[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 146 (Tuesday, September 27, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H5954-H5961]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CO-OP CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT OF 2016
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 893,
I call up the bill (H.R. 954) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to exempt from the individual mandate certain individuals who had
coverage under a terminated qualified health plan funded through the
Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan (CO-OP) program, as amended, and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 893, the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Ways and Means, printed in the bill, is adopted and the bill, as
amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 954
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``CO-OP Consumer Protection
Act of 2016''.
SEC. 2. EXEMPTION FROM INDIVIDUAL MANDATE FOR CERTAIN
INDIVIDUALS WHO HAD COVERAGE UNDER A TERMINATED
HEALTH PLAN FUNDED THROUGH THE CONSUMER
OPERATED AND ORIENTED PLAN (CO-OP) PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Section 5000A(e) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(6) Certain individuals previously enrolled in health
plans funded through the consumer operated and oriented plan
(co-op) program.--Any applicable individual for any month
if--
``(A) such individual was enrolled in minimum essential
coverage offered by a qualified nonprofit health insurance
issuer (as defined in subsection (c) of section 1322 of the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18042))
receiving funds with respect to such coverage through the
Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan program established under
such section,
``(B) during the calendar year which includes such month,
such issuer terminated such coverage in the area in which the
individual resides, and
``(C) such month ends after the date on which such coverage
was so terminated.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply with respect to months beginning after December
31, 2013.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour,
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member
of the Committee on Ways and Means.
The gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska.
{time} 1530
General Leave
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 954, currently
under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Nebraska?
[[Page H5955]]
There was no objection.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 954, the CO-OP Consumer
Protection Act.
H.R. 954 is a simple bill rooted in fairness. If you are a consumer
who complied with the Federal mandate to obtain health insurance
coverage and your coverage was terminated midyear because the Consumer
Oriented and Operated Plan, or CO-OP, you bought your plan from
collapsed, you shouldn't be liable for the individual mandate penalty
for the remainder of that calendar year.
I don't need to spend a lot of time on the history of the CO-OP
program, but just very briefly, more than $2 billion, largely in the
form of low-interest, startup, and solvency loans, was distributed to
approved CO-OPs under the ACA.
Now, 17 of the 23 CO-OPs, which received more than $1.7 billion of
those dollars, have closed or are in the process of closing, with the
remaining six also struggling to remain solvent.
The 17th CO-OP to announce its closure was Health Republic of New
Jersey, which announced it would be winding down prior to the 2017 plan
year 2 weeks ago, just days after we marked up this bill in the Ways
and Means Committee.
The first CO-OP to close was CoOpportunity Health, which sold plans
covering 120 Nebraskans and Iowans in 2014 before being taken over by
the Iowa Department of Insurance late that year.
While health providers in Nebraska and Iowa were made whole for
services provided to CoOpportunity planholders through the States'
guaranty funds, consumers, and the remaining insurers in the two States
are now paying back the guaranty funds for those costs.
Similar situations have played out in other States covered by
collapsed CO-OPs, including States like New York, Oregon, Ohio, and
Illinois, where planholders lost coverage midyear.
When CoOpportunity collapsed, I heard from nearly 300 constituents
with concerns about what this loss of coverage meant to them and their
finances. The vast majority of these people wanted to have health
insurance coverage and did buy new coverage, but were concerned a brief
lapse would still lead to them paying a penalty.
The other side will tell you this bill is unnecessary because these
people were provided a special enrollment period and could already
apply for a hardship exemption. Most Nebraskans took advantage of that
special enrollment. I still heard from many of them that the likelihood
of accidentally incurring a tax penalty was at the front of their minds
during this period of time.
There are already more than 20 exemptions to the individual mandate
in the law. Those who lost insurance through no fault of their own
after doing their best to follow the law and whose unique circumstances
led them not to seek new coverage for the remainder of the year should
not be forced to file additional paperwork and rely on the opinion of a
bureaucrat to ensure they aren't subject to a tax penalty. And they
certainly shouldn't have to worry about this additional tax, while also
searching among very limited options for a new insurance plan.
Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge there is broad disagreement about the
individual mandate. This bill isn't about that. It is about ensuring a
small fraction of consumers in a small number of States who did their
very best to comply with the law don't have to worry about the threat
of a tax penalty. It is also about ensuring if any remaining CO-OPs are
terminated midyear in the future that those consumers have one less
concern than Nebraskans had last year.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this bill before us today is yet another attempt to
undermine the Affordable Care Act, plain and simple. In fact, it is now
the 65th such attempt by Republicans since the ACA was signed into law.
There is no denying that the ACA has provided quality, affordable
health coverage to more than 20 million previously uninsured Americans.
And importantly, individuals can no longer be denied coverage, as they
could in the past, for preexisting conditions like high blood pressure
or diabetes.
