very same time, what we are winding up doing is arguing with each other and nothing is getting done, and that is just dead wrong for this country.

Black women, in particular, are three times more likely to die from health-related issues to their pregnancy. How can we seemingly pay for more healthcare now than at any point in our Nation's history and, yet, at the same time, be getting worse care than we were decades ago?

We have a fundamentally broken system. The majority doesn't seem to have any way of fixing it, and I am not even sure that they want to fix it. Indeed, they seem to be going out of their way making it somehow worse.

Now I hear all of the voices out there. I had a constituent call the other day to tell me that I wasn't as liberal as his people were, liberal, and that I didn't understand this whole healthcare system.

And I told him: Listen, man, in 1992, when I ran for office, I ran on the premise of universal healthcare for every American, period. And when we did the Affordable Healthcare Act, it ultimately got called the ObamaCare Act.

I have said in the Rules Committee repeatedly, it probably should have been called the Hastings/ObamaCare Act, or perhaps we would have done what Dr. Burgess asked us to do and it would be called the Burgess Healthcare Act.

I don't care what it is called. It needs to be called something that is going to help every American, and not just a handful, and certainly not the richest people in this country who don't even need any healthcare. They have been at the socialized healthcare business for all of their lives and, therefore, people like Donald John Trump don't need to worry about this kind of thing.

It is those people that are vulnerable. It is those people on Medicaid in Florida and other States that didn't expand Medicaid, 900,000 of them in my State, that are left to the mercies of the system.

And what do they do? All of us know what they do. When they have healthcare, they go to the hospital, to the emergency room, generally speaking, they are treated, and then those taxpayers in those respective jurisdictions wind up paying for it.

So why don't we get our act together and try to do something about it now?

I have proudly advocated for multiple pieces of legislation that will improve and strengthen the Medicare system, including H.R. 676, the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, which will provide all individuals residing in the United States and the United States territories, with affordable healthcare, including that which is medically most necessary, such as primary and preventative care, dietary and nutritional therapies, prescription drugs, emergency care, long-term care, mental health services, dental services, and vision care. Underscore preventative care. And if we did more in that arena, we wouldn't have as much of a problem as we do today.

Medicare for All will save taxpayers hundreds of dollars a month. Now, I firmly believe that we must focus priorities in the interest of the American people to ensure that our citizens have continued access to healthcare services.

So when we come back here in September, when we finish all of our fighting in November, and we have somebody that is going to get elected, 435 of us will return here and be sworn in in January. Let's all make a commitment that we are going to work together, together, to get all of the resources, the tremendous minds, the incredible staffs that work here in this institution together, and try to make sure that we do the right thing by the American people and pass a measure that will cause everyone to have affordable care.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule that would change the rules of the House to prevent any legislation from being considered that would reduce the guaranteed benefits for individuals enrolled in either Medicare or Medicaid programs.

I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat

the previous question so that we may protect these critical programs for this generation and the next.

Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared now to advise my colleague from Texas that I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close when, and if, he is.

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, this place, the people's House, should be about approaching our congressional responsibilities and daily activities in a manner that is fair and respectful to all Americans; in a manner where the appropriate committee of jurisdiction holds hearings and markups; in a manner where experts in the field are respected and consulted; in a manner where Members of both political parties have the ability to offer amendments and debate the contents of bills that come to the House floor.

Unfortunately, in this historically closed-off, Republican run House, that is not the case. And let me make it very clear. Even though in the Ways and Means and the Appropriations Committee, as a matter of practice, we allow for closed rules, we now have, with these three rules that are likely to be finished today, we have 95 closed rules. This is 2018, and not in the history of the people's House has the process been as closed.

When the Speaker of the House of Representatives began this session, he indicated that it would be the most open session that we would have. And yet, it is not the case.

I spoke earlier about immigration, and I saw this morning where the majority leader has determined, even though having promised his own conference that he would have a vote on immigration, he ain't gonna do it.

Now, something is wrong with this process and it needs to be corrected, and we can correct it going forward. We will make 100, and then we will be historically referenced as the most closed Congress in the history of the United States of America.

What we see are my friends across the aisle, bending over backwards to reward a very specific and elite constituency. Week after week, the powerful gun lobby is rewarded as Republican leadership refuses to bring up even the most commonsense gun violence prevention legislation.

The next week, like today, the powerful medical insurance lobby chalks up a win as this Republican-led Congress votes in favor of special interests over the interests of hardworking Americans.

Some other people that make out like bandits that we never talk about are the insurance companies. I could spend a whole hour talking about how they are benefiting while we are about the business of tying each other in knots with verbiage rather than with substantive legislation.

Mr. Speaker, while there is no quick fix to any of these measures, not to gun violence, opioid addiction, the immigration problems, and ongoing foreign cyber attacks on our election system's infrastructure, we simply must engage in the complicated and difficult process of improving our country's current policies.

I, as well as my colleagues on this side of the aisle, stand ready to work with Members of Congress to bring commonsense legislation to the floor that will benefit all Americans and not just the rarified few.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and a ``no'' vote on the previous question. This measure we are debating here today ain't going nowhere, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1011, I call up the bill (H.R. 6311) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to modify the definition of qualified health plan for purposes of the health insurance premium tax credit and to allow individuals purchasing health insurance in the individual market to purchase a lower premium copper plan, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill currently under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I chair the Health Subcommittee at the Ways and Means Committee, and I have had the opportunity, like many of my colleagues, to hear from physicians, hospitals, and patient advocates. I have heard a lot of stories about increased costs, which are exacerbating the coverage and access challenges that we currently face.

