[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 17168-17199]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  0915
                   KEEP YOUR HEALTH PLAN ACT OF 2013

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 413 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 413

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3350) to 
     authorize health insurance issuers to continue to offer for 
     sale current individual health insurance coverage in 
     satisfaction of the minimum essential health insurance 
     coverage requirement, and for other purposes. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill 
     shall be considered as read. All points of order against 
     provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any 
     amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
     except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
     by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Energy and Commerce; and (2) one motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1 
hour.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), 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. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 413 provides for 
consideration of H.R. 3350, the Keep Your Plan Act of 2013. The rule 
provides for 1 hour of debate controlled by the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce, equally divided between the majority and the minority. 
Because the bill addresses a targeted emergency situation caused by the 
lack of foresight in the Affordable Care Act, namely, the cancellation 
of millions of existing health insurance plans despite repeated 
promises to the contrary, because of that, the rule makes no amendments 
in order. However, the minority is afforded the customary opportunity 
to offer one motion to recommit, should they so choose.
  This is a fair rule to allow us to give some relief to Americans who 
actually want to keep their health insurance plan but are being told 
that because of the Affordable Care Act, they may not.
  We are now 6 weeks into the disastrous launch of the President's 
signature health care law, and more and more problems are uncovered 
with each succeeding day. It seems that the President has quickly 
forgotten all of the promises made over the past 4 years to the 
American people about this law.
  In 2009, in a speech before the American Medical Association, 
President Obama stated:

       We will keep this promise to the American people: if you 
     like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, 
     period. If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to 
     keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, 
     no matter what.

  At the end of September, the President said:

       The first thing you need to know is this: if you already 
     have health care, you don't have to do anything.

  Americans from across the country, from across the ideological 
spectrum agree that President Obama has broken his fundamental promise. 
And now his attempts to reconcile this broken promise only serve to 
bring further confusion and chaos.
  Today, H.R. 3350 offers a real solution. The bill would allow plans 
available on the individual market today to be offered in calendar year 
2014. It would provide millions of Americans the opportunity to keep 
their health care plan in 2014. The bill would also ensure that 
Americans keeping their plans would not face a penalty under 
ObamaCare's individual mandate.
  Mr. Speaker, I have heard from constituents about the problems that 
they have faced because of the President's law. A Texan from Flower 
Mound, Texas, recently wrote me about how her insurance has doubled in 
recent years because of the Affordable Care Act. In short, she wrote me 
that ``I miss 2009 when our family health care was affordable.'' 
Millions of Americans, just like this Texan, are losing their health 
care coverage. They are facing massive increases in their premiums and 
losing access to their doctor under the Affordable Care Act.
  The Associated Press has reported that over 3.5 million people on the 
individual insurance market have had their insurance canceled. Let me 
restate that: the Associated Press has reported that over 3.5 million 
people on the individual insurance market have had their health care 
plans canceled. We learned just this week the number of people who 
successfully signed up on the President's Web site for the Affordable 
Care Act, under 27,000--3.5 million lose their insurance; 27,000 sign 
up. It doesn't sound like a fair trade-off.
  This is not the first time that the President has realized that his 
signature law is significantly flawed. Since the law was passed, the 
President has signed seven bills into law that have repealed portions 
of the Affordable Care Act. Those were laws passed by the House, passed 
by the Senate, and sent down to the White House for signature, the way 
it is supposed to happen in a constitutional Republic.
  But in addition to these statutory changes that were passed by the 
Congress and sent down to the President for his signature, the 
President has taken it upon himself to issue a multitude of 
administrative fixes to the law. And now this same President wants to, 
once again, fix his own law? Can we really trust the administration 
that wrote this disastrous missive in the first place and so mishandled 
the implementation? Do we trust them to now fix it? Do we trust them 
not to change their minds in 2 or 3 weeks' time when perhaps winds are 
blowing from a different direction?
  The White House is saying that it will use its administrative 
authority to allow health plans that it deemed illegal to now still be 
able to be sold, but this bill that the House is considering today 
provides a fix that is both constitutional and follows the legal 
process.
  H.R. 3350 offers a legislative solution to help Americans get a 
lifeboat, a life raft up from under the crushing weight of this law. 
The bill would grandfather in all existing health care plans so that no 
American will lose their coverage as a result of the Affordable Care 
Act.
  President Obama is shifting the blame. He is saying it is up to 
States and the State insurance commissioners to fix the massive problem 
that his signature law has created for millions of Americans who are 
losing their health insurance.
  His attempt at another ``fix'' is quickly coming to a halt. Just 
hours after the President's announcement, the Washington State 
insurance commissioner announced that he will not allow insurance 
companies to continue offering the canceled plans:

       We will not be allowing insurance companies to extend their 
     policies. I believe this is in the best interest of the 
     health insurance market in Washington.

  It is clear that H.R. 3350 offers the only feasible lifeline to 
millions of Americans who are crying out for our help. They want to 
keep their health care plan. It is our job, it is the job of the 
Congress, to protect the American people from the excesses of this 
administration. And I urge my colleagues to pass this rule so Americans 
will have the opportunity to keep their health care plan.

[[Page 17169]]

  Let's be very clear here: this bill today cannot fix the Affordable 
Care Act. What has been visited upon the American people in the 
Affordable Care Act will not be resolved by this action today. It is 
merely to stop the bleeding. It is an effort to triage, to stabilize 
the patient. Maybe then we can get the same patient to the operating 
room to actually fix the problem that bedevils it.
  The bill we are voting on today serves to stop that hemorrhaging, and 
the hemorrhaging that is occurring is a consequence of the ill-
conceived government takeover of the American health care industry. Any 
good triage doctor knows before they can fully treat or cure the 
patient they have to deal with the immediate problems. In this case, 
they have to stop the hemorrhage of people losing their private health 
insurance because of the Affordable Care Act. That is what the House of 
Representatives will do today. That is what House Republicans will be 
voting in favor of. I hope that our colleagues across the aisle will 
see the wisdom in this and join us.
  I encourage everyone in this House to vote ``yes'' on the rule and 
``yes'' on the underlying bill. Let's stand with millions of Americans 
who are visited daily by cancellation notices in their mailboxes. 
Despite the promises made to them, they are losing their insurance 
because of this disastrous law.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Burgess) for yielding me the time; and I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong, strong opposition to this closed rule 
and to the underlying bill. This is effort number 46, by my count, to 
gut the Affordable Care Act.
  Before I discuss the problems with the underlying bill, let me 
address, just so the record is clear, the latest example of lousy 
process foisted upon this House by the Republican leadership.
  The bill before us today would make sweeping and significant changes 
to the Affordable Care Act and, thus, to the Nation's health care 
system. It would profoundly affect the lives of millions of Americans, 
upend the individual market, and add confusion and uncertainty into an 
already complicated situation.
  So how many hearings did the Republicans hold on this bill? Zero. Let 
me repeat that: zero. How many expert witnesses did they call? Zip. How 
many markups did they have in the committees of jurisdiction? Nada. Yet 
again, Republican promises of regular order and a thoughtful 
legislative process have been thrown out the window.
  And with all due respect to my friend from Texas, to stand here and 
say with a straight face that this is some kind of an emergency, we 
can't have any amendments made in order, we just don't have the time, 
defies comprehension.
  We have a rule that is closed that allows for 1 hour of debate--not 
even split amongst the committees of jurisdiction. This bill, by right, 
is not only an Energy and Commerce bill, it is a Ways and Means bill, 
but the Ways and Means Committee doesn't get any time to debate this 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, 1 hour. You mean we couldn't have 2 hours of debate and 
a few amendments? Or 3 hours of debate and a few more amendments? Or 5 
hours of debate or a whole day of debate, given the fact that you 
didn't hold any hearings on this bill? Give me a break. This is not the 
way to run the House of Representatives. This is not the way you 
promised you would run the House of Representatives. And, by contrast, 
on the Affordable Care Act, we had hundreds of hours of debate and 
markups in which Republican amendments were actually accepted. Now you 
may not like the Affordable Care Act, but it went through a process. 
This went through no process. This was just brought up to the Rules 
Committee, and we are told to bring it right to the floor.
  This is not a serious attempt to fix the Affordable Care Act. This is 
a political statement, and I understand the temptation behind it. 
Believe me, no one is more frustrated by the problems with the rollout 
of the Affordable Care Act than those of us who voted for it, believe 
in it, and want it to work. But instead of working with us to try to 
actually fix the problems and make the law work, the Republicans have 
brought forth this Upton bill.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear about this bill. It is an 
attempt to drag us back to the bad old days of the American health care 
system. It would allow insurance companies to go back to offering cut-
rate, shoddy policies that lack the consumer protections required by 
the Affordable Care Act.
  So if you want to go back to a system where insurance companies could 
turn people away because they are sick, by all means vote for this 
bill. If you want to go back to a time when women were charged higher 
rates than men because being a female counted as a preexisting 
condition, then vote for the Upton bill. If you believe that insurers 
should be allowed to eliminate somebody's coverage if they get sick or 
are older or if they have a child or for no good reason whatsoever, 
then the Upton bill is for you. In short, a vote for the Upton bill is 
a vote in favor of everything the American people say that they hate 
about the health care system in this country.

                              {time}  0930

  Yesterday, in the Rules Committee, my friend, Dr. Burgess, made it 
very clear that the Upton bill is not an attempt to fix the Affordable 
Care Act. They are only interested in full repeal. They are perfectly 
satisfied with 40 million Americans having no health insurance at all. 
Speaker Boehner made a similar statement yesterday.
  As I said, the rollout of the health care plan has not been perfect, 
and I know that my own home State of Massachusetts, the rollout of our 
State health care law was not perfect either. But Democrats in 
Massachusetts did not go out of their way over and over and over again 
to sabotage it just because a Republican Governor named Mitt Romney 
signed it into law. We worked to make it better. And by 2009, I am 
proud to say, my congressional district had the highest rate of 
insurance coverage in the entire country. That is a good thing.
  If my Republican friends think that we are going to go back to a 
system where we in Massachusetts did the right thing but ended up 
paying for the uncompensated care of people in Texas, North Carolina, 
Utah, or anywhere else, they are wrong.
  At some point, we have to get serious about the goal of providing 
good quality, affordable health insurance to every American. The Upton 
bill gets us no closer to that goal. It is yet another political waste 
of time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just close by making this observation. What this 
debate is about--and it has turned into an ideological debate--is 
whether or not you believe that every single American in this country 
is entitled to good quality health insurance or not.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle obviously believe that it 
is okay that 40 million Americans don't have health insurance, because 
for the last few years they haven't offered anything other than 
repeal--repeal, repeal, repeal--and offering nothing as a substitute. 
They think it is okay to let the insurance companies decide whether you 
get health care or not based on a preexisting condition or whether you 
are a female or whether or not you are too old or too sick or whatever. 
They have been perfectly satisfied with the broken system that was in 
place.
  So that is the choice here. And I would urge my colleagues to 
understand that there is something wrong with the fact that, in the 
greatest country in the world and the richest country in the history of 
the world, so many of our fellow citizens don't have health care, don't 
have access to health insurance.
  And we can fix that. By fixing that, we not only improve the quality 
of life for our neighbors, our friends, and our fellow citizens, but we 
also help control health care costs. Because one of the biggest drivers 
of increased health care costs is the uncompensated care pool.
  So let's get serious. Let's stop this political posturing. I know you 
don't

[[Page 17170]]

like the President. You have gone out of your way to say some things 
that are so outrageous, it is hard for me to believe that Members of 
Congress would say such things. But get over it and do what is right 
for the American people. Vote ``no'' on this closed rule. Vote ``no'' 
on the underlying bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  First off, I do need to point out that yesterday, the President of 
the United States thought that this situation represented an emergency 
that required his immediate attention, and he rushed a press conference 
at high noon yesterday to announce his resolution for the problem.
  As far as the issue of hearings, I will submit a list of eight 
hearings that were held in the Energy and Commerce Committee over 
calendar year 2013 on the issue of grandfathering health care plans.
  But the most important thing I wish to point out, for those of you 
who were here in 2009, we will remember, H.R. 3200 was the Democratic 
health care reform bill. That bill is now lost forever in the vapor, in 
the ether. No one knows what became of it. H.R. 3590 passed the House 
of Representatives in July of 2009. It passed as a housing bill. It 
went over to the Senate to await further action. The further action was 
an amendment by Harry Reid late in December of 2009 ``to strike all 
after the enacting clause and insert.'' All the housing language was 
taken out, all of the health care language was inserted.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BURGESS. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
  As a consequence, this bill came over to the House and we just simply 
had to pass it. We had to pass it before we found out what was in it. 
We didn't have a hearing on H.R. 3590. We didn't have a markup in any 
committee that I sat on in 2010 on H.R. 3590. This was a bill that was 
visited upon the American people without the due caution and exercise 
of the United States House of Representatives.

       CBO Analysis: CBO analysis is not currently available.
       Committee Action: The Energy and Commerce Committee has 
     held the following ACA-related hearings:
       Full Committee:
       August 1, 2013: PPACA Pulse Check
       October 24, 2013: PPACA Implementation Failures: Didn't 
     Know or Didn't Disclose?
       October 30, 2013: PPACA Implementation Failures: Answers 
     from HHS
       Subcommittee on Health:
       February 14, 2013: SGR: Data, Measures and Models; Building 
     a Future Medicare Physician Payment System
       February 27, 2013: Fostering Innovation to Fight Waste, 
     Fraud and Abuse in Health Care
       March 13, 2013: Obamacare's Impact on Jobs
       March 15, 2013: Unaffordable: Impact of Obamacare on 
     Americans' Health Insurance Premiums
       March 18, 2013: Saving Seniors and Our Most Vulnerable 
     Citizens from an Entitlement Crisis
       March 20, 2013: Health Information Technologies: How 
     Innovation Benefits Patients
       April 3, 2013: Protecting America's Sick and Chronically 
     Ill
       April 18, 2013: A Financial Review of the Department of 
     Health and Human Services and Its FY 2014 Budget
       September 10, 2013: PPACA Pulse Check: Part 2
       Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations:
       March 21, 2013: Health Information Technologies: 
     Administration Perspectives on Innovation and Regulation
       April 24, 2013: The Center for Consumer Information and 
     Insurance Oversight and the Implementation of the Patient 
     Protection and Affordable Care Act
       July 18, 2013: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: 
     Implementation in the Wake of Administrative Delay
       September 19, 2013: Two Weeks Until Enrollment: Questions 
     for CCIIO
       Subcommittee on Communications and Technology:
       March 19, 2013: Health Information Technologies: Harnessing 
     Wireless Innovation
       Administration Position: A Statement of Administration 
     Policy is currently not available.
       Rule Request: Chairman Upton (R-MI) sent a letter to 
     Chairman Sessions requesting ``that the Committee on Rules 
     hold a hearing and grant a closed rule to govern 
     consideration of H.R. 3350 by the House.''