And thanks to the ACA, a new survey from the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention found that the number of uninsured Americans has
fallen to just 8.6 percent, the lowest level ever recorded. Let's also
not forget that over the last few years, healthcare costs have been
growing at the slowest rate in more than 50 years, according to the
Council of Economic Advisers. And the ACA improved Medicare's coverage
for prescription medicines and preventive care for seniors.
This bill undermines the individual responsibility provision of the
ACA, which is important in making many of its benefits possible,
including no one being denied coverage, no preexisting conditions, and
no gender discrimination.
There are provisions in the ACA to provide when coverage is
interrupted in the middle of a policy. In cases of CO-OP closures
during a policy year, there is the ACA provision of a special
enrollment period, SEP, to allow individuals to continue to have
coverage.
The Department of Health and Human Services indicates that each
individual affected by a midyear CO-OP closure was contacted at least
20 times, providing individuals with additional plan choices they could
enroll in during the special enrollment period. All individuals in
States with midyear CO-OP closures had additional choices available to
them.
And in instances where a purchasing plan needed to be undertaken and
would be financially difficult, these individuals could also apply for
a hardship exemption from the individual mandate penalty. HHS has a
number of avenues for individuals to apply for an exemption for a
variety of life circumstances where premiums are a financial burden.
The Joint Committee on Taxation scored this bill using a generic
model, since there was no available data on the number of individuals
potentially impacted.
Every step of the way, every step of the way, Republicans have worked
to undermine CO-OPs and ensure their failure. Republicans were
responsible for the severe reductions in the amount of money available
to the CO-OPs from Federal loans and strict limits to risk corridor
payments. CO-OPs that misestimated the risk pool should have been
eligible for risk stabilization payments to help weather the early
years of an unknown market, but the Republicans made sure those
stabilizing funds would not be available as part of their effort to
kill the ACA with a thousand cuts.
The American Academy of Actuaries noted that weakening the individual
mandate, as this bill would do, will lead to both higher premium costs
for patients and higher costs to the Federal Government.
BlueCross and BlueShield, one of the largest insurers in the Nation,
agrees that exemptions from the mandate will drive prices higher.
We know that this bill will not be signed into law. This morning, the
White House released its Statement of Administration Policy on this
legislation, stating:
``The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 954. The
Administration remains committed to providing Americans with
accessible, quality, and affordable health coverage, including by
addressing issues that arise when their health insurers stop offering
coverage during the year. In such circumstances, the Administration has
offered special enrollment periods, provided consumer outreach, and
worked with state departments of insurance to ensure consumers have
smooth transitions to other health plans. Individuals for whom coverage
is unaffordable or who experience a hardship also may qualify for an
exemption from the individual-responsibility provision of the law.
These options are available to all consumers in these circumstances,
not just those enrolled in coverage through CO-OPs.
``H.R. 954 would exempt anyone whose CO-OP ends coverage during the
year from the individual-responsibility provision. This is unnecessary
given consumer protections already available. Moreover, it would create
a bad precedent for using exemptions from the individual-responsibility
provision to address unrelated concerns about
[[Page H5956]]
the Affordable Care Act. The individual-responsibility provision is a
necessary part of a system that prohibits discrimination against
individuals with pre-existing conditions and requires guaranteed
issuance. The provision helps prevent people from waiting until they
get sick to buy health insurance or dropping health insurance when they
believe they do not need it. Weakening the individual responsibility
provision would increase health insurance premiums and decrease the
number of Americans with coverage.
``The Administration always is willing to work with the Congress on
fiscally responsible ways to further improve health care affordability
and the Affordable Care Act. The President's budget offers a number of
proposals to do so. However, H.R. 954 would be a step in the wrong
direction, because it would create a precedent that undermines a key
part of the law and would do nothing to help middle-class families
obtain affordable health care.
``If the President were presented with H.R. 954, he would veto the
bill.''
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Statement of Administration Policy
H.R. 954--CO-OP Consumer Protection Act of 2016--Rep. Smith, R-NE, and
seven cosponsors
The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R.
954. The Administration remains committed to providing
Americans with accessible, quality, and affordable health
coverage, including by addressing issues that arise when
their health insurers stop offering coverage during the year.
In such circumstances, the Administration has offered special
enrollment periods, provided consumer outreach, and worked
with state departments of insurance to ensure consumers have
smooth transitions to other health plans. Individuals for
whom coverage is unaffordable or who experience a hardship
also may quality for an exemption from the individual-
responsibility provision of the law. These options are
available to all consumers in these circumstances, not just
those enrolled in coverage through CO-OPs.
H.R. 954 would exempt anyone whose CO-OP ends coverage
during the year from the individual-responsibility provision.
This is unnecessary given consumer protections already
available. Moreover, it would create a bad precedent for
using exemptions from the individual-responsibility provision
to address unrelated concerns about the Affordable Care Act.
The individual-responsibility provision is a necessary part
of a system that prohibits discrimination against individuals
with pre-existing conditions and requires guaranteed
issuance. The provision helps prevent people from waiting
until they get sick to buy health insurance or dropping
health insurance when they believe they do not need it.