There is a broad consensus that healthcare in the United States needs to move towards a system that provides greater access to affordable care. The question is: How do we get that done?

The ACA government-approved, government-mandated one-size-fits-all insurance has dramatically decreased choice and increased premiums in the individual market. We will hear a lot of debate about this today.

But here is what is happening close to home. Mr. Speaker, in my home State, the Department of Health and Human Services released a report that shows, between 2013 and 2017, the average monthly premium for coverage in the individual market, in Illinois, increased 108 percent, or by $3,228 a year.

I have five counties in my constituency. In two of those five counties, there is only one insurer offering plans on the individual exchange. That is not a choice. That is a government mandate. That is a government monopoly.

It is time to drive a discussion around empowering individuals and their families to make healthcare decisions for themselves based on their needs and based on their budgets.

The policies that are included in H.R. 6311 expand access to consumer-directed health plans with tax favored accounts, like health savings accounts, HSAs. This bill increases choice, lowers premiums, and let's more families save more money to pay for their healthcare costs.

Now, my friends across the aisle will, without question, get up this afternoon and say that this bill doesn't do anything to help people. That instead of these policies, we should drop everything and work to fix the very broken, flawed plan that is the ACA. Well, here is the thing.

There are twice as many people who have an HSA than those who are covered under the exchanges. Let me say that again. Twice as many Americans are covered under HSAs than under the Affordable Care Act: 21.8 million people, Mr. Speaker, had a health savings account in 2017, and there is only 10.6 million who are enrolled in the exchanges in 2018--2 to 1.

The bill makes smart changes to help families save more money pre-tax for their healthcare. It changes the so-called use-it-or-lose-it nature of flexible spending arrangements, FSAs, by allowing balances to roll over to the next year. It doubles the amount of money people can put into a health savings account so that they can save enough to cover their exposure to out-of-pocket costs, and they are increasingly vulnerable to these out-of-pocket costs.

Now, my friends on the other side may say they want to talk about and distract from some of these commonsense solutions and say that somehow some subpar insurance is being promoted. Well, even after canceling millions of healthcare plans that people had and that people liked, notwithstanding the President's promise that if you like your coverage, you get to keep your coverage--you remember that, Mr. Speaker-- notwithstanding that, Democrats, God bless them, they still think they know what type of healthcare is best for everyone. They haven't learned yet that individuals and families are the best ones to make these decisions, not politicians and not bureaucrats in Washington.

We think people should be able to purchase the type of coverage they want and the type of coverage they can afford. One of the provisions in this bill allows everyone to purchase a catastrophic plan, a plan that was designed by ObamaCare. These plans offer the lowest premiums, and we think everyone should have access to them.

Even better, because these plans have average deductibles of $6,000, we think we should allow catastrophic and bronze plans to qualify for an HSA as well. This means people can get a break in taxes for the money that they save for their huge ObamaCare deductibles. This is real savings to real people who are struggling under the current healthcare law.

It allows working seniors with HSA-eligible coverage who are enrolled in Medicare part A to contribute to an HSA, which can provide an added benefit for seniors and an incentive for them to stay on their employer-sponsored plan over Medicare, if they choose. It makes perfect sense.

It increases utility and flexibility through allowing both spouses to make

catch-up contributions into the same HSA if they are over age 55.

Finally, it delays ObamaCare's health insurance tax for an additional 2 years, which would otherwise increase the cost of insurance premiums through a nearly $27 billion excise tax. This is a flawed tax that gets passed on to American families who are purchasing in the individual market; it gets passed on to seniors in Medicare Advantage; it gets passed on to small businesses; and it gets passed on in Medicaid programs.

So I want to thank the Ways and Means Committee members who took that effort seriously. I look forward to this afternoon's debate.

I want to thank Chairman Brady for his leadership in driving this discussion, and I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Ways and Means,

Washington, DC, July 13, 2018.

Hon. Greg Walden,

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Walden: I write to you regarding H.R. 6311,

to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and the Patient

Protection and Affordable Care Act to modify the definition

of the qualified health plan for purposes of the health

insurance premium tax credit and to allow individuals

purchasing health insurance in the individual market to

purchase a lower premium copper plan.

The Committee on Ways and Means ordered favorably reported

this bill which was also referred to the Committee on Energy

and Commerce. I ask that the Committee on Energy and Commerce

waive formal consideration of the bill so that it may proceed

expeditiously to the House Floor.

I acknowledge that by waiving formal consideration of the

bill, the Committee on Energy and Commerce is in no way

waiving its jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in

those provisions of the bills that fall within your Rule X

jurisdiction. I would support your effort to seek appointment

of an appropriate number of conferees on any House-Senate

conference involving this legislation.

I will include a copy of our letters in the Congressional

Record during consideration of this legislation on the House

floor.

Sincerely,

Kevin Brady,

Chairman.

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

The gentleman from Michigan asked the rhetorical question: Why are we here?

I will tell you one reason why we are here. One reason why we are here is I have an independent recollection of being in my car on Michigan Avenue in Chicago, listening then to President Obama give a speech to, I think it was the American Medical Association. I was listening on the radio and he said, I think--I may be conflating here. But he said: If you like your coverage, you can keep your coverage. If you like your doctor, you get to keep your doctor.

I think, during the course of the healthcare discussion, the Obama administration made this explicit promise to the American people: You are going to save $2,500 per family. And it was going to be great. It was going to solve all the problems. Yet, that didn't happen. That is why we are here.