  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), the 
chairman of the Education and Labor Committee.
  Mr. KLINE. I thank the gentleman for yielding time and for his 
incredible leadership on this issue. Dr. Burgess has been championing 
real solutions for over 10 years.
  Mr. Speaker, 140,000; that is the number of people from my home State 
of Minnesota who have been notified their health coverage will be 
canceled as a result of the President's health care law.
  John, a constituent from Burnsville, recently learned his own health 
plan is no longer available. John liked the plan he had and now has to 
pay 20 percent more to secure coverage.
  For many people, a cancellation notice means more than the loss of an 
insurance policy. It means losing access to the trusted doctors, 
pediatricians, and nurses who care for their families. We all know how 
critical these relationships are, especially in difficult moments when 
a loved one is injured or ill; but for countless families, those 
relationships will soon be lost, all because Washington bureaucrats 
think they know best.
  The President promised time and again if people liked their health 
care plan, they could keep it; but the American people are discovering 
the President failed to keep his word, leaving them with only political 
gimmicks and a broken Web site. The President may have apologized--and 
we appreciate that--but the country deserves a President who not only 
admits when he is wrong, but does what is necessary to make it right.
  That is why I support this legislation. The Keep Your Health Plan Act 
is about fairness. It is only fair to let people keep the health plan 
they like. No one should be forced to purchase a more expensive policy 
because the President says so.
  It is only fair to help families who are hurting across the country. 
The President's plan for more administrative tricks is a disservice to 
each and every one of our constituents, and it is only fair to hold the 
President accountable for the promises he makes to the American people.
  If the President is sincere about undoing some of the damage this law 
has created, if he wants to provide real solutions for those losing 
their coverage, and if he wants to keep this promise to our Nation's 
families, then I urge the President to support the Keep Your Health 
Plan Act.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me again remind my colleagues that not 
a single hearing was held on this bill. Not a single markup was held on 
this bill, nothing, and it is coming to the floor under a closed rule.
  My Republican friends believe that nobody in this House, Democrats or 
Republicans, have any right to offer an opinion or an alternative. We 
are given 1 hour of debate on this. It is not evenly split among the 
committees of jurisdiction. One committee of jurisdiction.
  This is a joke. This is not what you promised. This is not the open 
process. This is not the transparent process on major pieces of 
legislation that we were promised. This is a joke.
  I will insert into the Record a Statement of Administration Policy 
that says that the President, if presented with H.R. 3350, would veto 
it.
  This is a colossal waste of time.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


              H.R. 3350--Keep Your Health Plan Act of 2013

         (Rep. Upton, R-MI, and 161 cosponsors, Nov. 14, 2013)

       The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 
     3350 because it threatens the health care security of hard 
     working, middle class families. The Nation is experiencing 
     the slowest growth in health spending in the last 50 years. 
     Since 2008, growth in private health insurance spending 
     stayed between three and four percent--significantly lower 
     than earlier this decade when growth reached almost 12 
     percent. With health care costs rising at such low rates, 
     this bill would be a major step back.
       H.R. 3350 rolls back the progress made by allowing insurers 
     to continue to sell new plans that deploy practices such as 
     not offering coverage for people with pre-existing 
     conditions, charging women more than men, and continuing 
     yearly caps on the amount of care that enrollees receive. The 
     Administration supports policies that allow people to keep 
     the health plans that they have. But, policies that reverse 
     the progress made to extend quality, affordable coverage to 
     millions of uninsured, hardworking, middle

[[Page 17171]]

     class families are not the solution. Rather than refighting 
     old political battles to sabotage the health care law, the 
     Congress should work with the Administration to improve the 
     law and move forward.
       If the President were presented with H.R. 3350, he would 
     veto it.

  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the distinguished gentleman.
  Today, Mr. Speaker, I rise to save lives and to ensure that the 
Affordable Care Act does what it was intended to do and what it is 
already doing: lifting the lifetime caps, providing preventative care, 
taking away the discrimination against women and other ethnic 
minorities by eliminating health disparities.
  This is a bill that has seen eons of hearings not only in the 
underlying committee, but also in the Judiciary Committee and other 
committees and ad hoc hearings and briefings over and over again. I 
remember sitting and hearing the painful stories of families whose 
children had died because they could not get access to health care. But 
the Upton bill comes today disguised as a sheep in wolf's clothing. It 
discriminates against people with preexisting conditions; it restores 
annual caps on the amount of care you can receive; and it forces women 
to pay more than men for the same coverage.
  This bill is not a fix. It is a dissolver of a good bill.
  By the way, Mr. Speaker, let me inform my colleagues that there was 
nothing in the Affordable Care Act that dictated to insurance companies 
that they had to send cancellation letters. Why don't we hold a hearing 
and call the CEOs of the insurance companies and ask them why they 
didn't send the normal letter indicating that you have the opportunity 
to have a modified policy that will comply with the Affordable Care Act 
and that your policies are not canceled because those individuals did 
not pay their premium? Ask that question.
  I will tell you that there are health professionals and organizations 
that believe this particular bill will not work, such as the American 
Cancer Society and the American Diabetes Society.
  I agree with my colleague that there should have been an open rule. 
And the reason that there should have been an open rule is because I 
had an amendment that indicated that the conditions specified in the 
subsection for health insurance insurer, they must notify enrollees 
eligible for such continued coverage. I am glad that the President 
yesterday put that language in and also said that you can opt in to 
your old policy.
  We have answered the call and concern of the American people, but we 
have not taken away from them the right to have consumer protections 
and insurance coverage that will make their lives better.
  I would also suggest that my amendment indicated health insurance 
companies are making decisions based on their bottom line, their self-
interests, and have decided to terminate insurance plans that are not 
profitable in the new, highly competitive marketplace for health 
insurance or want to end insurance for those who are ill and thereby 
increase their profit margin by keeping only the healthy and marginally 
healthy while discarding the ill, and the amendment should have been 
included, because we need to speak to our friends in the health 
insurance industry that we are here working together and that those 
letters were not necessary.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to save lives. I want consumer protections. I 
want women not to be discriminated against. Tomorrow, in Houston, we 
are opening the doors for enrollment in a health fair that we hope 
thousands will come to.
  My friends, the Upton bill does not answer the question. Let us save 
lives today.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman for his courtesy.
  This is what we lived in preceding the Affordable Care Act:
  18 percent of the underinsured postponed getting care or treatment, 
and some of those people died;
  15 percent of the uninsured had problems paying their medical bills, 
hounded, hounded, hounded because they didn't have the resources and 
even went bankrupt;
  10 percent of the uninsured needed prescription drugs but they could 
not afford them;
  8 percent were hounded by collection agencies because they had to pay 
for their mortgage or their food;
  6 percent did not seek treatment at all.
  Do you know what that equals to? One hundred percent of those 
individuals suffering bad health care.
  Let us vote down the Upton bill, vote against the underlying rule, 
and let's promote the Affordable Care Act and fix it like the President 
has done.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule and the 
underlying bill, H.R. 3350, the so-called ``Keep Your Health Plan Act 
of 2013.'' I oppose the rule and the underlying bill for two reasons.
  First, the bill will not save lives. Second, the legislation is 
unnecessary in light of the action taken yesterday by President Obama, 
which should satisfy the proponents of this legislation while at the 
same time minimizing the risk to the health and safety of underinsured 
Americans, who are persons who have insurance but spend more than 10% 
of their income on out-of-pocket medical expenses.
  Were it to become law, H.R. 3350 would jeopardize the life and health 
of those underinsured who purchase these plans it protects, even though 
health insurance plans are available that would in nearly every case 
provide more health coverage for less.
  Mr. Speaker, researchers have found the following disturbing facts 
regarding the underinsured:
  Eighteen percent of the underinsured postpone getting care or 
treatment;
  Fifteen percent of the underinsured had problems paying medical 
bills;
  Ten percent of the underinsured needed prescription drugs but could 
not afford them;
  Eight percent were hounded by collection agencies for nonpayment of 
medical bills; and
  Six percent did not seek treatment even though they needed it.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the cost of underinsurance in America--and this 
is what we can expect more of should H.R. 3350 become law. The express 
purpose of this bill is to allow underinsured persons to retain an 
inadequate ``health insurance'' plan on the ground that supposedly it 
is the plan the person ``wants to keep.''
  Unfortunately, there is nothing in this bill that would provide 
consumer education on the inadequacies of the plan and that something 
much better is available. For example, there is no requirement in this 
bill for the insurer to notify the insured that health insurance 
provided through the exchange that provides more and better coverage 
for less money.
  This means that under H.R. 3350 people will still have problems 
paying their medical bills, they will have high bills, and they will 
not be able to afford prescription medication or be hounded by medical 
bill collectors.
  The second reason for opposing this rule and bill is that it is 
unnecessary in view of the actions taken yesterday by President Obama. 
As the President announced, insurers will be permitted to offer 
consumers the option to renew their 2013 health plans in 2014, without 
change, allowing them to keep their plans. This should satisfy the 
proponents of the bill.
  But the President went further than that because he recognizes that 
inadequate insurance is really no insurance at all. That is why the 
President conditioned the ability of insurers to offer plan renewals 
upon the following:
  1. That insurers notify enrollees that they can purchase coverage 
through the Health Insurance Marketplace where they can potentially 
qualify for premium tax credits; and
  2. Those insurers must inform consumers of the protections they are 
giving up to keep the plan they have.
  Taken together, President Obama's actions are a tempered and measured 
response to the alleged problem that this bill seeks to remedy.
  I fully applaud what the President has done and I offered an 
amendment that would achieve precisely the same results but the Rules 
Committee did not make my amendment in order. The text of Jackson Lee 
Amendment #1 provides:
  (C) Conditions for Continued Offering of Coverage.--The conditions 
specified in this subsection for a health insurance issuer offering 
continued coverage under subsection (a) are as follows:
  (1) The issuer must notify enrollees eligible for such continued 
coverage that they can purchase health insurance coverage through the

[[Page 17172]]

Health Insurance Marketplace where they can potentially qualify for 
premium tax credits.
  (2) The issuer must tell consumers what protections they are giving 
up to accept the continued coverage they have.
  (3) The issuer must provide notice by mail of the offering of such 
continued coverage to each affected enrollee; and post these notices on 
the issuer's website.
  The Jackson Lee Amendment, like the action announced by the 
President, is practical, efficient, and addresses the concerns of those 
who received cancellation letters from their insurance companies.
  It should be noted again that Jackson Lee Amendment #1, and the 
President's actions, are each superior to H.R. 3350, which contains no 
provision or requirement that consumers who received these notices be 
advised by their insurers that they may receive lower insurance rates 
with better coverage by shopping online or calling the toll free 
number.
  Now there may be some who think the availability of the types of 
health care insurance that H.R. 3350 would protect is sufficient for 
Americans. I do not. Neither does President Obama. The majority of the 
American people do not. We believe, and the Affordable Care Act 
ensures, that healthcare should be available, accessible and adequate.
  Mr. Speaker, adequate health plans have in common the inclusion of 
certain minimal benefits and services. The second amendment I offered 
to the legislation before us documented the differences between 
adequate and inadequate health insurance plans. Unfortunately, the 
Rules Committee elected not to make my amendment in order. The text of 
Jackson Lee Amendment #2 is as follows:

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

  Congress finds the following:
  1. Health Insurance companies are making decisions based on their 
bottom line self interest and have decided to terminate insurance plans 
that are not profitable in the new highly competitive market place for 
health insurance, or want to end insurance for those who are ill and 
thereby increase their profit margin by keeping only the healthy or 
marginally healthy, while discarding the ill.
  2. Insurance companies make huge profits when they take premiums and 
pay little to no benefits.
  3. The plans offered by some insurance companies called ``health 
insurance'', in fact offered little if any health care protection 
should people with these policies become seriously ill or involved in 
an accident that required hospitalization.
  4. Catastrophic health plans sold to Americans as insurance were not 
first dollar or even the first thousand dollar policies; some required 
the first $5,000 to $10,000 of health care costs to be paid by the 
holder of the insurance plan whose income was not sufficient to incur 
an expense of this magnitude.
  5. These plans did not provide many of the minimal benefits of the 
Affordable Care Act, such as ambulatory patient services, that provide 
treatment using advanced medical devices or technology like an MRI X-
ray.
  6. Emergency services were not covered even though emergency room 
visits could cost tens of thousands of dollars depending on the nature 
of the emergency. Hospitalization coverage was not included in most of 
these insurance policies.
  7. Maternity and newborn care was not covered nor were pediatric 
services so that a healthy birth did not mean that the newborn child 
would have a healthy childhood. Mental health, substance abuse disorder 
services, and behavioral health treatment were not covered by most of 
these insurance plans.
  8. Prescription drug benefits and necessary laboratory tests also 
were excluded under these insurance plans. Also excluded under these 
plans were preventive and wellness services and chronic disease 
management.
  9. Oral and vision care were not part of these plans, which meant 
that one tooth infection or change in eyesight could set someone back 
thousands of dollars if they wanted to get treatment.
  10. Prescription drug benefits and necessary laboratory tests also 
were excluded under these insurance plans.
  Also excluded under these plans were preventive and wellness services 
and chronic disease management.
  12. Oral and vision care were not part of these plans, which meant 
that one tooth infection or change in eyesight could set someone back 
thousands of dollars if they wanted to get treatment.
  Mr. Speaker, my constituents in the 18th Congressional District of 
Texas favor the Affordable Care Act because they understand the 
insecurity and feeling of helplessness of being uninsured or 
underinsured. My home state of Texas has the highest percentage of 
uninsured (27.6%) in the Nation, 4% more than Louisiana, the next state 
on the list.
  The state of Massachusetts, in contrast, boasts the lowest uninsured 
rate in the country (4%). This is because Massachusetts several years 
ago adopted the health insurance system upon which the Affordable 
Health Care Act is based.
  The Affordable Care Act when fully implemented will yield the same 
benefits for my home state of Texas. In fact, it has already begun to 
do so. Take the case of Lucy, who was insured--I should say 
underinsured--but had a $7,500 a year deductible. Thanks to the Health 
Insurance Exchange she is now much better off. Here is what Lucy has to 
say about the Affordable Care Act compared to the plan she had before:

       I signed up at Healthcare.gov and I'm going to save $2,300 
     a year on my premium alone--and more, because my deductible 
     will drop from $7,500 a year to $3,000 a year. It's still 
     Blue Cross insurance, and I don't have to change doctors, 
     either. I had a choice of over 30 plans and several different 
     companies.

  Mr. Speaker, health care coverage must be not only available and 
affordable but also adequate in order for consumers to have the health 
security and financial protection they need and deserve. The Affordable 
Care Act satisfies these criteria; the bill before us does not. That is 
why we should reject this rule and the underlying bill.
  H.R. 3350 is nothing more than the House Republicans' newest 
variation on their very old theme, which is to repeal, impede or 
undermine the Affordable Care Act. This bill is the 46th attempt by the 
Republicans to deprive the American people of the security and peace of 
mind that comes with health care that is affordable, accessible and 
adequate.
  Of course we should not be surprised. After all, it was the House 
Republicans who shut down the federal government for 16 days and cost 
the economy $24 billion while refusing to consider any legislation that 
would create jobs or address the real needs of the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is strongly opposed by a coalition of 
some of the Nation's leading health and consumer organizations, 
including the following:
  Paralyzed Veterans of America
  American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network
  American Diabetes Association
  American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)
  American Heart Association/American Stroke Association
  American Music Therapy Association
  The Arc of the United States
  The Autistic Self Advocacy Network
  Community Catalyst
  Families USA
  Health and Wholeness Ministries, Disciples Center for Public Witness
  Health Care for America Now
  National Alliance on Mental Illness
  National Association of County Behavioral Health & Developmental 
Disability Directors
  National Council of Jewish Women
  National Partnership for Women & Families
  These groups oppose the bill for substantially the same reasons I 
have discussed. While sympathizing with consumers who are receiving 
notices from their insurance companies that their policies are not 
being renewed for next year because they do not comply with the ACA's 
consumer protections, the Coalition rightly observes that:

       [T]he solution is not to allow for the continued sale of 
     inadequate policies[.] Rather, we must educate consumers 
     about their new health insurance options and ensure that 
     notices being sent by insurers clearly inform them of the 
     shortfalls with their current coverage and explain all of 
     their options for finding better coverage.