Weakening the individual responsibility provision would
increase health insurance premiums and decrease the number of
Americans with coverage.
The Administration always is willing to work with the
Congress on fiscally responsible ways to further improve
health care affordability and the Affordable Care Act. The
President's Budget offers a number of proposals to do so.
However, H.R. 954 would be a step in the wrong direction,
because it would create a precedent that undermines a key
part of the law and would do nothing to help middle-class
families obtain affordable health care.
If the President were presented with H.R. 954, he would
veto the bill.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I certainly will reflect briefly
on the comments of my colleague across the aisle who says that all of
the problems have been worked out, that all the provisions have been
met, and that anyone who lost their coverage, through no fault of their
own, would find an exemption or a consideration from the bureaucracy.
I just want to say that Americans who have lost their coverage
certainly deserve certainty that they won't be subject to the penalties
when they lost their coverage, and not just promises that the Federal
Government might take into consideration their situation.
There had been many characterizations of how easy enrollment would be
some time ago. It hasn't worked out that way.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Boustany).
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr.
Smith) for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker since ObamaCare passed, we have seen nothing but major
problems: higher costs, higher premium costs, higher out-of-pocket
costs, network disruptions, and coverage disruptions.
Just 2 years after the implementation of ObamaCare, the Louisiana
Health Cooperative closed its doors. Actual 2014 enrollment in the CO-
OP was less than half of estimated enrollment: 13,000 midyear in 2014,
compared to the 28,100 projected. By December 2014, those numbers had
dropped significantly, the highest percentage loss among all the
Nation's 23 CO-OPs during that period.
Over 7,000 Louisianans complied with ACA's individual mandate by
purchasing health insurance through one of the CO-OPs created under the
law, but their plan was terminated midyear by the failure of that CO-
OP.
Now, let's just have some common sense here. This was no fault of the
good men and women who put their faith and put their hard-earned
premium dollars into this CO-OP. They enrolled, as required by law. And
it is just wrong, it is wrong to hold these working families
financially responsible for the cost of a CO-OP's failure because it
went under due to factors out of their control.
Mr. Smith's bill is very narrowly crafted to provide this kind of
relief. It is a commonsense bill. It helps people who are struggling
with these costs, many of whom have lost employment and everything
else.
That is why I support the CO-OP Consumer Protection Act. This is
really important legislation that will help Americans across this
country who have been harmed, harmed by ObamaCare's closing of these
CO-OPs. It is not their fault. We should provide them with some relief
under difficult economic conditions.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. It is common sense.
It is narrowly crafted, and it is the right thing to do. It is the
moral thing to do.
{time} 1545
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), the ranking member on the
Health Subcommittee of the Committee on Ways and Means.
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer a piece of advice
to my Republican colleagues. Be careful what you wish for because you
may get it, because, despite this newfound compassion for consumers, if
you listen to these crocodile tears flowing out here, you would think
they really cared. The truth is Republicans wanted the CO-OPs to fail
from the very start. For years, they have systematically undermined the
program and made it virtually impossible for CO-OPs across this country
to succeed.
Now, let's look exactly at what they did, because that is a pretty
hard thing I am saying. Back in 2013, under Republican leadership,
Congress slashed the funding for loans and grants to CO-OPs by nearly
two-thirds. The President set it at one level and the Republicans said:
No, we will give you one-third of it. So they cut it from the very
start. That devastated the program during the early days and denied
consumers access to dozens of new plan choices in the marketplace.
But they didn't stop there. They were determined they were going to
get those CO-OPs. In 2014, the Republicans inserted a rider in the CR/
omnibus bill. This blocked the administration from shifting
discretionary funding--discretionary funding--into the ACA's risk
corridor program which they disingenuously--the Republicans--called an
insurance company bailout. The truth is that this rider was a
deliberate effort to destabilize CO-OPs which were taking on new
populations under the ACA. It isn't only the CO-OPs, but it is also the
small insurers.
It cut risk corridor payments to one-eighth. The President put in a
dollar, the Republicans put in 12 cents, and that devastated CO-OPs. It
created unpredictability, and small insurers have also got their
problems and are now raising rates. With the deck stacked against them,
it is no wonder that so many fledgling CO-OPs struggled. They were a
victim of a partisan political attack that they simply couldn't
withstand. They didn't have the money.
Now, my Republican colleagues didn't do this out of ignorance. They
did it out of malice because they knew the importance of risk
mitigation. They knew exactly what they were doing. In fact, when they
wanted to make their own insurance program work--put in a few years
before called part D of Medicare--the Republicans
[[Page H5957]]
embraced risk management with open arms. In 2003, when President Bush's
Medicare part D bill incorporated risk management measures, they were
nearly identical--nearly identical--to the ones in the ACA.
But unlike the ACA, they funded those measures very generously. In
fact, as the part D market--the drug market--fully stabilized, many
experts have been saying that the risk management measures could now be
scaled back or revised. Yet, once the Republicans give money to
somebody, they continue to fund it generously, funneling millions--
billions, actually--into part D plan sponsors even if they don't need
it. They are giving it to the drug companies. But they wouldn't give it
to the CO-OPs. The drug companies they love, but the CO-OPs they hated,
so they took it away.