I have a constituency where two counties have one insurer. That is why we are here.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen) to tell us why we are here.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski).

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

Mr. Speaker, every time today we hear the phrase ``junk coverage,'' think ObamaCare. And I am not trying to be facetious, because there is nothing in this bill that makes any change to any coverage. I could only assume that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu) is referring to the catastrophic coverage that was part of the ACA.

All we are doing today is saying, with that coverage, they ought not be alone. They ought not just be out on an ice floe all by themselves. People who have that type of catastrophic coverage that our friends, when they were in the majority, created, those people should simply have access to a health savings account.

What is not to love about that?

So when you hear ``junk coverage,'' just be dismissive of that. It is a talking point, and it is not particularly persuasive. Who is persuasive is the gentleman from Nebraska.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).

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

Mr. Speaker, let's talk about the 5 percent solution. So, if you are in the 5 percent, you need a solution. Five percent of this country is millions of people who are in HSAs.

And the characterization of something as a tax shelter, as the gentleman from Texas just characterized, is a completely loaded and pejorative term.

So where do we go for some level of clarity? Let's go to the Joint Committee on Taxation, and the question that was posed to them was: Show us the tax returns of people who take advantage or who are in a health savings account.

In 2015, 71 percent of returns reported an income of $200,000 or less. Are those rich people? I don't think so. And, in addition, 28 percent reported income of $75,000 or less.

So the hyperbole, the overstatement, the mischaracterization, I think is ``rich.''

And did you notice something, Mr. Speaker? I laid out the President's promise: You like your coverage, you get to keep your coverage. You like your doctor, you get to keep your doctor. And we are going to save $2,500 per year per family.

There has been silence on the other side of the aisle, and I predict that that won't be answered all afternoon. Do you want to know why? Because there is no answer.

For real answers, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stivers).

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

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in this bill that is destructive at all. The entire structure of the bill is invitational. The bill presumes the status quo in terms of the Affordable Care Act, and it allows people to get in sync with the Affordable Care Act, and it allows them to save money in a tax-free manner.

I am really surprised at the hyperbole, the overstatement, and the over characterization. Nobody has answered either, Mr. Speaker, if you will notice, my admonition about the characterization of junk insurance. To attribute that claim, which we have heard from a couple of speakers this afternoon, against this bill is to attribute that claim and that criticism against the ACA, because the underlying bill matches exactly what the ACA purports, that is, catastrophic coverage. It simply says, if you have that coverage and your deductibles take your breath away, good news; you can save on a tax-free basis.

So I think, with all due respect to the talking point writers and all due respect to the critics of this bill, I think the entire debate would be uplifted somewhat if we were debating the actual bill that is before us instead of tweets and news feeds and so forth.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I served on the Ways and Means Committee when the ACA was passed, and I recall then-minority ranking member Dave Camp from Michigan, who went on to become the chairman later, offered an alternative to the ACA.

He inquired of then-chairman Rangel: When are we going to get to the Republican alternative? When are we going to get to the Republican alternative?

I remember this because I was sitting--I think I had the same seat that Mr. Higgins from New York has--down in front on the left side of the dais.

Charlie Rangel evoked an old gospel song. He said: Soon and very soon, which is why I remember.

Now, soon and very soon never came for that amendment. Soon and very soon never came for the Republican alternative to be considered in the Ways and Means Committee.

Now what we are dealing with is the reality of the Affordable Care Act. Mr. Speaker, what we are proposing is to say: Look, we have got some suggestions; we think we can make this better.

Is this reckless? I think not. I fundamentally reject that. When you accept the entire premise of the current structure of the Affordable Care Act, and you take something that pre-existed within the Affordable Care Act, that is health savings accounts, and you attach it and you expand it, where is the defensiveness?

This is what is amazing to me about this debate. This is why our country is stuck. Our friends on the other side of the aisle have created the Affordable Care Act, and it is orthodoxy. To take it on and to try to make improvements--they say they want improvements.

They say: Oh, let's work together.

All afternoon with Ms. Jenkins here on the House floor, she was managing time of bills that were bipartisan in nature, bipartisan as they went through the committee, but you got none of that veneer of bipartisanship as they were discussed on the floor. They were perceived as a direct attack at what? Orthodoxy.

So notwithstanding the invitation to work on both sides of the aisle, the other side is making it very clear that they are unwilling to take the structure of the ACA, to take favorable tax treatment and help more people save their own money and spare themselves the results of a law that our friends on the other side of the aisle said that you could keep your doctor, you could keep your coverage, and you would save $2,500 per person--and, again, I reiterate, Mr. Speaker, did you notice there was no answer to that charge this afternoon?

I laid it out twice and now a third time; and absolute silence.

Why? Because they oversold. Now when they have got friends on this side of the aisle who are saying: Look, we can improve this. Let's work here. No, we don't like the ACA, but we can work through some of these things, then, all of a sudden, it is stiff-arm. Then, all of a sudden, it is insincere. Then, all of a sudden, it is political.

This is good work, this is serious work, and it is work that is designed to bring relief to people who are suffering, who have no interest in the nature of a donkeys-and-elephants debate on the House floor. Most people's eyes glaze over.

Most people say they want remedies. This is a remedy that makes sense. This is a remedy in sync with the ACA in some ways. The responses we have heard from the other side I don't think are persuasive.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of H.R. 6311, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I urge us to reject this motion to recommit.