  I agree. Therefore, I urge all Members to join me in voting against 
this rule and the underlying bill.

                                                November 13, 2013.
     Hon. John Boehner,
     Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader Pelosi: Health 
     care coverage must be not only available and affordable but 
     also adequate in order for consumers to have the health and 
     financial protection they need from health insurance. The 
     Affordable Care Act (ACA) was designed to ensure that, 
     beginning in 2014, Americans would have access to health 
     insurance that meets all three of these important objectives. 
     Our organizations support these goals, and we are therefore 
     opposed to H.R. 3350, legislation that would allow health 
     insurers to continue to sell individual health insurance 
     policies that are inadequate.
       The number of people who are underinsured--meaning that 
     their insurance does not provide adequate financial 
     protection

[[Page 17173]]

     when they are sick--has been growing over the last decade. 
     According to one study, the number of underinsured adults has 
     increased 80 percent since 2003. More than 60 percent of all 
     bankruptcies in 2007 were a result of illness and medical 
     bills, and nearly 80 percent of those who filed for medical 
     bankruptcy were insured. Many consumers with inadequate 
     coverage do not realize how poor it is until they are 
     diagnosed with a serious illness and the bills start rolling 
     in. Only then do they find out that their coverage may have 
     very low annual coverage limits or exclude coverage for 
     important and costly services, such as those provided during 
     a hospital stay.
       The ACA includes a number of important protections in 
     response to the large number of uninsured and to help 
     guarantee that consumers have access to comprehensive 
     coverage. The ACA minimizes bankruptcy risk and ensures that 
     the full range of care consumers need in the event of a 
     serious or catastrophic illness will be covered. We cannot 
     afford to go another year without these protections. Among 
     these protections that apply to non-grandfathered plans sold 
     in the individual and small group markets are:
       A ban on annual limits on coverage. More than 105 million 
     Americans no longer have lifetime dollar limits on their 
     coverage because of the ACA, but health plans would still be 
     able to sell plans with annual limits under this legislation.
       A requirement that plans cover 10 categories of essential 
     health benefits, including doctor visits, hospital care, 
     preventive care, maternity care, mental health care, 
     prescription drugs, and rehabilitation services. Many of 
     these critical benefits are not readily available in the 
     individual market. For example, only 12 percent of health 
     plans sold on the individual market cover maternity coverage, 
     and only 6 percent in the states that do not have a mandate, 
     leaving women without necessary coverage when they become 
     pregnant.
       A cap on consumers' annual out-of-pocket spending for their 
     health care to help the nearly 10 million Americans with 
     health insurance who are unable to afford their medical 
     bills.
       In addition, many consumers who are uninsured or do not 
     have access to an affordable, adequate health plan from their 
     employer are also eligible for a premium tax credit to help 
     them buy such coverage through the Health Insurance 
     Marketplaces.
       Our understanding of this legislation is that it would also 
     allow insurers to continue to market and sell these plans to 
     new consumers through 2014, without complying with the rules 
     that take effect for other plans on January 1. In other 
     words, insurers marketing these plans outside of the Health 
     Insurance Marketplaces could continue to refuse to cover 
     people with pre-existing medical conditions or charge them 
     higher premiums because of their age or health status. As a 
     result, younger and healthier people would be more likely to 
     remain on or newly enroll in these plans, and plans sold 
     through the Health Insurance Marketplaces would end up 
     covering mostly older and sicker people. This would drive up 
     health insurance premiums in the Marketplaces.
       We very much sympathize with consumers who are receiving 
     notices from their insurance companies that their policies 
     are not being renewed for next year because they do not 
     comply with the ACA's consumer protections. In at least some 
     instances, these notices have been very alarming and 
     misleading for consumers because they fail to let them know 
     that they may have better, more affordable insurance options 
     available to them. At least one insurer was fined by a 
     Department of Insurance for a letter that regulators called 
     ``misleading.'' However, the solution is not to allow for the 
     continued sale of inadequate policies, particularly now that 
     more comprehensive coverage is available along with financial 
     assistance to help make better coverage affordable. Rather, 
     we must educate consumers about their new health insurance 
     options and ensure that notices being sent by insurers 
     clearly inform them of the shortfalls with their current 
     coverage and explain all of their options for finding better 
     coverage.
       We look forward to working with you to help your 
     constituents get information about their new options for 
     fairer, more comprehensive, and more affordable health care 
     coverage and to make adequate coverage more affordable to 
     everyone.
           Sincerely,
       American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, American 
     Diabetes Association, American Federation of State, County 
     and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), American Heart Association/
     American Stroke Association, American Music Therapy 
     Association, The Arc of the United States, The Autistic Self 
     Advocacy Network, Community Catalyst, Families USA, Health 
     and Wholeness Ministries--Disciples Center for Public 
     Witness, Health Care for America Now, National Alliance on 
     Mental Illness, National Association of County Behavioral 
     Health & Developmental Disability Directors, National Council 
     of Jewish Women, National Partnership for Women & Families, 
     Paralyzed Veterans of America.

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, that evening in March of 2010 when the Senate bill was 
finally going to be considered by the House, there was a meeting of the 
Rules Committee that night. Democrats were in charge. I presented 
myself to that meeting with 18 amendments to H.R. 3590 that had been 
passed by the Senate. Every one of those was summarily rejected.
  The problem the Democrats had that day was, should we change a single 
word in H.R. 3590 as passed by the Senate, the bill would have to go 
back to the Senate and concur with the House amendment to H.R. 3590. 
The Majority Leader in the Senate, having lost his 60th vote in a 
special election in Massachusetts that year, felt that he could not 
pass anything. He could not achieve cloture with only 59 Democrats to 
vote in favor of that motion for cloture. That is the reason why not 
one word was changed between Christmas Eve of 2009 and the time this 
bill was actually passed.
  But after H.R. 3590 came back from the Senate, came to the Rules 
Committee, did it come to the House under an open rule? No, it did not. 
It was a closed rule. We were kept out of the process.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BURGESS. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
  It is hard to feel too sad for the gentleman from Massachusetts when 
a bill of this magnitude came with so little debate, so little input 
from the minority. We have got a 1-page bill before the House today. 
This was a 2,700-page bill that affected every man, woman, and child in 
this country, not just today, not just tomorrow, but for the next three 
decades they will be living under this. And it came under a closed 
rule.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  What the gentleman conveniently leaves out are the hundreds of hours 
of hearings and markups that occurred in the committees of jurisdiction 
on the Affordable Care Act. The committees of jurisdiction were just 
cut out of this.
  It is becoming a pattern in this House. This is not the only bill 
where the committees of jurisdiction have been cut out of the process, 
where Members' voices have been silenced, where they are enforcing 
rules with an iron fist in this Chamber. So this, unfortunately, is not 
unique. It is a pattern.
  But to suggest that we don't have the time to offer amendments is 
just ridiculous. We have plenty of time. We could debate this all day 
if we wanted to, and Members could have an opportunity, both Democrats 
and Republicans, to amend this, given the fact that they were denied 
that right in the committees of jurisdiction.
  Mr. Speaker, I will enter into the Record an article that appeared in 
the National Review Online, entitled, ``Boehner: Upton Bill a Step on 
Path to ObamaCare Repeal,'' because what is going on here is very 
simple.

                              {time}  0945

  If you believe that 40 million Americans should be without health 
insurance, then vote for this bill. That is what they want to do. They 
want to repeal the Affordable Care Act to go back to a point at which 
it was perfectly acceptable and okay to have 40 million Americans 
without health insurance. Now, many of us found that statistic 
unconscionable in this country, the richest country in the history of 
the world, and we thought it was bad policy to allow for so many 
uninsured Americans because that also resulted in higher health care 
costs, but that is what the goal here is.
  The goal here is to undo all of the protections that allow you to 
keep your kids on your insurance policies until they are 26, that 
prohibit insurance companies from discriminating against women because 
they define being a female as a preexisting condition, and all of these 
artificial rules and regulations that insurance companies threw upon 
people, these insurance policies that people bought thinking they had 
insurance only to find out when they got sick they had nothing.
  If you want to go back to that, then side with my Republican friends; 
but

[[Page 17174]]

what we want to do here is work as we did in Massachusetts, by the way, 
with Governor Romney, in order to make this work. I will tell you, for 
the life of me, I don't understand why this is such a radical idea to 
guarantee everybody in this country good, quality health insurance.

               [From the National Review, Nov. 13, 2013]

         Boehner: Upton Bill a Step on Path to Obamacare Repeal

                          (By Jonathan Strong)

       Before the government shutdown in July, as the defund push 
     from Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee was just starting to gain 
     steam, Speaker John Boehner laid-out his preferred Obamacare 
     strategy to House Republicans in a closed-door conference 
     meeting, telling them the GOP could repeal the law with 
     ``targeted strikes that will ultimately dissolve the 
     Obamacare coalition.''
       This morning, in another conference meeting, Boehner 
     reminded his colleagues about that strategy and explained how 
     bringing the ``keep your plan'' bill introduced by 
     Representative Fred Upton to the House floor Friday fits into 
     it.
       ``Remember the strategy for stopping Obamacare we laid out 
     to you back in July. It had two components: Aggressive, 
     coordinated oversight, and targeted legislative strikes aimed 
     at shattering the legislative coalition the president has 
     used to force his law on the nation,'' Boehner said, 
     according to a person in the room.
       ``That plan is being executed as we speak. But none of it 
     will be effective if we aren't communicating. If we aren't 
     telling the stories our constituents are sharing, then we're 
     letting them down. It means we aren't doing our best to stop 
     this law,'' he added.

  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee, who suffered a long and arduous Rules Committee last night.
  Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank my colleague from Massachusetts, not 
only for having to deal with the ordeal in Rules last night but every 
day, but also for what he said about the lack of regular order when 
this Upton bill--this bill by the chairman, Mr. Upton--came to the 
Rules Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I am a member of the Health Subcommittee of the Energy 
and Commerce Committee. I said in Rules last night--and I will say it 
again today--that we have had many hearings in the Health Subcommittee 
and that we have had hearings in the full Energy and Commerce 
Committee. Over the last 2 or 3 weeks, there was ample opportunity to 
have this bill proceed with regular order with a subcommittee hearing 
markup and with a full committee hearing markup. None of that was done. 
This bill just comes here to the floor directly from Rules, and it is a 
flawed bill. I want to stress that.
  I really believe, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation is just another 
attempt by the GOP to undermine the Affordable Care Act. In fact, I 
will call this the 46th attempt at repeal. My GOP colleagues have zero 
interest in helping people gain and keep their health insurance. They 
have zero interest in fixing any problems that may be occurring with 
the rollout of the law. They simply want to demonize the President and 
his policies, as you have heard over and over again, and they will go 
to any length to do so. At the top of the list are their efforts to 
sabotage ObamaCare and to force its failure.
  Yesterday, the President took some action to help Americans who want 
to renew their insurance policies if their insurance companies are 
willing to offer that option. Ultimately, though, I believe that these 
people will look at the quality plans available in the new Affordable 
Care Act insurance marketplace and like what they see because, in most 
cases, they will find that they are able to purchase better coverage at 
lower prices than their original policies so that, when they get sick 
or when they need care, their policies will actually provide it because 
most of these older policies simply do not provide adequate insurance.
  As I said before, the Upton bill before us is not about giving people 
access to health care. It is about sabotaging ObamaCare. One of my 
colleagues on the Republican side said they want to have people keep 
their insurance. The President's initiative yesterday allows them to 
keep their insurance if they want to, but what the Upton bill does is 
allow anybody now--anybody, even if they didn't have the old insurance 
policies--to buy these new skeletal policies that don't provide 
adequate insurance.
  So, if you take away the rhetoric of the Republicans, the Upton 
bill's practical effect would be to continue to allow insurers to 
exclude people from coverage based on preexisting conditions and to 
allow insurers to charge women twice as much as men for the same 
coverage. It would allow insurers to jack up premiums on a family if 
its child gets sick. It would allow insurers to set harsh annual caps 
on coverage. All of the discriminatory practices that the ACA and 
ObamaCare were designed to eliminate come back under the Upton bill. 
This bill would not require health insurers to allow individuals to 
keep their current health care plans because insurers can still do 
whatever they want. You can't force the insurers to offer the plans. It 
basically allows them to sell low-quality 2013 plans all through 2014. 
Nothing else.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  We have talked about the votes in this House to delay or to modify 
portions of the Affordable Care Act. Indeed, the House has passed seven 
of those, and they have been signed by the President.
  What really doesn't ever get much attention are the multiple times 
that the administration--the President, himself--has changed parts of 
the Affordable Care Act. If you want to talk about something that was 
done without any hearings, if you want to talk about something that was 
done in a non-transparent fashion, if you want to talk about something 
that was done without the ability to amend or debate on the floor of 
the House, then let's go through a few of these.
  Number one: A congressional opt-out. The administration gave Members 
of Congress and their staffs the option of exempting themselves from 
the ObamaCare exchanges that were created by the Affordable Care Act, 
which is contrary to the language of the law.
  Exchange enrollment: The administration extended by 6 weeks--from 
February 14 to March 31, 2014--the period in which people can enroll 
for coverage in order to avoid the individual mandate tax penalty.
  The employer delay: By an administrative action, which is also 
contrary to statutory language in the Affordable Care Act, the 
reporting requirements for employers were delayed by 1 year.
  Self-attestation: Because of the difficulty of verifying income after 
the employer reporting requirement was delayed, the administration 
decided it would allow the self-attestation of income by applicants for 
health insurance exchanges.
  Small businesses on hold: The administration said that the Federal 
exchanges for small businesses would not be ready by the 2014 statutory 
deadline. Instead, officials delayed until 2015 the implementation of 
the Federal shop exchanges.
  Closing the high-risk pools: This one was, I thought, particularly 
egregious. Mr. Speaker, I, frankly, do not understand why this was not 
covered by the Nation's press. The administration decided to halt the 
enrollment in Federal high-risk pools, blocking coverage for an 
estimated 40,000 new applicants, and it decided, rather than using the 
money from a fund under Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius' 
control to extend coverage for Americans with preexisting conditions, 
that it would, instead, use this money to pay for advertising for the 
Affordable Care Act.
  Remember, the Affordable Care Act was sold to the American people 
because--remember the quotes?--there were 8 to 12 million people with 
preexisting conditions. Yet the President's own preexisting pool, which 
was started in this law when it was signed in March of 2010, was closed 
on February 1 of 2013, barely 2\1/2\ years into its lifespan. Why have 
we not heard more about that? This was an administrative action to 
restrict people from access to the risk pools that they were told they 
were going to get as a consequence of the President's health care law. 
Many of these people probably voted for the President in November of 
2012 because, after all, he was going to provide them

[[Page 17175]]

their risk pool insurance for another year--until it didn't happen.
  Is it any wonder why there is no faith in what the administration 
says it will do by administrative edict? Why there is no faith in what 
has come out of the White House? Why congressional action is not just 
constitutionally required but is required for the people of this 
country to continue to have faith in their government?
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman talks about faith. I think the American 
people have lost faith in the Republican leadership of this House. My 
friends are so obsessed with this health care bill that they actually 
shut the government down. Ted Cruz was the Speaker of the House here 
for a month. I mean, they shut the government down because they do not 
believe that 40 million uninsured Americans ought to have health 
insurance.
  Ezra Klein, in his Washington Post piece on November 14, writes about 
the Upton bill.
  He says:

       It doesn't solve the cancelations problem, but it does 
     manage to put Republicans on the side of insurers, who want 
     to continue discriminating against preexisting conditions.