Now, talk about an insurance company bailout. Of course, the
Affordable Care Act hasn't received the same treatment. Instead, we are
prepared today to vote again to undermine the law weakening the
individual mandate with yet another carve-out. Republicans somehow
believe you can put together a healthcare system and only take in the
sick, I guess. You can't have an individual mandate that everybody has
to be a part of it.
So this bill raises many questions, but we never even had a hearing
on it. They didn't want anybody to come in and testify about what this
bill was going to do or what it might do or what it has done or what it
will do. They simply rammed it through the Ways and Means Committee.
One member wanted it, and one member had one story from one place in
this country and said this is a bill we need.
We don't actually know how many people might have paid the individual
mandate because they didn't enroll in coverage following the midyear
CO-OP collapse, but we do know one thing: this bill will weaken the
individual mandate.
It seems like a small change, and I admit it is a small change, but
if you go down this road--the Chinese say death by 1,000 cuts. This is
the first cut or the second cut or whichever one you want. They are
threatening the sustainability of the entire health insurance industry.
We know this because, in Washington State, we have seen it.
When you try to provide universal coverage but don't have a mandate,
the system simply doesn't work. We tried it in Washington State in
1993. We had an individual mandate and everybody had to have insurance
and so forth, and then the Republicans in Washington State decided
let's take out the individual mandate. The result was a disaster.
Healthy people couldn't get covered, and premiums spiked out of
control, creating a death spiral that devastated the individual
insurance market.
By 1999, not one single insurer in the United States of America was
selling individual policies in the State of Washington because of
taking away that individual mandate. This was a catastrophe for
everyone: doctors, hospitals, insurers, and most importantly for
consumers like the person that we heard the story about that we all
feel it is too bad it happened. But they created it. They created the
facts that made it happen.
So when my Republican colleagues put forward a bill to weaken the
mandate under the guise of helping consumers, I have a hard time
believing it because their record is clear. After more than 60 votes to
deny Americans health coverage--they tried to repeal ObamaCare over and
over and over and over and so on--years of systematic sabotage of the
CO-OPs and today's crocodile tears about the plight of CO-OP consumers,
it is downright impossible to take them seriously. The Members in this
body should vote ``no.''
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like the Record to reflect that hearings have
taken place that have included the subject matter of the CO-OPs. In
fact, I recall the chief of staff from HHS came before the Ways and
Means Committee, and we had a rather extended discussion on the CO-OPs,
CoOpportunity Health, and the numerous others that have failed; but,
more importantly, it is crucial to establish the record on the risk
corridor.
The gentleman from Washington stated that it is Republicans who
designed this to fail. Number one, Republicans are not responsible for
the design of any part of this. Interestingly enough, we were told by
the administration, and, in fact, the administration is on record, that
the risk corridor program was intended to be operated on a revenue-
neutral basis, that is, risk corridor payments would be offset by
payments collected by other insurers. Congress simply acted, and I
would add, on a bipartisan basis to codify that very statement.
In fact, I include in the Record an April 2014 memo from CMS, from
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, explaining how risk
corridor funding would be prorated if receipts were insufficient to
meet requests.
Department of Health & Human Services, Centers for
Medicare & Medicaid Services,
Washington, DC., April 11, 2014.
risk corridors and budget neutrality
Q1: In the MIS Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for
2015 final rule (79 FR 13744) and the Exchange and Insurance
Market Standards for 2015 and Beyond NPRM (79 FR 15808), HHS
indicated that it intends to implement the risk corridors
program in a budget neutral manner. What risk corridors
payments will HHS make if risk corridors collections for a
year are insufficient to fund risk corridors payments for the
year, as calculated under the risk corridors formula?
A1: We anticipate that risk corridors collections will be
sufficient to pay for all risk corridors payments. However,
if risk corridors collections are insufficient to make risk
corridors payments for a year, all risk corridors payments
for that year will be reduced pro rata to the extent of any
shortfall. Risk corridors collections received for the next
year will first be used to pay off the payment reductions
issuers experienced in the previous year in a proportional
manner, up to the point where issuers are reimbursed in full
for the previous year, and will then be used to fund current
year payments. If, after obligations for the previous year
have been met, the total amount of collections available in
the current year is insufficient to make payments in that
year, the current year payments will be reduced pro rata to
the extent of any shortfall. If any risk corridors funds
remain after prior and current year payment obligations have
been met, they will be held to offset potential
insufficiencies in risk corridors collections in the next
year.
Example 1: For 2014, HHS collects $800 million in risk
corridors charges, and QHP issuers seek $600 million risk
corridors payments under the risk corridors formula. HHS
would make the $600 million in risk corridors payments for
2014 and would retain the remaining $200 million for use in
2015 and potentially 2016 in case of a shortfall.