The hospital insurance trust fund isn't going to be insolvent purely because we are freeing Americans from the individual mandate. This crisis has been going on for decades.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1011 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1011 provides for the consideration of two bills aimed at removing some of the most burdensome aspects of the Affordable Care Act, and, as a result, moving toward lowering healthcare costs for the millions of Americans who are confronted daily with rising premiums, rising deductibles, and rising drug prices.

With each bill, we take one step closer to ultimately eliminating the Affordable Care Act's government-run approach to healthcare and return to a market-driven solution that puts patients first.

The first bill in today's rule, H.R. 184, the Protect Medical Innovation Act of 2017, would repeal the excise tax on medical devices imposed on American companies by the previously mentioned Affordable Care Act.

The second bill in today's rule, H.R. 6311, the Increasing Access to Lower Premium Plans and Expanding Health

Savings Accounts Act of 2018, expands the availability and the use of health savings accounts to allow individuals and their families to save their own money and budget for the healthcare needs they have that otherwise would not be part of their budget.

Today's resolution provides for a closed rule for H.R. 184, the Protect Medical Innovation Act of 2017. This is the standard practice for a tax-related measure on the House floor. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member on the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule does provide the minority with the customary motion to recommit with or without instructions.

The second part of today's resolution provides for a closed rule for H.R. 6311, the Increasing Access to Lower Premium Plans and Expanding Health Savings Accounts Act of 2018. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The customary motion to recommit with or without instructions is provided to the minority.

This week, Republicans in the House continue our efforts to increase more healthcare options while driving down premiums in the individual market. According to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation at the Department of Health and Human Services, premiums on the exchange are 105 percent higher, on average, in calendar year 2017, compared to premiums in the individual market in calendar year 2013, which was the last year before the Affordable Care Act took effect.

It is important that we continue to address the negative impact that the Affordable Care Act has had on the individual market and to help Americans across the country be more in charge of their healthcare purchases.

Thus far, the Republican Congress has been successful in nullifying the individual mandate, repealing the Independent Payment Advisory Board, and delaying many of the harmful taxes on American businesses and American consumers. I am also encouraged by the actions of the administration in permitting more low-cost limited duration insurance plans and allowing access to association health plans for more small businesses.

These are choices that are provided to the American people so that they, the American people, can be in the driver's seat, not the other way around with the ACA's government-approved one-size-fits-all healthcare model.

With that in mind, two bills we are considering this week seek to expand and improve health savings accounts. Under the current rule, H.R. 6311, the Increasing Access to Lower Premium Plan and Expanding Health Savings Accounts Act of 2018, will enhance the benefit of tax- preferred health accounts so that individuals can better plan and save for their healthcare needs, and, also, these individuals will see lower premiums on their healthcare plans.

For the last several Congresses, I have argued to improve the utility of health savings accounts, and so I am pleased to see that these important policies are being advanced through the House this week.

In addition to offering health insurance, many employers often arrange to reimburse their employees and their dependants some of their medical expenses that are not covered by health insurance. Health flexible spending accounts and health reimbursement arrangements are two of the more common arrangements offered by employers.

I have heard the frustration of employees, many of whom are my constituents in north Texas, over forfeiting the remaining amounts in their flexible spending account at the end of each plan year. We can all agree that the healthcare needs and purchases vary from year to year, where one year a person may have more medical expenses than the next or the other way around.

One of the provisions in H.R. 6311 eliminates the arbitrary ``use it or lose it'' rule and allows flexible spending account balances to be carried over to the next plan year within a reasonable annual flexible spending account contribution limit.

Another provision allows working seniors that are covered under an HSA-eligible high deductible health plan and enrolled in Medicare part A to continue to contribute to their health savings account. Just because someone becomes eligible for Medicare because of age, they should not be prohibited from continuing to contribute to a health savings account.

Under current law, there are annual health savings account contribution limits. In 2018, the limit for an individual was $3,450. For families, that amount was $6,900. While these limits are updated annually for inflation, they are significantly less than the combined limit on annual out-of-pocket deductible expenses.

H.R. 6311 would allow individuals to increase their contributions to equal to the combined annual limit on the out-of-pocket and deductible expenses under their HSA-qualified insurance plan. That would be $6,550 for an individual and $13,300 for a family this year.

The Affordable Care Act limits the option of individuals enrolled in bronze and so-called copper, or catastrophic, plans to make HSA contributions. Also, only those under 30 or those that qualify for a hardship exemption are actually able to purchase the so-called copper health plan. That is a 50 percent actuarial value health plan.

So, today, I am pleased that a bill that I introduced with Representative Roskam, H.R. 6314, the Health Savings Act of 2018, to expand the eligibility and the access to health savings accounts by allowing plans categorized as catastrophic and bronze plans in the individual and small group markets to qualify for HSA contributions. That is included in this bill.

Lastly, I appreciate working with the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee Chairman Peter Roskam on H.R. 6311. One of the key provisions of the bill is to provide an off-ramp from ObamaCare's rising premiums and limited choices by allowing the premium tax credit to be used for qualified plans offered outside of the law's exchanges and healthcare.gov.

In addition, it expands access to the lowest premium plans available, so-called copper or catastrophic plans, for all individuals purchasing coverage in the individual market and allows the premium tax credit to be used to offset the cost of such plans.

I recognize not everyone will choose to have a health savings account, but they should have the option because HSAs represent a powerful tool to lower prices and improve access to quality care for everyone, and those are goals that we can all share.