  That is what this is all about: giving the insurance companies more 
of what they want. If you want to know why, follow the money. It is no 
secret where the insurance companies' allegiances are. Quite frankly, 
my friends have had 3 years in control to give us their alternative. 
They have said ``no'' to everything. No, no, no. They try to undercut 
and repeal everything. What have they offered in 3 years? What is their 
prescription for the uninsured in America? Take two tax breaks and call 
me in the morning. That is the best they could come up with.
  This is a good bill, and we need to work to implement it so that we 
can make sure that every single American has access to good, quality 
health insurance.
  With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Maloney).
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentleman for 
yielding and for his leadership in providing health care for over 40 
million Americans who did not have it.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the 46th time that our Republican colleagues 
have tried to repeal or to undermine the Affordable Care Act. I rise in 
opposition to this closed rule, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the Upton 
bill.
  We are here today supposedly to help those people who unexpectedly 
had their insurance policies canceled. This is a real issue as the 
President, himself, clearly acknowledged last night. That is why he is 
taking steps to help these people in the private health care market 
keep their plans. However, the bill before us now not only fails to 
solve the problem, it makes things worse by fundamentally undermining 
the Affordable Care Act in a way that is calculated to doom it to 
eventual failure.
  You would be changing the rules in the middle of a game and virtually 
guaranteeing that premiums would eventually skyrocket for people who 
did the right thing--who went to the exchange and got a plan. This 
would price the program out of existence. Doing that would take us all 
back to a time when over 40 million Americans did not have access to 
affordable health insurance, including 2.6 million New Yorkers.
  We must not turn our backs on those people now. We absolutely have 
problems we need to fix, and we have issues we need to solve, but we 
are on the verge of finally covering millions of Americans who lack the 
fundamental security of affordable health coverage for their families. 
We are finally close to achieving a goal for millions that has been 
pursued for nearly a century under Republican and Democratic 
administrations alike.
  This is a problem we must solve without turning our backs on those 
families forced into bankruptcy simply because someone in the household 
got sick. This is a problem we must solve for the sake of all of those 
women who were denied insurance or who had to pay up to 40 percent more 
for insurance simply because they were women. This is a problem we must 
solve for the sake of all of those people with preexisting conditions 
and for all of those young adults who can stay on their parents' plans 
until they turn 27.
  We did not embark on this effort because we thought it would be easy. 
We embarked on this effort to provide health care to millions because 
we thought it was a moral imperative, an economic necessity, and a 
fundamental human right. Yes, it is hard to get it right, but 
ultimately this is an effort that history will judge not by the number 
of computer errors but by the number of lives saved.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill and 
``yes'' for health care for millions of Americans.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute for the purposes of 
response.
  Talk about changing the rules in the middle of the game. What in the 
world was that Presidential press conference 24 hours ago all about? It 
was about changing the rules by executive fiat. Again, I just went 
through a list of many of the 27 times that the President has changed 
the rules in the middle of the game.
  What about the times the administration has been engaged in ``hide 
the ball'' from the American people, from the Nation's Governors, from 
the Nation's insured? What about the fact that the rule for the 
essential health benefit was held up until 2 days after Election Day 
last year? Then the Governors had to make a decision as to whether or 
not to participate in the exchanges in their States a week later. Is it 
any wonder they could not make a decision of that amount of import in a 
week's time? Sure, they were given another month's extension, but 
eventually, 26 Governors said, I can't do it based on the information 
provided. Another six Governors said, Okay, but the Federal Government 
is going to have to set up the exchanges. That is why you have 32 
States for which the Federal Government is having to set up the Federal 
fallback exchange.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this point, it is my privilege to yield 
3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

                              {time}  1000

  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for the time.
  In March of 2010, the President signed the Affordable Care Act. In 
that law, there was a revision that said on January 1 of 2014 if 
insurance plans did not have important consumer protections, like 
getting rid of lifetime policy limits and annual limits, that they 
couldn't be sold anymore.
  For over 3\1/2\ years, the insurance industry had noticed that the 
day was coming when they could not sell these plans anymore. They chose 
to wait until the last couple of weeks to send out notices to millions 
of Americans saying they couldn't renew their plans next year. This is 
unfair to those Americans, and it is a problem that ought to be fixed.
  The President has stepped forward with a plan to address this to help 
those Americans. I support what he is doing. The House Democrats will 
have an opportunity to put on the floor some votes that will further 
improve that situation as this debate goes on.
  This problem of people having their policies canceled is unwarranted 
and unwelcome, and we should work together to fix it. The underlying 
bill here does not fix the problem; it creates a problem.
  It is very important to understand what the underlying bill does. It 
says that insurance plans that discriminate against you because you are 
a woman or because you had skin cancer, or insurance plans that say 
that in the middle of your chemotherapy you can run out of coverage, or 
insurance plans that say that after you paid your premiums for months 
or even years the insurance company can cancel you because you got 
sick, those plans can continue to be sold to everyone--to everyone.
  The problem that we are trying to address is people that have such 
plans

[[Page 17176]]

and want to keep them be given the opportunity to keep them. That is 
what the President's decision does, which is why we support it.
  The underlying bill says that these plans can be opened up to anybody 
who wants to buy this. That sounds kind of fair at first glance. If 
someone wants to buy that kind of plan, shouldn't they be able to?
  Well, ladies and gentlemen of the House, here is the question: If 
someone buys a plan that pulls the plug on their chemotherapy in the 
middle and they keep getting care, who pays for it? The taxpayers do 
and the other premium payers do. That is who pays for it.
  This plan that is before the House today, this Republican bill, is a 
guarantee of rate shock for the American people because here is what 
will happen.
  If anyone who wants to can buy one of these cars without an airbag or 
cars without seatbelts--and that is what these plans are--then you will 
find that the new marketplaces don't have enough people in them. When 
they don't have enough people in them, the rates will rise. When the 
rates spike for people in the marketplaces, they will spike for people 
who get employer-sponsored health care because the possibility of the 
marketplaces is already reducing the premium increases that employers 
are seeing.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield an additional minute to the gentleman.
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the gentleman.
  So the employer rates, which have risen at the slowest rates in the 
last 5 or 6 years, would once again be subject to the kind of spikes 
that happen here.
  Look, I think there is bipartisan agreement in this Chamber this 
morning that if someone has gotten a cancellation notice, we want to 
help that person keep their plan if they choose to keep it. We agree 
with that, the President agrees with that. That is what he set out to 
do.
  What we do not want, and what this bill does, is to guarantee rate 
shock, guarantee a premium spike for Americans, whether they are in 
these plans that we are talking about today, whether they are in the 
new marketplaces, or whether they receive insurance through their 
employer. We need additional protections where insurance commissioners 
around this country can step forward and investigate arbitrary and 
unfair practices, where they can protect consumers, and House Democrats 
are going to put forward such an opportunity to vote on that at the 
conclusion of this debate.
  Let's not in the guise of solving one problem magnify another one. We 
should oppose this rule and oppose the underlying bill.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 13 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Colorado has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes for purposes of a 
response.
  The rate shock issue is one about which every Member of this House 
should be concerned.
  Let me read to you from a letter I received from a constituent who 
lives in The Colony, Texas, a city within my congressional district. 
They are complaining about the cost and lack of transparency on the 
healthcare.gov Web site:

       The prices the ObamaCare Web site say we can expect based 
     on our ages are $372 to $600. But when I go to actually 
     purchase, those prices automatically become $870. We don't 
     qualify for subsidies so that was not part of any of the 
     calculations.

  The constituent goes on to say:

       It is bad enough the President has lied to us on multiple 
     points--$2,500 a year savings, keep your plan, keep your 
     doctor--but also the Web site is designed to mislead us about 
     the price as well. What is the reason that the ObamaCare site 
     and health carrier sites don't agree? I just saw a North 
     Carolina couple on the news who had the same experience and 
     the insurance carrier told them that the prices on the 
     carrier sites are correct and those prices on healthcare.gov 
     are incorrect.

  There is rate shock going on in the country right now. That is what 
part of this debate is about today. But let me just caution my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle that the true rate shock 
experience is likely to hit in September of 2014, about 6 weeks before 
election day on November 14. What is the reason for that rate shock? 
Well, we all know that the healthcare.gov Web site was, so far, the 
abysmal failure.
  The administration is counting on a certain demographic to flood that 
Web site and sign up for their wonderful new Elysian Fields of 
ObamaCare. It is hard, so they are not going to do it.
  But people who are older, perhaps have multiple chronic conditions, 
who are actually fearful about losing their health care coverage, they 
are going to keep at it. Bless their hearts. They will keep going. They 
will keep coming back day after day after day until they can finally 
get through and sign up for the insurance policy. Yeah, it is more 
expensive than I want, it doesn't cover as much as I want, but, by 
golly, I will have something at the start of the year. The problem is 
the demographic that the administration counted on to sign up is not 
going to sign up.
  Beginning about April of next year, the insurance companies are going 
to begin to price risk. That is what they do. That is what they do 
well. So they are going to post risk and they will post their prices 
somewhere along the lines of July 1 to September 30. Those prices for 
the renewal of health insurance are going to be staggeringly high; they 
will be astonishingly high.
  The rate shock that is fixing to happen, you ain't seen nothing yet. 
It is coming in the fall, and it will be unbelievable compared to 
anything you have seen to date.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President. This restriction 
includes quoting from extraneous materials.
  Without objection, the gentleman from Colorado now controls the time 
and is recognized.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. The Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank 
him for his leadership and that of the full Rules Committee on having 
to field some really strange notions masquerading as proposals to 
improve the lives of the American people. We see a lot of that these 
days.
  This one on the floor today really takes the cake because it is 
essentially to pull the plug on the Affordable Care Act. While it says 
that they want to delay the cancellations that the insurance companies 
have written to policyholders, the bill does not mandate.
  This is a conversation that is not an action, but it does violence to 
the bill in other ways. The idea that it was helping consumers was sort 
of the Trojan horse whose underbelly is poisonous in terms of the 
health and well-being of the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor to speak on the rule because I think 
it is really important for Members to vote against the rule as a point 
of fairness. If we reject this rule and allow the Rules Committee to 
come back to the floor with an opportunity for there to be a Democratic 
alternative, that would be fair. What we would do in the vote on the 
previous question, which I urge people to vote ``no'' on, would be able 
to vote ``yes,'' or consider voting ``yes,'' on a bill that does 
exactly what consumers need in terms of this cancellation area.
  First of all, it would say that there would be a real delay--a real 
delay--for 1 year for the implementation in terms of the individual 
policyholders. That is just this piece of the bill that is the 
question--individual policyholders.
  Ninety-five percent of the American people, as has been said, who 
have policies that they like can keep them. It is this 5 percent--and 
that is a lot of people, I don't want to minimize that--but, 
nonetheless, it is a discrete market.
  Let's address that discrete market and in our previous question we 
bring up a bill that addresses that discrete market not only by 
enabling them to hold their policies for a year, but by requiring that 
the insurance companies

[[Page 17177]]

must tell people not that you are canceled and we want to sign you up 
again at a higher cost; instead, insurance companies would be obliged 
to tell people what their options are, what their options are under the 
Affordable Care Act in terms of having no lifetime limits on their 
policies, no annual limits on their policies, no preexisting condition, 
increasing the cost of their policy, or preventing them from holding 
their policy should they become sick, A;
  B, it would also make sure that the insurance companies tell people 
what their options are in the exchanges, that they may qualify for a 
subsidy. In that marketplace the insurance companies are competing--
this is a free market, this exchange--they are competing for their 
policy; and, therefore, that has already lowered cost to consumers.
  So they may have a better policy with better benefits at a lower cost 
and, if they qualify, get a subsidy to do it.
  In addition to that, it is really important in every respect in 
everything we do, not only just for this individual marketplace, for 
people to understand the benefits of the Affordable Care Act that are 
available to them. I mentioned no preexisting condition, no annual 
limits, no lifetime limits, but also that already for over the past 
year young people can be on their parents' insurance. Over 3 million 
people have benefited in that regard. Tens of millions of seniors have 
benefited from the free prevention check-up--mammograms, whatever kinds 
of things--prevention and wellness exams free, no co-pay, no 
deductible.
  Already seniors are experiencing lower costs for their prescription 
drugs because of the Affordable Care Act. Already small children cannot 
be discriminated against, nor their families, in seeking insurance 
because they have a preexisting condition.
  Imagine a child born with a defect for life. They have a preexisting 
condition which will cost them dearly in terms of premiums, if they can 
even get insurance, and then it would be with limits. Not so. That has 
all changed.
  That is why on this Upton bill which, as I said, not only does bad 
things to the Affordable Care Act in terms of disrupting the risk 
pools, it tries to masquerade as something that does something 
positive, which it does not. That is why the Upton bill is opposed by a 
broad coalition of groups: the American Heart Association, the American 
Diabetes Association, the American Cancer Society Action Network, 
National Partnership for Women and Families, Paralyzed Veterans of 
America. Anyone with a preexisting medical condition--100 million 
people, families with people with preexisting medical conditions, all 
of them benefit. The stories are so glorious and so beautiful about 
what a difference the Affordable Care Act has made to families, 
especially those with small children or those with preexisting 
conditions, and to seniors. And, again, being a woman is no longer a 
preexisting medical condition.
  So this is politics; it is not about policy. It isn't any attempt to 
improve the Affordable Care Act. One way to improve it, though, is what 
we have in our previous question: give the State insurance 
commissioners the authority, all of them--some of them have it--but 
ensure that all of them have the authority to investigate and act upon 
rate increases, as well as the nature of these letters that were sent 
out without the integrity that they should have had.
  Again, we require that also in these letters the insurance companies 
make sure that people know what their opportunities are.

                              {time}  1015

  So what we are proposing today really does make a difference. In 
fact, we wanted to get this requirement of the insurance commissioners 
in the underlying bill, and then we said, okay, we will do that as an 
improvement. Today is the day that we can do that by voting ``no'' on 
the rule, enabling us to bring a bill to the floor that would do that.
  I urge our colleagues to support the Affordable Care Act, support 
what it does for American families, stand with those who fought for 
Social Security, for Medicare, and affordable care for all Americans 
because these are three pillars of equal weight in terms of the 
economic and health security of the American people. They honor the 
vows of our Founders for life, a healthier life; liberty, the liberty 
to pursue your happiness so that you are not job locked, constrained by 
a policy, but free to follow your passion to be self-employed, to start 
a business, to change jobs, to be entrepreneurial--life, liberty, and 
the pursuit of happiness.
  Vote ``no'' on the rule.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to remind Members of the House of Representatives 
about the President's press conference yesterday. I would like to read 
from the transcript of his remarks. The President yesterday, he first 
talked about the problems with the healthcare.gov Web site, ``big 
problems, and maybe we can talk about those a little bit,'' but then he 
went on to say:

       The other problem that has received a lot of attention 
     concerns Americans who've received letters from their 
     insurers that they may be losing the plans they bought in the 
     old individual market, often because they no longer meet the 
     law's requirements.

  It seems pretty straightforward to me what the President was saying 
yesterday.
  He goes on to say:

       Now, as I indicated earlier, I completely get how upsetting 
     this can be for a lot of Americans, particularly after 
     assurances they heard from me that, if they had a plan that 
     they liked, they could keep it. And to those Americans, I 
     hear you loud and clear. I said that I would do everything we 
     can to fix this problem, and today I am offering an idea that 
     will help do it.
       Already people who have plans that predate the Affordable 
     Care Act can keep those plans if they haven't changed. That 
     was already in the law. That's what's called a grandfather 
     that was included in the law. Today, we're going to extend 
     that principle both to the people whose plans have changed 
     since the law took effect and to people who bought plans 
     since the law took effect.