Example 2: For 2015, HHS collects $700 million in risk
corridors charges, but QHP issuers seek $1 billion in risk
corridors payments under the risk corridors formula. With the
$200 million in excess charges collected for 2014, HHS would
have a total of $900 million available to make risk corridors
payments in 2015. Each QHP issuer would receive a risk
corridors payment equal to 90 percent of the calculated
amount of the risk corridors payment, leaving an aggregate
risk corridors shortfall of $100 million for benefit year
2015. This $100 million shortfall would be paid for from risk
corridors charges collected for 2016 before any risk
corridors payments are made for the 2016 benefit year.
Q2: What happens if risk corridors collections do not match
risk corridors payments in the final year of risk corridors?
A2: We anticipate that risk corridors collections will be
sufficient to pay for all risk corridors payments over the
life of the three-year program. However, we will establish in
future guidance or rulemaking how we will calculate risk
corridors payments if risk corridors collections (plus any
excess collections held over from previous years) do not
match risk corridors payments as calculated under the risk
corridors formula for the final year of the program.
Q3: If HHS reduces risk corridors payments for a particular
year because risk corridors collections are insufficient to
make those payments, how should an issuer's medical loss
ratio (MLR) calculation account for that reduction?
A3: Under 45 CFR 153.710(g)(1)(iv), an issuer should
reflect in its MLR report the risk corridors payment to be
made by HHS as reflected in the notification provided under
153.510(d). Because issuers will submit their risk corridors
and MLR data simultaneously, issuers will not know the extent
of any reduction in risk corridors payments when submitting
their MLR calculations. As detailed in 45 CFR 153.710(g)(2),
that reduction should be reflected in the next following MLR
report. Although it is possible that not accounting for the
reduction could affect an issuer's rebate obligations, that
effect will be mitigated in the initial year because the MLR
ratio is calculated based on three years of data, and will be
eliminated by the second year because the reduction will be
reflected. We intend to provide more guidance on this
reporting in the future.
Q4: In the 2015 Payment Notice, HHS stated that it might
adjust risk corridors parameters up or down in order to
ensure budget neutrality. Will there be further adjustments
[[Page H5958]]
to risk corridors in addition to those indicated in this FAQ?
A4: HHS believes that the approach outlined in this FAQ is
the most equitable and efficient approach to implement risk
corridors in a budget neutral manner. However, we may also
make adjustments to the program for benefit year 2016 as
appropriate.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold).
Mr. DOLD. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend from Nebraska
for yielding some time.
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that we talk about crocodile tears.
There is nothing of the sort on this side of the aisle. Frankly, I find
it fascinating because, when I talk to some of my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle, they recognize that there are issues and
problems with the Affordable Care Act. Premiums have gone through the
roof, deductibles are sky-high, and families are paying more and more
each and every day in order to be able to provide health insurance for
their families.
People say: I want to help fix, let's try to help fix. This is a very
narrowly tailored bill, Mr. Speaker.
Let me tell you what this bill is not. This bill is not something
that will abolish the individual mandate--far from it, far from
abolishing the individual mandate.
Rising healthcare costs and uncertainty are plaguing communities and
families across our country. In Illinois, the Land of Lincoln CO-OP
collapsed in July, resulting in 49,000 people across the State losing
their coverage. Now these families will need to switch plans and risk
losing access to their doctors or pay a tax penalty at the end of the
year, which will put affordability of quality care even further out of
reach.
Mr. Speaker, here is just one example that I have heard from one of
my constituents. They were paying nearly $2,500 a month in premiums
through the Land of Lincoln plan. Their family paid $2,700 in their
deductible and even put $5,000 toward their out-of-pocket maximum. Now
they are being forced, because it has gone away, to start back at zero.
The plan ends on October 1.
So what this narrowly tailored bill would do, Mr. Speaker, is it
would basically say, if you can't find a plan, if for some reason you
don't get the memo back from the bureaucrat that you are not going to
get a tax bill, it still requires that same family, come January 1, to
go get insurance. But what we want to do is we want to say to these
families that, if indeed you have not gotten your insurance in those 2
months, that you will not be given a tax penalty by the IRS.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from
Illinois an additional 1 minute.
Mr. DOLD. Here is the bottom line, Mr. Speaker. Families like the one
that I just mentioned all across Illinois are already losing their
healthcare coverage. The absolute least we can do is help them get
through this year by providing relief from a costly tax penalty.
The insurance that they lost, they lost through no fault of their
own. They were doing the right things because they want coverage for
their families. The least that we can do for these next couple of
months--or should another CO-OP in the future fail midyear--is not give
them a tax penalty from the IRS.
Moving forward, I remain focused on working with everyone who is
willing to roll up their sleeves and do the hard work needed to drive
down costs, increase access to quality care, and make our healthcare
system work for everyone.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 1 minute, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to the gentleman from Illinois that
the last thing the Republicans have wanted to do is to work with us to
make ACA work better--the last thing. Instead, they have, time and time
again, tried to destroy ACA.