Now, it is well documented that many of the provisions contained within the Affordable Care Act have negative consequences on patients, both in access to care and in affordability. One of the provisions that has been universally criticized is that, on a large, bipartisan nature, its repeal was called for almost immediately after the passage of the Affordable Care Act. This is the tax on medical device manufacturers, or more commonly referred to as the medical device tax.

It seems illogical that within a piece of legislation that was purported to make medical care available, more accessible to all Americans, the Federal Government would want to tax the very providers of medical innovation that create devices to improve the delivery of healthcare, but, nevertheless, that is exactly what happened when ObamaCare passed in 2010, and it was done as a means to pay for the astronomical price tag that accompanied the Affordable Care Act.

This tax burden is unfair, and it actually increases costs that consumers pay at their doctors' offices. The tax has also been cited by dozens of medical device manufacturers who have or are considering moving their operations overseas so that they can continue to innovate without the heavy burden of this tax stifling their growth. This tax slows the creation of new techniques and devices, which will make the delivery of medicine more efficient, and it puts at risk the jobs that were created by the creation of such devices.

For anyone who thinks that we are merely talking about the largest and most expensive pieces of technology found within a hospital-- basically, your MRI, CAT scans, and some surgical equipment--let's be clear that

this tax covers every piece of medical equipment, from those large machines to the smallest of items, including syringes used to deliver lifesaving antibiotics and vaccines. It continues to negatively impact a number of constituents in my district and, I am certain, in districts around the country, and it does continue to create a burden on a number of companies.

The medical device tax has led to the elimination of thousands of good-paying jobs, and repealing it would be the first step to bringing those jobs back and stem the loss of future jobs within this vital industry that is helping to mitigate rising costs of healthcare due to the burdensome provisions within the Affordable Care Act.

This is a tax on business, a tax on consumers, and a tax on innovation. To date, 33,000 jobs have been lost in the medical device industry since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, and it is projected that over 130,000 additional jobs are on the chopping block.

Why would anyone be surprised about this? Excise taxes--and that is what this is, an excise tax--are meant to lead to a reduction in the consumption of the goods being taxed. We place an excise tax on cigarettes. We want to discourage people from smoking. We make it burdensome to afford a smoking habit.

Did we really intend, with the passage of the Affordable Care Act by congressional Democrats in 2010, to make it more burdensome to use more efficient medical devices?

H.R. 184 has bipartisan, bicameral support, with currently 277 cosponsors. Republican leadership in the House has heard this request and heard the calls from many Members within this body and is moving this bill in a responsible way to put Americans back to work and lower healthcare costs for all.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support today's rule and the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

The gentleman is quite correct in identifying the other body as sometimes an obstacle to good public policy, for it was 1 year ago that the other body blocked a health care reform that this body had passed the previous May.

But, Mr. Speaker, I want to draw the House's attention to an article in today's Wall Street Journal. The title of the article is ``TrumpCare beats ObamaCare.'' And I just want to quote a little bit from this article.

To set the stage, in December, with the repeal of the individual mandate, and quoting here: ``But while many people didn't realize it at the time, it turns out that Mr. Trump has been helping to improve an important source of insurance coverage since virtually the moment he took office.''

Continuing to quote here: ``By prioritizing economic growth and reducing the tax and regulatory burdens on U.S. business, Mr. Trump has helped create an economy with more job openings than ever before. As if by magic, the invisible hand of a freer marketplace is now generating new benefits as employers compete to fill all those open positions.''

Continuing to quote here: ``For the first time in six years, the share of U.S. workers offered health insurance through their employer has risen, a sign a tighter labor market is prompting businesses to offer more generous benefits.''

So, Mr. Speaker, I simply submit that the activities of the Trump administration have, indeed, improved the healthcare landscape in this country. That is something we should acknowledge and embrace.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close as well.

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

The gentleman from Florida is making a point about open rules, and I do feel obligated to point out in the 111th Congress--that was the Congress that was the first 2 years of President Obama's administration--in the 111th Congress, under Speaker Pelosi, the majority had zero open rules. That is zero open rules in the 2 years in which we saw the passage of the Affordable Care Act, the passage of Dodd-Frank; the House-passed Waxman/Markey, which was a cap-and-trade global warming bill, so significant pieces of legislation passed the floor of this House, all under closed rules.

But, Mr. Speaker, today's rule brings forward two pieces of legislation that will have a meaningful impact on Americans' healthcare costs, including the premiums and the prices they pay for medicines.

H.R. 184, the Protect Medical Innovation Act of 2017, which will repeal the Affordable Care Act's ill-conceived medical device tax, and H.R. 6311, the Increasing Access to Lower Premium Plans and Expanding Health Savings Account Act of 2018, which will provide greater freedom for Americans to use their own money to pay for medical expenses out of their health savings accounts, both of these build on the House's work over the past 2 years to make healthcare a more patient-centered market.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to thank Representatives Paulsen and Roskam for their work on these measures. I urge my colleagues to support today's rule and move the debate forward on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here with Ms. Jenkins, moving forward on this legislation. It represents an opportunity for us to deal with a series of, as she mentioned, bipartisan ideas, relatively simple, to enhance service delivery.

I state from the outset that I am troubled that we were not able to provide opportunities to pay for these. They carry a cost. In committee, even though I thought they were a good idea, I voted against some of them because they were rather expensive.

In the aggregate, these are things, moving forward, that will improve healthcare, and I am hopeful that, as we move along the process, we can find some ways to offset the costs involved.

Some of us have philosophical questions about the role of HSAs and how it fits overall, but this legislation will make key consumer- friendly improvements to our existing system. Direct primary care medical homes are an important example of successful delivery reforms that will become easier to access under this legislation.