  You know, it is interesting, the 10th Amendment to the Constitution 
should actually protect the States to issue their own directives 
through their State insurance commissioners. They didn't need the 
President of the United States to do that. That is a power that has 
been enshrined to them in the Constitution. The problem is that power 
was taken away under the Affordable Care Act. Now they have attempted 
to bring it back. But the fact of the matter is, in many States, 
patients and constituents won't have that protection, but the Upton 
bill today will actually provide that protection.
  Make no mistake, the Upton bill is not a fix-it bill to the 
Affordable Care Act; it is a lifeline that we are extending to our 
constituents who have lost the coverage that they were told that they 
could keep.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I only have a minute, so let me be concise.
  On Monday, I was in San Diego with 30,000 brain researchers excited 
about the age of discovery and attacking diseases like Alzheimer's and 
bipolar and schizophrenia. Yesterday, via satellite, I spoke to a 
public health conference in Brussels for the European Union. Their 
theme was that the wealth of their member countries was the health of 
their population.
  And then I come to the floor today where we see people who want to 
retreat from the idea which is to make sure that every single person in 
our country, for the first time in this Nation's history, has access to 
affordable health care coverage. There will be no retreat, no 
equivocation. I know there is this desire among Members on the other 
team always to somehow go backwards, to some other age in our country 
as if our future is in the past. Our future and the shaping impulse of 
our country is in the future, and it is in the health of the citizens 
of our country.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the vice chair of the full committee.

[[Page 17178]]


  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to stand in support 
of the rule that will allow us to bring the Keep Your Health Plan Act 
to the floor.
  It is important that we take this action today on H.R. 3350 because 
we have heard from the American people, from coast to coast, that they 
do not want the President's health care law. They do not like the 
President's health care law. They feel as if, and have realized that 
what is happening with this law is that, number one, it is restricting 
their choice and options when it comes to health insurance, and, number 
two, the cost is skyrocketing.
  Now, we know that that is very important to our families who have 
chosen health plans that meet their needs--health savings accounts that 
allowed them to take individual responsibility for their health care, 
allowed them the opportunities for choosing doctors and physicians and 
keeping those doctors and physicians--and what the American people are 
telling us and our constituents are telling us is that they do, indeed, 
feel betrayed by the empty promises that the President and this 
administration have made.
  They are also quite concerned about the botched Web site rollout; as 
I said, the insurance premiums; and, oh, those cancellation notices 
that are hitting the mailboxes of millions of Americans. They say, This 
is not what we bargained for. It is not what we were promised. It is 
not what we voted or spoke in favor of. And so they are asking us to 
take an action, and H.R. 3350 does take that action.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to 2010 when we had a conference 
and the President was before us, and I asked him a question about the 
ability to keep plans and for individuals to stay insured. I spoke 
because of the experience we had had in my State of Tennessee with the 
test case for HillaryCare, which was called TennCare. We saw the 
effects of that. We knew it was the test case for a public option in 
health care; we knew it was too expensive to afford; and, overall, we 
knew it did not work.
  In his response, the President mentioned a little bit about some 
stray cats and dogs and that he thought they had that cleaned up. But I 
have to tell you that our constituents and their policies are not stray 
cats and dogs, and they deserve to have the opportunity to keep their 
health care and not to be treated in a disrespectful manner or to be 
discarded to the sidelines.
  So the President needs to realize he cannot go around waving a magic 
wand and fixing this by executive fiat. This is a law. We are a Nation 
of laws, and we abide by the rule of law. ObamaCare, the President's 
health care law, is the law of the land. In order to provide relief to 
the American people who have clearly spoken to say they do not want 
this law, it requires an action of Congress.
  Today's action will provide relief for some individuals--not as many 
as we would like, but it is one step in providing some relief. The 
American people have grown weary of this administration spending money 
that it does not have on programs the American people do not want. The 
President's health care law is a great example of a program that the 
American people do not want, so they have come to us as the people's 
representative and reminded us that we are a government of, by, and for 
the people that should be working for the people. And as one of my 
constituents told me Monday, we, the people, are going to start being 
the people and holding this administration and this Congress 
accountable. Today is one of those steps that we are taking on behalf 
of our constituents and the people of this great Nation.
  I thank the gentleman from Texas for the exceptional work that he has 
done in working with Chairman Upton from Michigan in bringing this to 
the floor.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Becerra), the chair of the Democratic Caucus.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  In the past month, 500,000 Americans have secured affordable health 
insurance. They are people that include folks in my State of California 
like Erin Kotecki Vest, who said the old plan she had had all sorts of 
deductibles and out-of-pocket costs. At the end of the day, what does 
she say after going on Covered California's marketplace exchange? She 
will be saving $18,900 per year by having shopped on the exchange under 
the Affordable Care Act.
  Paulo Dawud said he passed on an employer-based insurance policy that 
would have cost him $504 a month. He got on Covered California's Web 
site. He picked Kaiser. He now qualifies for a plan that charges $176 a 
month.
  Allen Pacela says his wife would not have insurance coverage at all 
as of January 1. They shopped on the Web site. They are now saving 
$8,000 a year for, as he says, ``a very much better plan.''
  And Andrew Stryker from Los Angeles, California, 34 years old, lives 
in the city of Los Angeles, had to wait 3 hours to enroll--$6,000 
savings.
  Let's improve this plan. Let's not destroy it. It is time to move 
forward and give Americans what they need--health security.
  Mr. POLIS. If I may inquire, does the gentleman have any remaining 
speakers?
  Mr. BURGESS. Well, I am always here, so I remain as a speaker.
  Mr. POLIS. Is the gentleman prepared to close?
  Mr. BURGESS. Absolutely.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the 
rule that will allow the House to vote on a substitute that allows 
Americans to keep their insurance if they like it.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of ways that we can 
improve upon the Affordable Care Act. One of the ones that I would like 
to highlight that we could be bringing here to the floor today that the 
Senate already passed is comprehensive immigration reform.
  H.R. 15 here in the House, a bipartisan bill that I am confident 
would pass if brought to the floor, would finally make a dent in the 
fact that there are more than 10 million people here in this country 
illegally, the vast majority of whom don't have any access to health 
insurance. So American citizens are essentially being forced to pay for 
the health care costs of people who are here illegal every day until we 
pass comprehensive immigration reform.
  We are wondering why rates are going up. It is no surprise, Mr. 
Speaker. When somebody doesn't have insurance, their costs are shifted 
on to other people who do. Now, yes, there are Americans who don't have 
insurance, and the Affordable Care Act helps increase the access that 
many Americans have to insurance, but it doesn't do a thing about the 
fact that there are more than 10 million people here illegally in this 
country in violation of our laws who do not have health care insurance. 
If we can pass H.R. 15, Mr. Speaker, people who are here illegally will 
have to get insurance on their own instead of forcing Americans to pay 
for their insurance.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, defeat the previous 
question.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I can't help but think back to that September evening in 2009 when 
the President stood before a joint session of Congress after the August 
recess and made a statement to the Nation that, yes, he was trying to 
change health care but not to worry, that no one who was in the country 
without the benefit of a Social Security number would be included in 
that cost because many people are concerned that the cost for the 
Affordable Care Act, already high,

[[Page 17179]]

would expand unreasonably if that were to change; and the President 
made a promise to the American people that night.

                              {time}  1030

  Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of stuff today. I really wish there 
had been that much interest in improving the Affordable Care Act before 
it passed the first time. We all know the reasons why those 
improvements were not offered and why we just simply had to have a take 
it or leave it proposition that was ultimately signed into law.
  Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of a 
critical bill to protect the millions of Americans who are facing the 
loss of health insurance that they were promised that they could keep.
  I certainly thank my friend from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the chairman 
of the Energy and Commerce Committee, for producing this thoughtful 
piece of legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask for its approval by the body.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

       Strike all and insert the following:
       Resolved, That immediately upon adoption of this 
     resolution, it shall be in order to consider in the House the 
     bill (H.R. 3350) to authorize health insurance issuers to 
     continue to offer for sale current individual health 
     insurance coverage in satisfaction of the minimum essential 
     health insurance coverage requirement, and for other 
     purposes. All points of order against consideration of the 
     bill are waived. An amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text printed in section 2 of this 
     resolution shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as 
     amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 
     as amended, and on any amendment thereto without intervening 
     motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     [Committee on Energy and Commerce]; and (2) one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Section 2. The text of the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute referenced in the first section is as follows:

                                 H.R. _

       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 ``Consumer Health Plan 
     Protection Act of 2013''.

     SEC. 2. MAINTAINING EXISTING COVERAGE.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any provision of the 
     Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (including any 
     amendment made by such Act or by the Health Care and 
     Education Reconciliation Act of 2010), in the case of health 
     insurance coverage offered by a health insurance issuer in 
     the individual market that is in effect for an individual as 
     of October 1, 2013, the issuer may continue such coverage for 
     such individual for a plan year beginning in 2014 in such 
     market outside of an Exchange established under section 1311 
     or 1321 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 18031, 18041).
       (b) Treatment as Grandfathered Health Plan in Satisfaction 
     of Minimum Essential Coverage.--Health insurance coverage 
     described in subsection (a) shall be treated as a 
     grandfathered health plan for purposes of the amendment made 
     by section 1501(b) of the Patient Protection and Affordable 
     Care Act.
       (c) Notice.--As a condition for a health insurance issuer 
     to continue health insurance coverage under subsection (a), 
     the issuer shall provide for notice to each individual to be 
     offered such continued coverage (and for other individuals 
     covered under health insurance coverage offered by such 
     issuer for whom such continued coverage is not offered) 
     prompt notice of the following:
       (1) The health insurance coverage options available to the 
     individual through the Marketplace under the Patient 
     Protection and Affordable Care Act and how to exercise such 
     options.
       (2) The premium and cost-sharing assistance available for 
     coverage obtained through such Marketplace.
       (3) The consumer protections provided under such Act that 
     are not provided under the continuing health insurance 
     coverage.
       (d) Construction Regarding Notices of Cancellation or 
     Conversion.--
       (1) In general.--Nothing in this section shall be construed 
     to prevent the Secretary of Health and Human Services from 
     requiring State insurance commissioners--
       (A) to investigate and take appropriate administrative or 
     other actions (such as the imposition of a fine) on cases of 
     inadequate notices of cancellations or conversions of health 
     insurance coverage in the individual market that take effect 
     on or after January 1, 2014; and
       (B) to submit to the Secretary reports on the 
     investigations and actions so taken.
       (2) Inadequate notice.--In this subsection, a notice of the 
     cancellation or conversion of individual health insurance 
     coverage shall be treated as inadequate if the notice--
       (A) fails to contain information contained in subsection 
     (c);
       (B) fails to be transparent by inappropriately steering 
     individuals to more expensive plans provided by the 
     cancelling issuer; or
       (C) fails to otherwise comply with requirements of law.
       (e) Construction Regarding Protection Against 
     Discriminatory Rates.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed as preventing the Secretary or the relevant State 
     insurance commissioner or State regulator from taking 
     corrective actions to ensure that any excessive, unjustified, 
     or unfairly discriminatory rates for the continued coverage 
     offered under subsection (a) are corrected prior to renewal.
       (f) Construction Regarding Premium Protection.--Nothing in 
     this section shall be construed as preventing the Secretary 
     from using all available tools to ensure that Marketplace 
     premiums are not adversely affected by the operation of this 
     section.

     SEC. 3. REQUIRING STATE INSURANCE COMMISSIONERS TO 
                   INVESTIGATE INSTANCES OF INADEQUATE NOTICES OF 
                   CANCELLATION OR CONVERSION OF INDIVIDUAL HEALTH 
                   INSURANCE POLICIES.

       (a) In General.--Each State insurance commissioner shall 
     investigate and take appropriate administrative or other 
     actions (such as the imposition of a fine) on cases of 
     inadequate notices of cancellations or conversions of health 
     insurance coverage in the individual market that take effect 
     on or after January 1, 2014.
       (b) Inadequate Notice.--In this section, a notice of the 
     cancellation or conversion of individual health insurance 
     coverage shall be treated as inadequate if the notice--
       (1) fails to contain information--
       (A) on obtaining health insurance coverage through an 
     Exchange under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care 
     Act;
       (B) on the possible availability of assistance under such 
     Act towards payment of the premiums and cost-sharing for such 
     coverage; and
       (C) on the improved benefits for coverage through an 
     Exchange, compared to health insurance coverage not offered 
     through an Exchange;
       (2) fails to be transparent by inappropriately steering 
     individuals to more expensive plans provided by the 
     cancelling issuer; or
       (3) fails to otherwise comply with requirements of law.
       (c) Reports.--
       (1) State commissioners to hhs.--Not later than March 31, 
     2014, each State insurance commissioner shall submit to the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services a report on the 
     investigations and actions described in subsection (a).
       (2) HHS report to congress.--Not later than April 30, 2014, 
     the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on such 
     investigations and actions.
       (d) Definitions of State, Health Insurance Coverage, and 
     Individual Market.--In this section, the terms ``State'', 
     ``health insurance coverage'', and ``individual market'' have 
     the meanings given such terms for purposes of title I of the 
     Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

     SEC. 4. PROTECTION OF CONSUMERS FROM EXCESSIVE, UNJUSTIFIED, 
                   OR UNFAIRLY DISCRIMINATORY RATES.

       (a) Protection From Excessive, Unjustified, or Unfairly 
     Discriminatory Rates.--The first section 2794 of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-94), as added by section 
     1003 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 
     (Public Law 111-148), is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(e) Protection From Excessive, Unjustified, or Unfairly 
     Discriminatory Rates.--
       ``(1) Authority of states.--Nothing in this section shall 
     be construed to prohibit a State from imposing requirements 
     (including requirements relating to rate review standards and 
     procedures and information reporting) on health insurance 
     issuers with respect to rates that are in addition to the 
     requirements of this section and are more protective of 
     consumers than such requirements.
       ``(2) Consultation in rate review process.--In carrying out 
     this section, the Secretary shall consult with the National 
     Association of Insurance Commissioners and consumer groups.
       ``(3) Determination of who conducts reviews for each 
     state.--The Secretary shall determine, after the date of 
     enactment of this section and periodically thereafter, the 
     following:
       ``(A) In which markets in each State the State insurance 
     commissioner or relevant State regulator shall undertake the 
     corrective actions under paragraph (4), as a condition of the 
     State receiving the grant in subsection (c), based on the 
     Secretary's determination that the State regulator is 
     adequately undertaking and utilizing such actions in that 
     market.
       ``(B) In which markets in each State the Secretary shall 
     undertake the corrective actions under paragraph (4), in 
     cooperation with the relevant State insurance commissioner or 
     State regulator, based on the Secretary's determination that 
     the State is not