In Illinois, there are nine carriers providing health insurance. If
there is an interruption, whether it is a CO-OP or another plan, under
ACA, there is a special period available for people to obtain a
different insurance--nine different carriers.
Essentially, what this is is an effort to destroy a provision that is
so important to making healthcare reform viable. That is my answer to
the gentleman from Illinois.
I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from California (Mr. McCarthy), the majority leader.
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Before I speak, Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the gentleman. He
has seen a problem, he has listened to his constituents, and he is
doing something about it--exactly what we expect from our statesmen.
Mr. Speaker, ObamaCare is collapsing all around us. Insurers are
backing out, people can't afford the premiums, and even heavily
subsidized CO-OPs are crashing. More than $2 billion were funneled into
23 CO-OPs across the country: 16 have gone under or are about to go
under; the other 7 are just treading water.
Now, what does that mean? That means people who had insurance, who
purchased it just as ObamaCare forced them to do, were left in the
lurch when the CO-OP they got and the insurance failed. Now, that is
bad enough. This is just another way the promise that all of us were
told ``if you like your plan, you can keep it'' was broken. So these
people are left without insurance through no fault of their own,
insurance they were forced to buy.
What is the response? What does ObamaCare say? Tax them. Tax them for
not having insurance.
Now, I don't know about you, Mr. Speaker, but isn't that a little
crazy? How can you punish people for not having insurance when the CO-
OP they bought their insurance from goes under? It is bad enough people
are left without insurance because of the failures of ObamaCare; but
why should we have the IRS punish them on top of that?
{time} 1600
Frankly, you don't solve problems by kicking people when they are
down. Representative Adrian Smith's bill would stop this. Government
shouldn't be in the business of taxing people when they lose their
insurance, especially when the CO-OP they used failed.
Nothing less than replacing ObamaCare will stop all of the havoc it
is causing. In the meantime, we have an obligation to offer relief to
the people hurt by this law.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), my colleague from the
Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and
for his work on this issue.
I think we have to go back in history a little bit on this. ObamaCare
was passed into law, signed into law, in 2010. A part of that law, by
the way, we had to wait until it passed so we could read it and find
out what all was in it established this CO-OP program. The way the law
was written, it allowed CMS to go in and put in place the terms of the
loans for the CO-OP program.
Now, our colleague from Washington said it was the fault of Congress.
I want to remind you that we did not do the loan terms that have been
so onerous. That was done through the rulemaking process by CMS. The
way they set this up put the CO-OPs at a disadvantage from the start.
As a result of this, we are seeing these plan failures. This is a
mandate that is crumbling under its own weight, the weight of the
mandate, coupled with the way CMS has handled the terms of these loans.
Now, the Energy and Commerce Committee, where I serve as vice chair,
had released a report earlier this month looking at the failures of
these CO-OPs and the investigation that we have had on this. The report
reviewed CMS' mismanagement of this program.
Closures of these CO-OPs have left consumers scrambling for health
insurance. It gives them fewer options. It provides them with less
affordable choices. So the Affordable Care Act becomes unaffordable for
millions of Americans. Eight million of that 20 million had insurance
from their employer. They were perfectly happy. All of a sudden they
are thrown into a program, and now the insured goes out of business.
Fewer choices.
[[Page H5959]]
Even in my State of Tennessee, our insurance commissioner, Julie
McPeak, testified before the Energy and Commerce Committee about the
burdens of CO-OPs and the failures that it has brought about on our
State regulators and our communities.
When Tennessee's CO-OP, the Community Health Alliance Mutual
Insurance Company, failed approximately 27,000 Tennesseans, they were
all forced to find new plans. Only 6 of the original 23 CO-OPs remain.
I will tell my colleagues that this is what you call a false hope. It
did not work. It made the situation worse.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The time of the gentlewoman
has expired.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an
additional 1 minute.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. A recent HHS-OIG report found that the remaining CO-
OPs are becoming financially insolvent. They are looking as if they,
too, are going to go the way of the others that have failed. Not only
does the failure of CO-OPs waste tax dollars, it also leaves
individuals in the lurch.
I am pleased that this legislation is coming before us. It implements
our committee's recommendation by ensuring that individuals who make a
good faith effort to comply with the individual mandate are not further
punished as a result of a CO-OP's failure.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
As we have outlined--the administration has likewise--there are
provisions when policies are interrupted, whether it is CO-OPs or
otherwise, in the law for people to take advantage of, in the law that
you want to destroy.
Let me just mention, in terms of Nebraska, there are 45,000 people in
Nebraska who are not covered by Medicaid because of the failure of the
government there to access. In Tennessee, there are 180,000 people--
180,000. You talk about hopes. Those are people who had hopes, and the
government essentially thumbed their nose at those hopes.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a distinguished member of our
committee. '
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Levin. I appreciate his
courtesy and I appreciate his focus on the challenges inherent with the
legislation we have before us.