DPC arrangements offer individuals access to comprehensive primary care and prevention services in a medical home setting for a flat monthly fee, as opposed to concierge services that some people have in mind. Most of these practices typically charge a low monthly fee, perhaps $50 to $100, in most cases, and they serve low- and

moderate-income patients. These fees support the delivery of high- quality, coordinated care by providing better healthcare upfront in primary care settings.

DPC practices reduce unnecessary hospital and specialty care, as well as administrative expenses. This empowers the doctor-patient relationship, enabling providers to resist financial incentives that distort the decisionmaking process in primary care.

It also reduces the conveyor belt process, where people are typically shuttled into the office in 8-minute increments. This is not the case in direct primary care. It is not uncommon for appointments to last half an hour or even an hour. So they build a better relationship with patients, and they are able to better understand and address healthcare needs.

By offering a high level of access to primary care, evidence shows that direct primary care medical homes improve health outcomes and reduce costs. Today, DPC medical homes serve individuals of all ages and income in at least 47 States.

This legislation simplifies existing IRS regulations and clarifies that direct primary care medical homes are qualified health expenses-- medical services--and not health plans.

I personally question the IRS ruling. We have debated with them, but we have lost that. We fix it with this legislation.

As more individuals and employers seek to utilize the direct primary care delivery model, it is important that this outdated tax barrier not get in the way of patients accessing this successful model.

The legislation will allow HSA plans to cover onsite employee clinics. Think for a moment about the nursing stations that we have here in the House of Representatives to provide that service. They can offer physical exams, immunization, over-the-counter drugs, drug testing, hearing and vision screening, and other minor primary care preventive services to help employers assemble a benefits package for their employees that is both practical and can give them a competitive edge.

Allowing employees to access this basic healthcare service at work means it doesn't disrupt the worksite. It is more convenient for them; it is better for the employer.

Another key consumer change made by this bill is to recognize that employees change jobs. This bill allows individuals to streamline the conversion of a medical savings account, flexible savings account, or HSA so they won't lose savings when they change jobs. These reasonable changes will help consumers make the most of their employer-sponsored coverage.

Now--make no mistake--while this legislation will certainly help some consumers, it doesn't atone for the systematic sabotage that we have seen of the Affordable Care Act by the administration and some of my Republican colleagues. By zeroing out the mandate penalty, estimates are that insurance premiums will rise 15 percent. None of these bills before us today undo that premium hike that is visited upon our constituents unnecessarily.

These premium increases are coming after Republicans gave insurance companies billions in tax cuts in their tax bills. Republican attempts to expand HSAs is no replacement for the Affordable Care Act's financial assistance. Attempts to expand HSAs are a continuation of a platform of shifting families into health plans which provide fewer health benefits and higher out-of-pocket costs, while providing greater tax benefits for those who need them least.

HSAs and high-deductible healthcare plans shift costs to consumers without bending the cost curve or addressing underlying costs of medical care in the United States. I think we can and should do better.

For instance, the President has promised action on lowering prescription drug costs. These bills today do nothing to lower the cost of drugs consumers buy, and seek to move more people into plans that provide only catastrophic coverage, exposing more people to pay the full freight of drug price hikes.

Now, we have legislation before our committees that could move forward to do something about this, and I am saddened, despite Trump's talking about it, that we have really not taken action to do so. And we could, on a bipartisan basis, if we were enabled to do so.

The collection of bills on the floor this week will reduce Federal revenues by about $90 billion and will do nothing to reduce the number of uninsured people that will increase as a result of policy changes my Republican friends have done in this Congress. Their sabotage efforts under the Trump administration have caused millions of people to lose coverage, and millions more will do so in the future.

Now we are seeing, in the budget proposal, my Republican friends proposing to cut Medicare and Medicaid by nearly $1 trillion to try and pay for the deficits that have been exaggerated by tax cuts they have enacted. The bills that we will be considering, especially the next one, will only add fuel to that fire.

So, I am pleased that we have got some bipartisan pieces that we can move forward. I am hopeful that we don't abandon a sense of fiscal responsibility to be able to work together to pay for them, and I hope that we can encourage some of my friends on the other side of the aisle to dial back the assault on the Affordable Care Act, especially by the administration, so that we don't destabilize the system further, drive up costs, and increase the number of uninsured.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means, author of several of these reform provisions, and a champion of value over volume in healthcare, as well as fiscal restraint.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Wisconsin 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute just to respond briefly.

Mr. Speaker, I was here in 2009. The very month President Obama took office, there were 700,000 jobs lost. There was great fear that we were going to have a complete collapse of the auto industry. There was a whole range of things that we were in an emergency situation on, and the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

As it was, a major portion of that bill was tax cuts to try and stimulate the economy. I do point out that as we move forward, our healthcare bill was entirely paid for, and that is what we need to get back to.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis), a champion of healthcare, dealing with disparities in the healthcare system, a champion for balance and vision, and I appreciate him being here.

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

Mr. Speaker, I take modest exception to the notion that somehow the Affordable Care Act failed. It represents the largest expansion of healthcare that we have seen in decades. It is so popular and important that, when my Republican friends attempted to repeal it, something they have been working on for 7 years, it blew up in their face. Even President Trump said their bill was mean. And it continues, even though they are working to dismantle it bolt by bolt.