[[Page 17180]]

     adequately undertaking and utilizing such actions in that 
     market.
       ``(4) Corrective action for excessive, unjustified, or 
     unfairly discriminatory rates.--In accordance with the 
     process established under this section, the Secretary or the 
     relevant State insurance commissioner or State regulator 
     shall take corrective actions to ensure that any excessive, 
     unjustified, or unfairly discriminatory rates are corrected 
     prior to implementation, or as soon as possible thereafter, 
     through mechanisms such as--
       ``(A) denying rates;
       ``(B) modifying rates; or
       ``(C) requiring rebates to consumers.
       ``(5) Noncompliance.--Failure to comply with any corrective 
     action taken by the Secretary under this subsection may 
     result in the application of civil monetary penalties and, if 
     the Secretary determines appropriate, make the plan involved 
     ineligible for classification as a Qualified Health Plan.''.
       (b) Clarification of Regulatory Authority.--Such section is 
     further amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the heading, by striking ``Premium'' and inserting 
     ``Rate'';
       (B) in paragraph (1), by striking ``unreasonable increases 
     in premiums'' and inserting ``potentially excessive, 
     unjustified, or unfairly discriminatory rates, including 
     premiums,''; and
       (C) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by striking ``an unreasonable premium increase'' and 
     inserting ``a potentially excessive, unjustified, or unfairly 
     discriminatory rate'';
       (ii) by striking ``the increase'' and inserting ``the 
     rate''; and
       (iii) by striking ``such increases'' and inserting ``such 
     rates'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking ``premium increases'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``rates''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ``premium'' and 
     inserting ``rate''; and
       (3) in subsection (c)(1)--
       (A) in the heading, by striking ``Premium'' and inserting 
     ``Rate'';
       (B) by inserting ``that satisfy the condition under 
     subsection (e)(3)(A)'' after ``award grants to States''; and
       (C) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``premium increases'' 
     and inserting ``rates''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Title XXVII of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg et seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 2723 (42 U.S.C. 300gg-22), as redesignated 
     by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act--
       (A) in subsection (a)--
       (i) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``and section 2794'' 
     after ``this part''; and
       (ii) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or section 2794'' 
     after ``this part''; and
       (B) in subsection (b)--
       (i) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``and section 2794'' 
     after ``this part''; and
       (ii) in paragraph (2)--

       (I) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``or section 2794 
     that is'' after ``this part''; and
       (II) in subparagraph (C)(ii), by inserting ``or section 
     2794'' after ``this part''; and

       (2) in section 2761 (42 U.S.C. 300gg-61)--
       (A) in subsection (a)--
       (i) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``and section 2794'' 
     after ``this part''; and
       (ii) in paragraph (2)--

       (I) by inserting ``or section 2794'' after ``set forth in 
     this part''; and
       (II) by inserting ``and section 2794'' after ``the 
     requirements of this part''; and

       (B) in subsection (b)--
       (i) by inserting ``and section 2794'' after ``this part''; 
     and
       (ii) by inserting ``and section 2794'' after ``part A''.
       (d) Applicability to Grandfathered Plans.--Section 
     1251(a)(4)(A) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care 
     Act (Public Law 111-148), as added by section 2301 of the 
     Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public 
     Law 111-152), is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(v) Section 2794 (relating to reasonableness of rates 
     with respect to health insurance coverage).''.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, such sums as 
     may be necessary.
       (f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act and 
     shall be implemented with respect to health plans beginning 
     not later than January 1, 2014.

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 225, 
nays 193, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 583]

                               YEAS--225

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--193

     Andrews
     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano

[[Page 17181]]


     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Campbell
     Cohen
     Gosar
     Herrera Beutler
     Jones
     Marino
     McCarthy (NY)
     Miller, George
     Poe (TX)
     Rush
     Tsongas
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1057

  Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Messrs. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico and BARBER 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. MATHESON changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained at a hearing of 
the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law, on 
which I serve as Ranking Member. I was therefore unable to be present 
for rollcall vote No. 583, the Previous Question on the Rule to 
consider H.R. 3350.
  Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 228, 
noes 189, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 584]

                               AYES--228

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--189

     Andrews
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Barber
     Boustany
     Campbell
     Gosar
     Herrera Beutler
     Jones
     McCarthy (NY)
     Miller, George
     Poe (TX)
     Rush
     Sensenbrenner
     Tsongas
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1105

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. BARBER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 584 I was unavoidably 
detained and missed this vote.
  Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of House 
Resolution 413, I call up the bill (H.R. 3350) to authorize health 
insurance issuers to continue to offer for sale current individual 
health insurance coverage in satisfaction of the minimum essential 
health insurance coverage requirement, and for other purposes, and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoder). Pursuant to House Resolution 
413, the bill is considered read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 3350

       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 ``Keep Your Health Plan Act of 
     2013''.

     SEC. 2. IF YOU LIKE YOUR HEALTH CARE PLAN, YOU CAN KEEP IT.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any provision of the 
     Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (including any 
     amendment made by such Act or by the Health Care and 
     Education Reconciliation Act of 2010), a health insurance 
     issuer that has in effect health insurance coverage in the 
     individual market as of January 1, 2013, may continue after 
     such date to offer such coverage for sale during 2014 in such 
     market outside of an Exchange established under section 1311 
     or 1321 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 18031, 18041).
       (b) Treatment as Grandfathered Health Plan in Satisfaction 
     of Minimum Essential Coverage.--Health insurance coverage 
     described in subsection (a) shall be treated as a 
     grandfathered health plan for purposes of the amendment made 
     by section 1501(b) of the Patient Protection and Affordable 
     Care Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) and

[[Page 17182]]

the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.


                             General Leave

  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include 
extraneous material on H.R. 3350.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, across generations, presidencies are often associated 
with one famous utterance: ``Ask not what your country can do for 
you,'' ``The only thing we have to fear,'' ``Tear down this wall.'' And 
our current President will be no different: ``If you like your health 
care plan, you can keep it, period.''
  For the last 3 years, the President repeated this promise in selling 
his signature law, and he did so with the knowledge that it would not 
be met. Millions of Americans, including nearly 250,000 in Michigan, 
took the President at his word and now, unexpectedly, are receiving 
cancellation notices. They are confused, worried, and upset. Today we 
stand with those families with the Keep Your Health Plan Act.
  This bill is to help provide peace of mind to folks like the farmer 
in Bangor, Michigan, who just found out after purchasing his family's 
insurance for the last 30 years that he will be able to keep that plan 
no more. And the sticker shock will be unbearable, as the premiums 
double and their deductible jumps nearly $3,000. Sadly, they are not 
alone. For millions of Americans, it is cancellations today, sticker 
shock tomorrow.
  For the last 6 weeks, the White House stood idly by, ignoring the 
pleas of millions. But as the administration's allies in Congress 
panicked, the White House went from attacking our thoughtful bill to 
making an end run around Congress with a universal ``fix.''
  Our straightforward one-page bill says if you like your current 
coverage, you should be able to keep it. The President should heed his 
own advice and work with us, the Congress, as the Founders intended, 
not around the legislative process.
  Everyone today should embrace the Keep Your Health Plan Act, and our 
efforts to protect Americans from the damage of this law should not 
stop there. Let's keep the promise.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  This bill is not a bill to let people keep their health insurance 
plans. The President took care of that issue yesterday. This bill is 
another vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act. It would take away the 
core protections of that law.
  This bill creates an entire shadow market of substandard health care 
plans. It will destabilize the health insurance exchanges, raise 
premiums, and continue to allow insurers to discriminate on the basis 
of preexisting conditions.
  The bill takes away the core consumer protections that are part of 
the law. Under the Republican bill, it ensures to cherry-pick the best 
risks and destabilize the insurance market for everyone else. That is 
what we would have if they repealed the law. People would still be out 
of a chance to get health insurance.
  Now, I understand the concern of many Members, that individuals 
should be able to keep their health insurance if they like it; but 
there is a profound difference between providing relief for individuals 
whose policies have been canceled, which is what the President did 
yesterday, and re-creating the discriminatory, inefficient insurance 
market that we had before health reform, which is what this bill will 
do.
  We need to have some perspective on this issue. For those currently 
in the individual insurance market, nearly 5 million people, they will 
be eligible for a tax credit worth an average of $5,000. Over a million 
more people will be eligible for Medicaid, which means additional 
savings. Because of better coverage that protects them from crippling 
medical costs, millions more will lower their out-of-pocket costs; and 
the 25 million Americans without insurance will finally get a good deal 
on quality coverage.
  No one can be denied coverage because of preexisting conditions. No 
one will see higher rates because they get sick. No one will see their 
rates go up. No one will run up against annual coverage limits or 
realize too late that their plan didn't cover the key benefits that 
they need.

                              {time}  1115

  This week, we learned that 1.5 million people have already applied 
for coverage--a faster signup rate than experienced in Massachusetts--
even with all the technical problems we have had. In my State of 
California, nearly 400,000 people have begun applications in the first 
month.
  There will be a total of 6 months to sign up.
  This program is going to work. These are significant signs of 
progress.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I yield myself an additional 10 seconds.
  They show us we are on our way to dramatically expanding health 
insurance coverage in this Nation. This bill will take us backwards.
  I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the 
good State of Oregon (Mr. Walden).
  Mr. WALDEN. I thank the chairman for yielding and for bringing this 
bill to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the voice of at least 150,000 Oregonians 
who have already received their cancellation notices. They have been 
told that the policy they liked, that they wanted to keep, they cannot 
have any longer.
  I was out in my district for 8 straight days last week--36 meetings, 
12 counties, 2,476 miles on the road, from morning to late at night. 
And I am going to tell you there are people like Chuck and Jan in 
Medford who had gone into retirement, had health insurance, and got a 
notice that their plan has been canceled.
  From Mitchell to Bend to Enterprise to Medford--all over--not only 
are their plans being canceled, the replacements are coming back with 
deductibles that are $12,000 to $15,000, when they were paying a couple 
thousand dollars. The premiums are going up--in some cases, double or 
more.
  Some of them may get a subsidy, a lot of them won't, and now they 
don't have the plan they were promised that they could keep.
  And another thing that is insidious that is going on below the 
surface, in meeting after meeting, hours are being cut back. People are 
losing their jobs. They are getting less take-home pay because of 
ObamaCare. This is a problem all across America.
  The promise that you could keep your plan was never to be kept, and 
they knew it. And they continued to say it, and it wasn't true.
  People are losing their plans, they are losing their coverage, and 
they are losing access to the specialists that may save their lives. 
They won't be able to keep their doctors. Oh, they may, but if the 
doctor is out of network, there is no cap on what they will pay in 
terms of a deductible. So financially, you take away their access to 
health care.
  The prices have gone up; the access has gone down. And by the way, in 
many cases, they have lost their jobs or their hours have been cut 
back.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel), who played such an important role in drafting the 
Affordable Care Act.
  Mr. RANGEL. Let me thank Congressman Waxman for giving me this 
opportunity.
  The majority has said that Presidents are remembered by certain 
things, and this outstanding President will be remembered because he 
said, if you have a plan--and he didn't say ``no matter how bad it 
is''--you can keep it. I think he will be remembered historically as 
being the first President in the

[[Page 17183]]

United States of America that has told people that, for the first time, 
every American will have access to affordable health care.
  On the other side, history is going to record them, too. They never 
said that they had any concern at all and never had a plan for the 30 
million people that every day are waiting for this plan to go into 
effect, and that they would publicly acknowledge that they don't want 
to improve upon mistakes that may have been made but they want to 
derail, to destroy, and to eliminate and to repeal universal health 
care for Americans.
  I say this. The President apologized yesterday, and I apologize for 
the United States Congress to those people without insurance today.
  If you believe that the administration has done something wrong, for 
God's sake, let's work together to correct it. But to just ignore the 
fact that 70 percent of Americans already have good insurance and it is 
going to be improved, to ignore the fact that 30 million people and 
their legacy is in jeopardy because they can't afford to have serious 
illnesses, and to believe that those that belong to the 5 percent that 
really get caught in what we are supposed to be fixing today, I tell 
you that there is no evidence at all that the Republican Party wanted 
to fix anything for the uninsured of America.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, a member of the Health Subcommittee.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York just 
said it: universal health care, single-payer system, a government 
takeover of one-sixth of our economy. That is what they wanted from the 
very beginning.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 3350, the Keep Your Health Plan Act 
now.
  The Obama administration's health exchange enrollment announcement on 
Wednesday is one of the myriad reasons we must pass this bill. Frankly, 
these long-awaited numbers did not come as a surprise to us. A mere 
100,000 registered for health care on the new marketplaces when they 
anticipated 500,000. According to a Health and Human Services report, 
the number does not distinguish even between those that actually paid a 
premium and those that just selected a plan by clicking a button on the 
Web site.
  Mr. Speaker, the number of Americans who have had their health plans 
canceled is in the millions--exponentially higher than those who 
receive coverage under ObamaCare.
  This disastrous law was destined to fail from the start. We on this 
side of the aisle, the Republicans--and indeed, the American people--
have known for 3 years that this plan is unworkable for small 
businesses; it is unfair for physicians and their patients; and it is 
unaffordable for we the taxpayer, we the people.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3350.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the top Democrat on the Health Subcommittee of 
Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Waxman.
  Unfortunately, today's bill is a ruse. It claims to make things 
better, but all it does is to make things terribly worse. Republicans 
will hide behind a sound bite and nice-sounding title. But what this 
bill really does is to go back to the old, broken health insurance 
system.
  This is just another attempt for the GOP to repeal the provisions of 
the Affordable Care Act. They have made it their mission to push the 
ACA to failure, and the only consequence is just that: seriously 
damaging the insurance provisions of the Affordable Care Act and the 
millions of Americans who are expected to benefit from the improved 
coverage and premium and cost-sharing subsidies available through the 
new health insurance marketplace.
  The GOP claims the bill allows people to keep their health plans, but 
actually it allows old policies with fewer benefits and sometimes 
higher prices to be sold to new enrollees.
  One of the major goals of the ACA was to improve the quality of 
health insurance policies sold on the private market. Beginning in 
2014, health insurance plans can no longer deny coverage for adults 
with preexisting conditions or charge those individuals more for 
coverage. And there are a lot of other discriminatory practices that 
are eliminated by the ACA.
  We need to be open to constructive changes to make this law work to 
the best of its ability, but that is not what the GOP is doing today. 
No one believes the Republicans care about ensuring that people have 
health insurance. If they did, then Republicans would not, for purely 
political reasons, refuse to expand Medicaid with those Republican 
Governors in the States where now 5 million hardworking Americans 
across 26 States will not have Medicaid expansion because of Republican 
politics.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the President took action to help Americans 
who want to renew their old insurance policies. Ultimately, though, I 
hope that those Americans who want to renew those old policies will 
look at the quality plans available in the new Affordable Care Act 
insurance marketplace and like what they see. In most cases, they will 
find they are able to purchase better coverage at a lower price than 
their original policies, so, when they get sick or need care, they will 
actually have it--not with these old policies that, for the most part, 
are not going to provide them with good health insurance.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. This is just another repeal 
effort on the part of the Republicans. They are not serious about 
trying to provide insurance, and this will accomplish nothing for the 
American people.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Barton), the chairman emeritus of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee.
  Mr. BARTON. I appreciate the chairman yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here today to begin the long process of 
amending--hopefully improving, and if that is not possible, at some 
point in time, repealing--the Affordable Care Act.
  The President, as everybody knows by now, repeatedly said that if you 
like your health insurance, you can keep it. Well, it has been proven 
that even when he said it, that was not true. Yesterday, the President 
admitted as much when he said for the next year he would try to honor 
that promise, if only in the breach.
  The Upton bill actually correctly honors that promise in the correct 
way by legislatively saying that insurance can continue to provide 
these private policies--and I would assume some employer-sponsored 
policies--regardless of whether they meet the new minimum standards 
under the Affordable Care Act. The bill does not require insurance 
companies to do so, but it does allow them to do so. As sponsors of the 
bill, it is our hope that many companies will do so. It is a reasonable 
expectation that millions of Americans, given that choice, will 
actually keep the plans that they have and that they like.
  At some point in time, though, Mr. Speaker--this bill is not the end 
of the process; it is the beginning--we need to come back and fix the 
rest of the law or perhaps even change it or repeal it.
  I have a bill that I hope will be brought to the floor at some point 
in the near future that will make ObamaCare voluntary. Let the American 
people choose what parts of the new law they like, and if they decide 
they don't like some parts or all of the law, they wouldn't be 
compelled--mandated--to continue to use some of these new policies.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Chairman Upton and Subcommittee 
Chairman Pitts for bringing this bill so expeditiously to the floor. I 
would hope that we can have a unanimous vote in support of it.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman will not get a unanimous vote.
  At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Levin), the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans are on a mission of 
destruction.