If people want to understand why we are having problems under the
Affordable Care Act, this is a great example. Every single major piece
of legislation, to my knowledge, landmark legislation, has required
fine tuning and modification. That has generally been the spirit where
people in both parties move forward to try and deal with occasional
oversights, areas to improve mistakes, and opportunities to make it
better.
What we have seen for 6 years under the Affordable Care Act is that
there has been an entirely different mind-set. It was to try and make
it worse. It was to try and undercut it. I think my count is that this
is the 65th time there has been an attempt to repeal all or part of the
Affordable Care Act.
It is pretty stark what this has produced. We have--and it is
unassailable--the lowest uninsured rate in America right now. In fact,
some of the 19 States that have refused the expansion of Medicaid under
the Affordable Care Act, even there has been a reduction because of the
availability of subsidies to help make it affordable.
The insurance policies that people have are fundamentally better. You
can no longer deny coverage for preexisting conditions. I thought at
the time that Members of Congress should have declared a conflict of
interest because I think virtually all of us would have been subjected
to problems getting insurance if they were denied on the basis of
preexisting conditions.
What we have seen from the outset is that people refused during the
legislative process itself to be able to have the give-and-take of a
conference committee. Because Republicans refused to legislate, it had
to be adopted under the reconciliation process. And then for 6
consecutive years, no refinement, no adjustment, just steadily chipping
away.
Now, I have a couple of CO-OPs in my district. Those were an
interesting addition to try and add some additional competition in a
model that would not be for-profit insurance. They were given, under
the existing legislation, access to a risk corridor to try and even out
premiums because we knew it would be impossible with all of the moving
pieces for people to be able to very precisely determine exactly what
the rates should be. So there was some give, there was some adjustment,
for the risk corridors to be able to have additional resources for
people who hadn't quite gotten it right.
That was envisioned under the initial act. It was something that
insurance companies in Oregon thought that Congress would keep its
word. They planned accordingly. Unfortunately, the junior Senator, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rubio), in the 2014 omnibus stripped out
that language. It really didn't get the attention that it deserved at
the time, and that was a big piece of legislation that was rumbling
through, pressed for time, and not given the real authoritative give-
and-take and attention that it deserved. But that took away money that
those people had been promised, that they needed, and were depending
on.
So we precipitated a crisis, like we have seen with other areas with
attacking the Affordable Care Act. We see the 19 States that have
refused Medicaid expansion under a relatively tortured interpretation
of the Supreme Court. Nobody that I know of, when we were voting on the
Affordable Care Act, thought that States would be able to voluntarily
deny health care to people who were too poor to qualify for the
subsidies; but, amazingly, 19 States have done that. That is another
area of instability that has posed problems with insurance markets.
States that actually did expand have seen less of the upheaval.
It brings us to today where people are chipping away again in this
effort with a piece of legislation that is absolutely unnecessary to
repeal part of the individual mandate. The individual mandate, by the
way, was put in the Affordable Care Act as part of an effort to forge a
bipartisan solution. Bear in mind, the mandate that people purchase
insurance was not a Democratic idea. It was something that was part of
the Republican alternative to HillaryCare in the early 1990s. But it
makes sense to have a mandate so that these burdens are shared broadly
and everybody benefits.
Well, there is no reason to get rid of the individual mandate. These
people who are in a failed CO-OP already have--because under current
law, if you have a plan that closed midyear, you are already allowed a
special enrollment period to choose new coverage. And if there are any
individuals for whom coverage is unaffordable or they experience a
hardship, they may qualify for an existing exemption from the
individual responsibility provision. So this is already taken care of
under existing law.
What it is doing is continuing this effort to chip away, to
undermine, to repeal. I hope that we get past this notion that we are
going to continue to make the primary Republican alternative for health
care just trying to attack something that is working; and if they would
cooperate, if they would refine, if they would try and solve problems
rather than creating new ones, we could make it work even better.
Mr. Speaker, I am voting against this piece of--I don't know what to
call it. It is not going to be enacted into law. It shouldn't be
enacted into law. It represents an empty exercise of stalling and
attacking instead of refining and improving. The American people
deserve better.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
In closing, the case has been so carefully and fully laid out. This
is another effort to cut and destroy. This is now maybe not the
thousandth cut, but the 65th. Fortunately, none has succeeded, nor will
this.
Republicans come here and indicate some care about individuals in
terms of their health care. And I just say this personally--and all of
us who care about health care have the same feelings--this country had
a disgraceful situation: 50 million people going to sleep every night
without any healthcare coverage.
{time} 1615
Democrats took the initiative, and we now have the lowest percentage
of
[[Page H5960]]
uninsured in terms of the records of this country. All we get are bills
from the Republicans--one cut effort after another--and this is the
latest. Maybe that is a good reason for us to leave here because,
otherwise, we will see, I am sure, another one.
The ACA is very clear for people who lose their coverage during a
coverage period. There is a special provision for them to obtain
coverage elsewhere, and there is a hardship provision if that is not
obtainable, if that is not available. We have been waiting to have
specific examples. They never come.