I would hope that we will return to sanity to be able to work to be able to move forward on things like some of the elements in this bill here today that we agree upon that could move us forward rather than the continued battle over the notion that the Affordable Care Act is something that needs to be destroyed. The American people deserve better.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity for us to have this discussion. It has been fun working with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen) on this notion of direct primary care. It is a simple notion that runs athwart IRS regulations. I still don't fully understand why these should be classified as ``health plan'' rather than ``payment for service.''

But, nonetheless, we were able to work together on a bipartisan basis to move this forward. It is not expensive. The score is less than $2 billion out of $90 billion that we are tossing around here, and I personally believe that it will result in substantial savings in order to provide more efficient coverage.

But I must say that I am a little troubled by the continuing assault on what we are doing with the fiscal future of this country.

We just saw the latest reports that because of what my Republican friends have done with the budget and with the tax bill, we have doubled the deficit this year. It is doubled.

Now, there were complaints from my friend from Kansas about deficit spending when President Obama took office. Remember, he was only President for one-third of that month and lost 700,000 jobs. The economy was in free fall. Absolutely we took steps: cutting taxes and moving in areas to try and strengthen parts of the economy that was posing huge problems for people across the board. And this was broadly supported by people in business. Economic experts actually agree that probably we didn't do enough, and that slowed the economic recovery. But the economy has recovered.

We have seen 9 consecutive years of private sector job growth. That is what Trump inherited: over 7 years of job growth. The economy was strong. It wasn't in free fall. Yet, in that strong position, we are doubling the deficit this year. We are looking at trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see.

And we just had the President announce that he wants to spend $12 billion more, not because we are in economic free fall, but because his ruinous trade policies have resulted in losses to the farming sector. They are going to provide extra government bailout, not because farmers want it, but because they are being injured by these ruinous trade policies.

There was a time when most of my Republican friends would rise up in opposition. It is certain that if these were offered by Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, they would be screaming at the top of their lungs. Most of them are strangely silent now, but it is another $12 billion to try to fix a problem that Trump has created by starting trade wars with our friends, trying to punish China, and, in fact, we are punishing our allies. And somehow auto imports are national security.

This is embarrassing that we are in this situation. But it is not just embarrassing, it is dangerous. We are weakening ourselves economically, while we pick fights with our allies, like Canada and the European Union.

Mr. Speaker, on top of all of this, we are going to advance legislation today that have some nuggets of positive things. I have worked with my colleagues on some of them. There are important advances, but they are coming at a price of $90 billion added to the deficit, without even an attempt to work with us to offset. I think we could have offset the direct primary care piece that we are talking about here. It is relatively small potatoes compared to $90 billion, and compared to $12 billion for tariff relief for a trade war we didn't need.

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy the conversation about some of these items. I think it is important to spotlight them. But I am hopeful that we are able to return to fiscal stability, not having bailouts for farmers that they don't want and wouldn't need if we had a rational tariff policy. I am hopeful that we are not going to have a parade of other things that undermine the Affordable Care Act and add unnecessary costs to the deficit.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I think we need to ask ourselves: What is this bill all about? Why are we here today?

H.R. 6311 is the final of three bills regarding health savings accounts and health taxes that we will be considering this week. I find it sad we are not spending our time today addressing the most pressing concerns of Americans struggling to make ends meet because of the Republican sabotage of healthcare coverage.

Nothing in H.R. 6311, or any other bill we have considered this week, undoes the ongoing harm caused by the actions of the Trump administration or this Republican Congress.

For example, earlier this month, the administration created needless confusion by refusing to make legally required risk adjustment payments until, when there was major protest, it reversed course last night under public pressure. But in June, the Justice Department refused to defend protection for the 130 million Americans living with preexisting health conditions.

Last fall, the President terminated cost-sharing reduction payments for Americans earning 100 to 250 percent of the Federal poverty level. The GOP tax bill gutted the individual responsibility requirement, causing a 15 percent spike in premiums, according to CBO.

Recently, the administration again cut funding for navigator organizations to just $10 million for the upcoming open enrollment period. I saw at home what these navigator provisions meant to nonprofit organizations that were reaching out to people who wanted information and healthcare.

Cut, cut, cut is the administration's answer. And this Congress' response to that administration action is zero, silence, silence, silence.

These and so many other actions by Republicans have led to direct increases in premiums and out-of-pocket costs for middle class families.

Expanding HSAs and shifting more Americans into catastrophic coverage, as H.R. 6311 does, will not meaningfully help middle class families harmed by Republican sabotage of ACA. Instead, it will primarily benefit wealthy Americans and large insurance companies.

According to data from the Joint Committee on Taxation, more than 80 percent of the tax benefit for health savings accounts goes to individuals earning more than $100,000 annually. We pointed that out in committee.

What was the response? Obfuscation, obfuscation. That is a fact and analysis given to us by the Joint Committee on Taxation. So all these crocodile tears for mainly middle class families, I think, are shown for what they are.

Very few families with modest incomes can afford the high, out-of- pocket expenses required in order to participate in a HSA. Doubling the amount that individuals can contribute tax-free--tax-free--as this bill does, will make no difference to the millions of working families who don't have thousands of dollars available to contribute to an HSA in the first place.

I suggest that everybody go home and talk to the general public.

In addition, a 2-year delay of the health insurance provider fee will have only a minimal impact on premiums. Indeed, this provision will mainly benefit insurance companies, while adding more than $25 billion to the deficit.

Not only do the bills we have considered this week not address these pressing issues, they also recklessly add to the deficit. Republicans have failed to produce even $1 for the enormous cost of these bills. So I said to the chairman of the committee that I once chaired, I was sometimes asked that question: Will you pay for it? And I said yes.