[[Page 17184]]

Nothing will satisfy them except that very mission. The Upton bill is 
another weapon in that mission. What the Republicans fear most of all 
is that health care reform will eventually work. The Upton bill is a 
bill to make sure that it does not work.
  The President has taken a step to help people keep their policies. 
The Upton bill opens the door to anyone at all to make sure that health 
care reform is not workable and that the private market cannot work. So 
back to the time of 50 million uninsured. So back to the time of 
cancellation for preexisting conditions. So back to the time of no cap. 
The alternative is bankruptcy.
  Eight years ago, the Medicare drug program that Republicans had 
passed got off to a rocky start. Did we Democrats pounce on it for 
political gain? No. We put the country first and helped make the 
program a success. The Republicans are marching in the opposite 
direction--the path of destroying instead of making something work.
  Let's work together to make it work rather than destroying what 
Americans want: a healthy health care program for all Americans.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the majority leader of the House.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the chairman, the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Keep Your Health Plan 
Act.
  Many Americans today are worried. They are worried about their jobs, 
worried about saving for their children's college educations or worried 
about saving for their retirements, and now, Mr. Speaker, millions of 
Americans are worried about coming home and opening their mailboxes to 
find out that their health care coverage has been taken from them 
because of the President's health care law.
  The President repeatedly said that if you liked your health care 
plan, you could keep it. We knew this was a promise he could not keep, 
and now it is a promise he has broken. As a result, millions of 
Americans across the country are receiving cancellation letters just 
like this one.
  Mr. Speaker, this letter was sent to me by a constituent of mine. His 
name is Bruno Gora. He is from Richmond, Virginia. Bruno is self-
employed, and he purchases his health care plan through Anthem 
BlueCross/Blue Shield. A few weeks ago, he was shocked to receive this 
letter because this letter clearly reads: ``To meet the requirements of 
the new law, your current plan can no longer be offered.'' Purchasing a 
new plan could potentially cost Mr. Gora thousands of dollars.
  Why should he or anyone else be forced off their plan if they want to 
keep it?
  Working families across America were counting on the President to 
keep his promise. Now they are counting on us to ease some of the pain 
that his health care law has brought on them.
  Yesterday, President Obama announced that he was going to be making 
some unilateral changes, but the changes he proposed and the ones we 
are proposing in the House have some very clear differences.
  The President's plan restricts coverage previously available to only 
those who already had it while forcing others to purchase a plan from 
healthcare.gov or to buy more expensive coverage that may not fit their 
needs. The White House doesn't even know how they are going to 
implement the plan they announced yesterday.
  This proposal that we are talking about here, Chairman Upton's plan, 
aims to help Americans keep their health insurance and give their 
neighbors a chance to buy the same plans rather than forcing them onto 
a faulty Web site to buy new coverage they may not like or cannot 
afford. Under this legislation, there is no confusion. The Keep Your 
Health Plan Act removes the impediment in the law that restricts 
insurance plans from being offered.
  The only way to completely stop any more cancellation letters like 
the one Mr. Gora received is through a full repeal of ObamaCare. Today, 
however, we have an opportunity to stand united and pass a bipartisan 
measure that aims to slow the growing number of Americans harmed by 
this law.
  I would like to thank Chairman Upton for his hard work and dedication 
to the issue, and I urge all of my colleagues in the House to support 
this bill.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I wish to yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the dean of the House, the 
chairman emeritus of the Energy and Commerce Committee and the longest-
standing Member in support of universal health care coverage.
  Mr. DINGELL. I thank my friend for yielding me this time, and I 
express great affection and respect for my dear friend, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Upton), who serves the House and his constituents 
well.
  However, Mr. Speaker, this is a regrettable piece of legislation. It 
is nothing more or less than the kind of insurance policies, which are 
being authorized by it, that were sold by snake oil salesmen around 
this country, policies which gave no relief, no help, and no benefit to 
the American people.
  The sad situation is that this not only allows some people to keep 
their policies, but it allows a lot of snake oil salesmen to run around 
the country, selling bad policies which undo almost all of the 
protections which we have put into the Affordable Care Act, things like 
protections against preexisting conditions or the fact that a woman who 
might be buying a policy can be charged more under this legislation on 
a new policy issued by some sneaky insurance company.
  The harsh fact of the matter is that this is not a help to citizens. 
The President said yesterday that he was going to take steps to correct 
the problems. If we really want to have this done properly, then that 
is the way to do it. Let us work together to have these matters 
corrected properly. Let us see to it that the American people get the 
protections they need against abusive practices and not that we return 
to them.
  H.R. 3350 allows the new sales of bad policies--which contain 
programs and practices that are barred by ACA--to new and gullible 
purchasers, the ones whom we say we seek to protect. As I observed 
yesterday, the insurance companies feel that this is going to cause 
huge confusion in the market, and they do not seek this legislation. 
The average citizen has been sold a bill of lading which is just 
plainly false. He is not going to be benefited by H.R. 3350. He is 
simply going to be afforded the opportunity to buy bad policies, 
whereas what we want to do is see to it that if he has his policy he 
can keep it. The hard fact of the matter is that he can keep it, and he 
doesn't need the legislation before us.
  The legislation before us simply assures that folks can run around 
selling bad policies under fictional and false misrepresentations to do 
hurt to the American people, who, frankly, need protection against the 
abuses that the Affordable Care Act would put in place.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for bringing this 
bill to the floor, which I support.
  Mr. Speaker, we all heard that promise that if you like what you 
have, you can keep it. It is probably the most often repeated promise 
that Barack Obama has made in his 5 years as President. Yet the 
President is finally acknowledging that that promise will not be kept 
to millions of Americans who are losing the good plans they like.
  They can't feign that they didn't know this was going to happen, by 
the way, Mr. Speaker, because, back in 2010, the administration had a 
report that said over 60 percent of private plans would be canceled 
under the President's health care law. I have seen it myself in my 
district. I have got Chris from Covington and Aaron from Slidell who 
have gotten letters saying they are going to lose the good plans they 
have because of the President's health care law.

[[Page 17185]]

  The President's answer was, Oh, it was a lousy plan.
  Mr. Speaker, it was not a lousy plan for Chris or for Aaron or for 
the millions of Americans who are losing their plans. They liked their 
plans. Some Washington politician shouldn't be able to say, I don't 
think it is good enough, so I am going to take it from you even though 
it is right for your family.
  Let's put patients and doctors back in charge of these decisions. 
Let's empower hardworking families to be the ones in control of their 
health care decisions, not some Washington politician. I urge the 
passage of this bill.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlelady from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, the number one cause of personal 
bankruptcies in this country is the cost of health care. Most of those 
people are so-called ``insured.'' These are the policies that are being 
offered that people find out, when they get sick, that they really 
aren't insured.
  A major goal of ObamaCare is to protect every consumer from the worst 
abuses of the private health insurance industry. Starting next year, no 
consumer can be denied coverage or charged more due to a preexisting 
condition. This means that 129 million Americans will no longer have to 
live in fear that they could, one day, be unable to obtain affordable 
coverage needed to maintain their health or even to save their lives.
  The Upton bill would turn back the clock. The Upton bill would allow 
insurers to cherry-pick among all health care consumers--the young, the 
healthy--by offering non-ObamaCare-compliant policies, leaving only the 
old and sick to purchase coverage in the marketplace. This is something 
they have wanted to do and have been doing for decades. This is going 
to drive up premiums and allow just the type of discrimination that 
ObamaCare absolutely ends.
  Speaker Boehner said yesterday, We have currently the best health 
care delivery system in the world.
  Are you kidding me--with tens of millions of people uninsured and 
tens of millions more with bad policies that don't cover this?
  Rather than taking steps to weaken ObamaCare, my Republican 
colleagues should be taking this opportunity to build on ObamaCare; as 
the President said, to fix it.
  Last week, I spoke with the director of the Illinois Department of 
Insurance about some of the unreasonable rate increases my constituents 
have faced in the past and their concerns about the new rates being 
quoted in letters they received from their insurers this fall. He told 
me that he doesn't have the authority he wants in order to protect 
consumers from excessive premiums. This authority includes the ability 
to deny or to modify any unreasonable premium. Illinois isn't alone.
  Today, Republicans denied us the opportunity to address this by 
refusing to consider legislation that would move us forward and provide 
rate modification authority in every State. Instead, they are choosing 
to move a bill that would drive up premium rates and undermine 
ObamaCare's new benefits and protections.
  I want to caution people. Rather than re-up with some of the policies 
they have, check it out. What is really covered? Is there 
hospitalization? Is the emergency room covered? How many times can you 
go see your doctor? Go to the marketplace. It will be fixed. Pick a 
plan that is going to provide you with the real coverage and the 
essential benefits that you need that are provided under ObamaCare. We 
want to protect you from junk plans that are out there, but we want to 
let you re-up in plans that actually offer you the kind of coverage you 
want, that is essential, which is what the President did yesterday.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, at this point, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the Republican whip.
  Mr. McCARTHY of California. I thank the chairman for his work in 
keeping his pledge of bringing this bill to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3350, the Keep Your 
Health Plan Act.
  From the start, ObamaCare has been a disaster.
  First, the individual mandate was a bad idea before and is even more 
dangerous now because it is forcing people to choose health care they 
do not want, cannot afford, and isn't right for themselves and their 
families.
  Second, the President's credibility continues to crumble as 
independent news sources have confirmed that he intentionally broke his 
promise to every American about whether they can keep his insurance 
under this law.
  We will continue to see the shock waves of ObamaCare. Today, it is 
the fact that Americans cannot keep their coverage. Tomorrow, it will 
be the staggering and unexpected cost. Next month, it will be about 
losing access to their doctors, and the list continues. No 
administrative fix will undo the harm this law has caused.
  Republicans believe that we must try and help Americans who have been 
harmed by ObamaCare. That is why, today, we will pass a bill to allow 
Americans to continue to enroll in plans currently offered without 
facing the individual mandate penalty. What the American people and our 
constituents need is certainty. The only approach that begins to 
provide them certainty is the bill before us today.
  Our bill allows Americans a choice. It lets individuals keep their 
health care plans while giving others who currently are uninsured an 
escape hatch from ObamaCare. Our bill will allow individuals, whether 
one is a mother of a sick child, a small business owner, or a young, 
invincible adult, to keep their current plans. The National Federation 
of Independent Business and senior groups, such as 60 Plus, are urging 
Congress to fulfill its duty and pass this bill.
  I urge my Democratic friends to join with us. Many of them voted for 
this bill. They stated they had an intent that Americans could keep 
their plans. Today is their opportunity to keep that pledge.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from the State of Washington, Dr. McDermott, who is the 
ranking member of the Health Subcommittee of Ways and Means.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, my mother used to say ``patience is a 
virtue.'' I haven't seen so much panic on this floor since 9/11.
  Now, the fact is that a couple of Members who used to be here--Jay 
Inslee, who is now Governor of the State of Washington, and Mike 
Kreidler, who is the insurance commissioner of the State of 
Washington--have already said they will not implement this because it 
is not good for the people of the State of Washington. They have looked 
at it.
  We have worked hard to implement the Affordable Care Act. Now we have 
a bill out here with no hearings whatsoever run out here, and we are 
told there will be no confusion. There will be nothing but confusion. 
You have 50 insurance commissioners around this country who are going 
to be suddenly given a bill after we write some rules and regulations 
here that require the insurance companies to sell policies to people.
  I can't believe what I am hearing. I thought that the Republicans 
believed in the free enterprise system. This is socialism. This is 
government saying to insurance companies: you must sell a policy to 
somebody next year that you sold to them this year.
  When did we shift on the Republican side to the Congress telling an 
insurance company who they have to sell a policy to or what is in the 
policy?
  The fact is that they are going to have to put the policy out there. 
They have been working on implementing this law for 3 years. Now 6 
weeks before it actually begins to take effect, we run in here and say, 
wait a minute, wait a minute, you got to start selling policies like 
the ones that you sold last year.
  Do you think they didn't think through what they are doing? I mean, I 
don't understand. The free enterprise system is lions and they are 
eating antelopes.

[[Page 17186]]

  I urge you to vote ``no'' against this because you are going to 
create endless confusion in this country and the insurance market.

         Washington State Office of the Insurance Commissioner,
                                                November 14, 2013.


       Kreidler Statement on President Obama's Announcement Today

       Olympia, WA.--We have worked for three years to implement 
     the Affordable Care Act in a way that works best for 
     Washingtonians. One goal of our efforts has been to build a 
     stable, fair and competitive individual health insurance 
     market.
       I know that many people who buy their own health insurance 
     have struggled to keep their coverage. That is why we have 
     worked so hard to make these significant changes. We have 
     brought meaningful benefits to this market that the rest of 
     us with employer-sponsored health plans have enjoyed for 
     years; benefits like prescription drug coverage, maternity 
     care, and reasonable limits on out-of-pocket costs. Our 
     state-based Exchange--Wahealthplanfinder.org--is up and 
     running and successfully enrolling thousands of consumers.
       I understand that many people are upset by the notices they 
     have recently received from their health plans and they may 
     not need the new benefits today. But I have serious concerns 
     about how President Obama's proposal would be implemented and 
     more significantly, its potential impact on the overall 
     stability of our health insurance market.
       I do not believe his proposal is a good deal for the state 
     of Washington. In the interest of keeping the consumer 
     protections we have enacted and ensuring that we keep health 
     insurance costs down for all consumers, we are staying the 
     course. We will not be allowing insurance companies to extend 
     their policies. I believe this is in the best interest of the 
     health insurance market in Washington.
       We estimate that 290,000 people will need to buy new 
     coverage and that at least half of them will qualify for a 
     premium subsidy. I encourage anyone who is shopping for new 
     health plans--whether you've been uninsured or have received 
     a cancellation notice from your insurer--to look at all of 
     your options. Don't just take what your insurance company 
     says. You may find better, more affordable coverage with a 
     different insurer. There are 46 individual health plans for 
     sale in the Exchange and 51 plans available outside the 
     Exchange. If you need help reviewing your options, contact a 
     navigator or an agent or broker.
                                  ____

                                                November 14, 2013.

  Gov. Inslee Statement on Obama Administration's Affordable Care Act 
                              Announcement

       Gov. Jay Inslee issued this statement in response to 
     Thursday's announcement by President Obama that insurers 
     could continue to offer individual insurance plans that don't 
     comply with the ACA:

       ``We appreciate President Obama's efforts, through the 
     administrative fix announced today, to address the concerns 
     of those who have gotten `cancellation' letters from their 
     insurance companies.
       ``Each state will be examining this option to see whether 
     it works for them, and we know different states will come to 
     different conclusions.
       ``Here in Washington, we are fortunate to have a robust 
     insurance exchange, with 46 plans from eight different 
     carriers. We're also fortunate that our exchange, the 
     Washington Healthplanfinder, is up and running and enrolling 
     tens of thousands of people in meaningful and affordable 
     health coverage.
       ``Because of that, the majority of Washingtonians who get 
     these letters are able to find better plans and get tax 
     subsidies to help pay for them. They are getting better 
     coverage at a better price.
       ``Largely because of the success we've had implementing the 
     Affordable Care Act so far, Insurance Commissioner Mike 
     Kreidler has concluded that the option of extending old 
     health plans is not a good solution for the state of 
     Washington.
       ``We understand that these cancellation letters can be 
     upsetting, and we want to make sure everyone knows how to 
     find the best deal for themselves and their families. We 
     encourage everyone to explore their options on the Washington 
     Healthplanfinder--www.wahealthplanfinder.org--and seek out 
     the help of an in-person assistor or broker to find a plan 
     that fits their needs and their budgets.
       ``We also want to make sure that the people of our state 
     have meaningful health insurance that will cover them when 
     they get sick or end up in the hospital or find they need 
     ongoing prescription drugs, and we know the plans we have in 
     Washington will do that.''