As I said to the gentleman--and I say this respectfully--if he really
cares about the citizens in his State and their health care, he will go
back to his State and tell the leadership there that it is time to
expand Medicaid for those people because, in the gentleman's State,
there are tens of thousands of people who don't have that coverage
today because of the inaction or the opposition of Republican
majorities in States and in this Congress.
That is what this is all about. I urgently suggest for our fellow
Democrats--and, I would hope, for a few enlightened Republicans--to
vote ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
We need a healthcare plan that involves patients and their providers.
We need a healthcare plan and healthcare coverage--insurance, if you
will--that is a product that is purchased by millions of Americans on
its own merit, not because of the heavy hand of the Federal
Government's imposing fines and penalties even upon those Americans who
are doing everything they were supposed to be doing so as to be
responsible citizens in taking care of themselves.
What is clear from the debate today, Mr. Speaker, is that, in the
face of the failures of the ACA or ObamaCare, whichever label you might
wish to attach to it--and there are certainly many failures of the
plan--the administration and my colleagues across the aisle continue to
advocate for the individual mandate at all costs, no matter how
negatively this might impact a law-abiding individual who seeks to do
the right thing.
Mr. Speaker, during the markup of this bill in committee, a supporter
on the committee referred to the law as a ``work in progress.'' I would
say that that is a generous description of the law. If it is truly a
work in progress, why would we penalize Americans--through no fault of
their own for losing coverage--with fines that run hundreds, if not
thousands, of dollars?
We are persistently told that our only desire is to take away health
insurance coverage from Americans and that we have no constructive
ideas for improving the healthcare system. This bill is one small way
to improve the healthcare system.
It is interesting that this bill has been characterized as an effort
to undermine the ACA. Is that how weak the ACA is in that a small,
narrowly crafted bill like this would undermine the entire thing? I
doubt it. This is a small effort to help innocent Americans who have
lost coverage through no fault of their own. We should not penalize
them and create a financial hardship additionally for them than they
have already been experiencing.
I urge all of my colleagues to join me in providing this small issue
of fairness.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the news about the Affordable Care
Act gets worse every day. Premiums are going through the roof, choice
and access are falling through the floor, and insurers are fleeing
exchanges throughout the country.
Just in the past few days, we learned that one of the nation's
largest insurers is pulling out of Nebraska and three major cities in
Tennessee.
On top of this, all but six of the 23 CO-OPs created under the law
have failed despite billions of dollars in taxpayer-funded loans.
These CO-OPs were created by the Affordable Care Act as federally-
backed, non-profit health insurance companies. But, like so many parts
of the law, the CO-OP program was deeply flawed from the start.
Seventeen of these CO-OPs have collapsed. Hundreds of thousands of
Americans have had their health coverage disrupted as a result.
Many more could suffer the same harm if additional CO-OPs fail--a
real possibility considering that just two weeks ago New Jersey's CO-OP
announced it will shut down at the end of the year.
The magnitude of these failures can be hard to grasp--especially for
Washington bureaucrats who simply see these families as numbers on
paper.
For American families who lost their insurance coverage due to a CO-
OP collapse, the impacts could not be more real. And, for many, it
could feel like the walls are closing in.
Their health plans have been terminated through no fault of their
own.
The number of options for purchasing a new plan is shrinking as more
insurers leave the ACA exchanges.
And, if these Americans fail to purchase new coverage, they could be
forced to pay the individual mandate tax penalty.
That's just wrong.
We have a responsibility to protect Americans and their families from
these harmful impacts of the Affordable Care Act.
Congressman Adrian Smith's ``CO-OP Consumer Protection Act,''
provides the opportunity to do so right now.
The bill takes action to exempt Americans from the individual mandate
tax penalty if their plan was terminated mid-year due to the failure of
an ACA CO-OP.
Americans were led to believe these CO-OP plans were reliable. They
depended on them, and now only six remain standing.
House Republicans have put forward a consensus plan to repeal and
replace Obamacare. Our plan will bring patient-focused care to the
American people.
And, our plan will bring relief to all Americans from the individual
mandate and its tax penalty.
As we work to turn this proposal into legislation, it's only right to
bring relief from this tax penalty to Americans who lost their
insurance mid-year--or could lose it in the future--due to the failures
of the CO-OP program.
I want to thank Congressman Smith for his leadership on this
important legislation, and I urge all my colleagues to join me in
supporting its passage.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 893, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 258,
noes 165, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 563]
AYES--258
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Ashford
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bera
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Bustos
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Cooper
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duckworth
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gabbard
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graham
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Kuster
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Larson (CT)
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lynch
MacArthur
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
[[Page H5961]]
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peters
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOES--165
Adams
Aguilar
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gallego
Garamendi
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Maloney, Carolyn
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--8
Burgess
Butterfield
Hinojosa
Kirkpatrick
Poe (TX)
Rush
Sanchez, Loretta
Westmoreland
{time} 1645
Messrs. CUELLAR, PETERS, and LYNCH changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________