I asked the chairman: Will you pay for this? At first, it was said: Well, we don't have to do that in committee. So I said: Will you do it on the floor, yes or no? He said no.

So here we are. Although we do not yet have a final analysis from the Congressional Budget Office or the Joint Committee on Taxation, past estimates of similar provisions have shown us this:

H.R. 184, which would repeal the medical device tax, will cost about $20 billion over 10 years.

H.R. 6199, which would expand HSAs to include over-the-counter medications and gym memberships, will cost roughly $20 billion.

And this bill, which expands HSAs and delays a tax on the health insurance industry, would increase the deficit the most. This is, in a few words, a Risky Roskam bill that would cost up to $50 billion, $50 billion.

When all is said and done, our actions this week could add up to $90 billion to our Nation's debt, increasing pressure to cut vital programs like Medicare. This comes just months after a tax cut bill that would add an additional $2 billion to the debt.

So, look, we need to come and ask ourselves: Why are we here?

These bills will not likely pass the Senate or become law, so here we are. We are going to recess, adjourn tomorrow for 5 weeks or so. I think the reality is that these bills, which will not likely pass the Senate, will not ever become law.

I think it is likely that they have a different purpose, and I think that was described in a recent article in The Hill. I read it because I want the public to question what we do, and I quote:

``The bills on the House floor next week could give victories to the bill

sponsors who are also vulnerable in November.'' The chairman of the subcommittee, where I am ranking member, is facing, this article says, ``a tough reelection race in his suburban . . . district.''

``But overall, the measures slated for consideration are minor and won't make a major dent in premiums, according to Joe Antos, a healthcare expert at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute.''

I want to quote that again: ``These measures slated for consideration are minor and won't make a major dent in premiums, according to Joe Antos, a healthcare expert at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute.''

So I think that is really what this is all about. It is a political exercise. It is aimed to help people who are in a vulnerable political position. But that is not a reason to bring up these bills today, when, as I described earlier, there are so many issues relating to healthcare coverage.

The Republicans have undertaken these last months under this administration to do everything they can to sabotage healthcare for Americans. As a result, 3 million people less have healthcare insurance. But ACA works so well that 20 million people received healthcare coverage they did not have.

So, this is kind of a sad moment. We are turning this place into a campaign entity. We should not be doing that when it comes to healthcare coverage. We tried, in recent times, to say to the Republicans, if you want to improve ACA, we are ready. Never has there been any offer to do that. Instead, it was repeal, repeal, repeal. I won't say that 55 times, but that is how often it happened. More recently, it was sabotage, sabotage, sabotage. That isn't what we should be doing for what is so dear to Americans, healthcare coverage.

It is a sad day, as I said earlier, that, here we are, when so much needs to be done, and this, essentially, is a political exercise.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have heard the so-called fact that more people have HSAs than those who are covered by ObamaCare. That simply is not true.

ObamaCare includes expanded Medicaid. So if you want to talk about more than in the exchanges, we can discuss that and argue it, but don't come here and minimize the impact of ACA.

We worked hard on it. We meet so many people who have benefited from what we Democrats did, and the public, more and more, is expressing that. You were on the wrong side of history, and you are now on the wrong side of public opinion.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes, or more if he would like, to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Higgins), an active member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu), who is so active and there all the time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a true fighter.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence), my colleague.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I close, I think back some years ago when we were working on ACA. It was one of our proudest achievements. The Republicans, from day one, were determined to destroy it. ACA can be made better, but destruction is not improvement.

This bill, when you put it together, is not only unpaid for, but would be a step to try to undermine the basic thrust of the ACA, to replace these basic provisions with something much less.

In a word, the Republicans are on the wrong side of history, and the clock is ticking.

These bills, when you put them all together, essentially say, these are another way to undercut ACA. This is a very, very weak--and I think worse than a weak set of alternatives. They have never been able to come up with a comprehensive bill, and this effort is the opposite. As we have mentioned, relatively few people with lower income can access these. So many of the people who access HSAs are people who can afford it.

We can make it better. But don't come here when you have had no alternative to say that this is something that could replace ACA. You don't pay for it. You are reckless. This, as I said earlier, is a reckless bill of the chairman of our subcommittee.

So I urge my colleagues to reject this and to not be fooled. We Democrats come to the floor with a sense of being on the right side of history. What is happening in this country is that more and more of the public acknowledge it. Compared to when we first started, I remember going back home, there was so much opposition, so much misguided. But when people--20 million--for the first time, in most cases, had healthcare, the clock began to tick in the direction of universal care.

You are trying to turn back the clock, you Republicans, but it is ticking more and more towards universality. That is what is happening in this country. And this is becoming part of the bedrock, the foundations of care and of provisions for the benefit of the American people as Social Security was, as Medicare was, and as Medicaid was.

You are going to pay the price for your blind opposition. The public is more and more aware, as their eyes have been opened and as their health has been protected, what this has meant to millions of families in this country--millions. I run into it every day I go home, people who come and say: Without healthcare coverage,

where would I be? Not only financially, but where would I be and what is so dear to me, my health and the health of our families and the health of our kids?

I urge we Democrats to stand up tall and say to the American public: The ACA was a major historic step in the right direction. The Republicans continue to try to destroy it. History is showing that, once again, they were moving in the wrong discretion.

Mr. Speaker, I urge that we reject this bill and move proudly forward. We put together this step. We are going to continue to move forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.