  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  The gentleman needs to read our bill. It doesn't say that the 
insurance companies must sell those policies. That may be in the Senate 
bill, the Landrieu bill. It is not in this bill.
  I yield 1 minute to the vice chair of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee, the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for the superb job 
that he has done on bringing H.R. 3350 to the floor; and I thank him 
for listening to millions of Americans who have been so forthright in 
saying we do not want the President's health care law; it is destroying 
our access to the health care that we like; it is taking away our 
health care plans.
  Never has there been a Federal mandate that has just swept so many 
people aside and said you must buy this product.
  Some of you have asked, why are we doing this? Let me tell you why. 
We are doing it for my constituents like Carolyn and Lucy and Cindy and 
Wilma, all small business owners, all female heads of households, who 
have written us and have said we are being forced out--forced out--of 
the plan that we like, we are being forced away from the doctor that we 
like, we are being forced to buy a product we do not like.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from 
Connecticut, Rosa DeLauro.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, since this Republican majority took office, 
we have taken vote after vote after vote intended to disrupt, delay, 
defund, or outright repeal the Affordable Care Act.
  Last month, this House majority shut down the Federal Government. 
They threatened a catastrophic debt default in order to gut this law.
  Now, when the Affordable Care Act is going into effect, are we 
supposed to believe that this Republican majority is putting forth a 
good-faith effort to improve the bill? It doesn't wash, and it defies 
imagination.
  This bill is designed to weaken the health care law to roll back the 
clock on the reforms we worked so hard to pass. It takes us back to the 
unacceptable state of our health care system before we passed the 
Affordable Care Act.
  Remember, the health care system was failing people. Every year 
health care costs skyrocketed, small businesses priced out of the 
market, employers asking for higher contributions in co-pays and 
dropping coverage, people with preexisting conditions being socked or 
left on their own. Every year more people had no insurance whatsoever.
  This bill allows insurers to continue to provide substandard health 
insurance plans to families, even to new customers. Americans on these 
plans will be denied access to preventive services with no out-of-
pocket costs. It takes us back to a time when people were not 
guaranteed coverage for maternity, pediatric care, hospitalizations, 
where families faced annual caps, lifetime caps. It takes us back to a 
health insurance market that rejects people with preexisting 
conditions.
  Once again, this Republican majority is trying to put insurers back 
in the driver's seat, let them control the health of American families. 
This majority was never interested in reforming our broken health care 
system. They have never been interested in the Affordable Care Act, and 
now they are not interested as well. This is a cynical, transparently 
political bill. Oppose it.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, Dr. Tim Murphy, the chairman of the Oversight and 
Investigations Subcommittee on Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, the majority is very 
concerned about health insurance plans and very concerned about those 
people who have lost their plans.
  When this bill was originally marked up a couple of years ago in the 
Energy and Commerce Committee, repeatedly we heard from Members on the 
other side of the aisle saying that if people liked their plan they 
could keep it. Indefinitely they were grandfathered in.
  This needed a fix several months ago. The President of the United 
States has said he wants Republicans and Democrats to work together for 
a solution. We are offering to work together, and yet the President has 
said he would veto this. But the President offered

[[Page 17187]]

only a partial fix. It will lead to more confusion.
  The question is: Will it lead to class action suits against insurance 
companies who fail to comply with the law? Many States are saying this 
partial fix is not sufficient.
  We need a legislative fix. We need a way that people can still have 
their option for buying their plan. What we have to see here is that it 
is a bigger problem for American families who have found that their 
insurance is lost and they want to be able to keep it.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on 
both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 10\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Michigan has 16\3/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill which will 
undermine the providing of health care at affordable prices for 
millions and millions and millions of Americans.
  We said to those Americans that prior to the adoption of this act if 
they had a policy, they could keep it. That was accurate. It didn't say 
that the insurance companies would have to continue to offer it, which, 
as I understand it, that side of the aisle wouldn't be for in any 
event. The fact of the matter is that statement was correct.
  Subsequent to that, there were policies offered and insurance 
companies knew and policyholders should have known because it was in 
the law that they would be subject to minimum requirements. Why? 
Because as The Heritage Foundation said when it originally came up with 
this idea, everybody ought to take personal responsibility.
  I have heard a lot of talk on your side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, 
about personal responsibility. I believe in that.
  The Upton bill, as everybody knows, will skew the risk pool and 
encourage adverse selection. Anybody who knows anything about insurance 
knows that if you have adverse selection, the prices for those who need 
insurance will go up very substantially while, yes, the prices for 
those who don't need insurance will go down very sharply. Quite 
frankly, if all of us knew we would never be in an automobile accident, 
we wouldn't have to have automobile insurance, except, of course, the 
law in almost every State requires us to have it so that others will be 
protected as well.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional minute to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
  Ladies and gentlemen, this bill is offered by people who, according 
to their own rhetoric, want to repeal the Affordable Care Act. That is 
a fair position; but now they are trying to do so with a Trojan horse 
they call ``the Upton bill'' that, in effect, will fix what people are 
concerned about. The fact of the matter is it will not fix that 
problem, but what it will do is undermine the ability of millions and 
millions and millions of people to have health security.
  I would urge my colleagues to defeat this Trojan horse. I would urge 
my colleagues to say to the American people, look, we are prepared to 
work together.
  The President has offered a compromise which will have the effect of 
not opening up the policies to everybody, but to those people that had 
a policy. That is a reasonable step to take. That is a step that, 
perhaps, we can take together and get accomplished.
  Let's reject this bill and let's stand with the millions of people 
who want affordable, quality health care for themselves and their 
families.
  Mr. Speaker, the Affordable Care Act is good for our country, and it 
is already benefiting millions of people.
  Today, those who are uninsured can sign up for affordable plans 
through the state and federal marketplaces--and over 1.5 million 
Americans have already applied for coverage. In spite of that, 
Republicans remain fixated on repealing this law--rather than working 
with us to improve it.
  Today, we are witnessing their latest assault on health care reform, 
with their 46th vote to undermine the Affordable Care Act. Once again, 
instead of providing a solution, their bill will only create more 
problems.
  This stands in sharp contrast with the approach of President Obama 
and Democrats, which is to work together to make improvements where 
needed.
  In that vein, President Obama announced yesterday that insurers can 
continue to sell 2013 plans through next year to those Americans who 
are already enrolled in an individual market policy. And the 
administration will require insurance companies to be more transparent 
by sharing information with consumers about other coverage options 
through the marketplaces--many that provide better benefits at a lower 
cost.
  The President's plan will also mitigate the risk of premium increases 
that could result from the grandfathering of these insurance policies. 
That is something the gentleman from Michigan's bill does not do--which 
means that his bill will lead to higher premiums and greater 
uncertainty for all consumers.
  And his bill would undermine the health care reforms that are 
yielding real benefits for millions of Americans.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
  Instead, let's work together to make sure the Affordable Care Act is 
implemented effectively and that Americans will continue to benefit 
from it.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Lance), a member of the Health Subcommittee on Energy and 
Commerce.
  Mr. LANCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of Chairman Upton's 
legislation, which will provide much-needed certainty and relief for 
millions of Americans, including 800,000 in New Jersey.
  Regarding this issue, The New York Times editorialized this morning 
that the President has ``damaged his credibility, and it is uncertain 
how he can earn back the public's trust.''
  I would suggest support of this bipartisan legislation will earn back 
the President's trust. This matter should be addressed legislatively 
and permanently and not administratively and temporarily, as the 
President suggested yesterday. It is time for us to work together.
  I strongly support Chairman Upton's legislation. I am sure it will 
pass in a bipartisan fashion and there will be bipartisan support in 
the other House.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana, Dr. Cassidy, a member of the Health Subcommittee.
  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Speaker, for the last 30 years, I have worked in a 
hospital for the uninsured. What I have learned is that unless you 
trust the families, unless you give power to the patient, you truly 
cannot make good medical decisions.
  This is an email I got from someone who is my age--mid-50s. She says 
that we just got a letter from our health care provider, we had a major 
medical with a $10,000 deductible. We have lost that. We were told the 
insurance was not acceptable as written, so now our new policy has a 
$7,000 deductible and it cost us $10,000 more a year.
  The deductible goes down by $3,000, their premium up by $10,000. This 
is not power to the family or to the patient. This is Washington 
saying, thou shalt spend thy money in the way that we direct you to 
spend it.
  Frankly, I don't know if we can reconstruct the private insurance 
market. It may have been decimated by the Affordable Care Act. The last 
chance probably was the Enzi resolution on the Senate side in which it 
was pointed out that as many as 80 percent of Americans will lose their 
individual policy, but every Democrat voted against that Enzi 
resolution.
  There is hope. It is the Keep Your Health Plan Act, which allows the 
policies to be resold, to occasionally be tweaked and, by the way, to 
be sold to others, preserving, if you will, the power of big numbers, 
which is key to the insurance industry.

                              {time}  1200

  Now, the other option, the President and the others on the Senate 
side, don't allow these policies to be sold to

[[Page 17188]]

others. And so without allowing that, of course they are eventually 
going to be actuarially unsound and collapse. It is a sleight of hand 
which is disingenuous in terms of its intent. We give power to the 
patients. We must trust families. We should pass the Keep Your Health 
Plan Act and allow families to make their own decisions.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from New 
York (Ms. Velazquez).
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, let's be clear about the bill before us today. This bill 
is not an attempt to help Americans keep their insurance plans. The 
President already announced a plan to help address that goal. Instead, 
this bill takes a meat cleaver approach, allowing insurance companies 
to market inadequate policies to new enrollees.
  Remember the bad old days when preexisting conditions were 
discriminated against? This bill brings back that practice. Remember 
women paying more for coverage simply because of their gender? That is 
A-okay under this bill. Remember annual caps that let insurance 
companies stop paying when a consumer came down with an expensive 
illness? That is back, too. And what about small businesses facing 
double-digit hikes in their premium costs?
  If we want to take up targeted legislation helping those whose 
policies are being discontinued, then let's do that. But let's call 
this bill what it is--a return to the day when insurance companies 
preyed on working families and the 46th attempt to repeal the 
Affordable Care Act.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. McKinley), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman.
  I rise today to be the voice of the citizens of the First District of 
West Virginia and support House bill H.R. 3350. Let me share just two 
of the messages of the thousands that we have received.
  Linda from Philippi, West Virginia, writes:

       I am losing my health insurance due to ObamaCare. My policy 
     has been canceled, and I am being forced to enter the 
     exchange. I like my current policy. Under the exchange, I 
     will be forced to pay $200 more. I am being hurt by 
     ObamaCare. This simply isn't fair.

  And Sherry from Weirton, West Virginia, tells us:

       My parents, both retired, received a letter from their 
     insurance company letting them know their new rate starting 
     in January. The increase is so much they can't afford it. I 
     pray that they can continue to receive the health care that 
     they choose so they can continue to be healthy. They deserve 
     better.

  Mr. Speaker, these are only two of the stories out of the thousands 
we could share. Consequently, I am urging my colleagues to support this 
particular legislation.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 6 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Michigan has 12\3/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Gardner).
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the committee for 
his work on this bill and the legislation before us.
  Mr. Speaker, 250,000 Coloradoans have had their health care plans 
canceled. I join them. Here is my letter. As one of the insurance 
policyholders in Colorado, I, too, had my insurance canceled. I am part 
of 250,000 people who had a health care plan they were told they could 
keep, but they won't be able to.
  Noel from eastern Colorado contacted my office to tell me that his 
insurance has been canceled, insurance that he liked, that he was 
promised by the President that he would get to keep. Mr. Speaker, Noel 
tells the story that he has two kids and a third on the way. He tells 
the story that his premium is going to go up by about $400 as a result 
of the changes under the health care bill, and that with the addition 
of his third child, it will go up another $300 more a month. His family 
doesn't make much money. For eastern Colorado, they actually do better 
than others. They bring home $5,000 a month. But to see that kind of a 
health care cost increase when they were promised if they like their 
health care policy, they could keep it is simply wrong.
  We have been accused in this bill of rolling back the law. This bill 
does one thing. It rolls back a broken promise. It rolls back a broken 
promise so we can keep our health care plans and so that the 250,000 
people in Colorado can keep their health care plans. In fact, it does 
go back. It goes back to a time when President Obama promised the 
American people that, if they liked their health care plan, they could 
keep it, period. It goes back to a time when Kathleen Sebelius, 
Secretary of HHS, said, if you like your health care plan, you can keep 
it. It goes back to a time when the majority who passed the legislation 
in the House and in the Senate said, if you like your health care plan, 
you can keep it, period.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, the expectation that somehow the elements of the 
Affordable Care Act would not be implemented is just simply false. 
People can keep health insurance, but there are always going to be the 
new standards to make sure that people no longer have insurance in name 
only. That is what we heard about repeatedly in the efforts to try to 
reform the health care system--that people had great health care plans 
until they got sick. We have minimum standards going forward, and all 
plans will be required to meet those standards. That was in the law, 
and that is reasonable.
  We are in the midst of the greatest, most significant reform of 
health care in a generation, and it is already having significant 
effects. Medical inflation, medical cost inflation is at a 40-year low 
over the course of the last 3 years. We have significant expansion of 
coverage already. Hundreds of thousands of people in lower incomes have 
been able to have access to health care for the first time. Small 
businesses that have been burdened for years by health care costs now 
get access to tax credits, and it gets better for them going forward.
  It is, I think, ironic for people to talk about somebody losing 
access to a doctor who is no longer in a network. That happens every 
year. It happened previously. It will happen in the future unless you 
are going to somehow sentence doctors to participate in plans. You 
can't force them.
  And shedding crocodile tears because there are some plans that are 
canceled; in the individual insurance market, routinely 40, 50, 60 
percent every year are turned over.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I sat on the floor and heard my colleague from Oregon 
(Mr. Walden) talk about a very attractive family from southern Oregon 
that is somehow going to now face a $12,000 deductible. I want to take 
a deep dive with Greg and find out what is going on with that family 
because we have found people have been using ObamaCare for an excuse 
for some things that are going to happen anyway, or that people 
misunderstand.
  Let's do this together. Let's explore these areas. Let's give people 
information going forward, and let's make the system work better, not 
create a parallel system that will make it work worse.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), a member of the Health Subcommittee.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for sponsoring this 
great bill.
  In my State of Florida, 300,000 individuals have lost their health 
care plans due to ObamaCare, and hardworking Americans, like my 
constituent Mark from Pasco County, are being adversely affected by 
this law.

[[Page 17189]]

  Mark currently has a plan that he likes, but ObamaCare will take it 
away. His new equivalent plan on the exchange comes with a $12,000 
deductible and $1,000 monthly premiums. He and his wife are about 60 
years old and do not qualify for subsidies. They are very healthy, but 
they are punished, Mr. Speaker. I don't understand, they are punished 
by the President's health care law.
  That is why I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Keep Your 
Health Plan Act to remove the barriers preventing hardworking Americans 
from keeping their health care plans under ObamaCare. We need to pass 
this bill so we can give the American people the peace of mind they 
deserve.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Terry), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, this is really about trust, and people like 
Andrea from Omaha feels like that trust has been violated. It has been 
broken. She was told that she could keep her policy, but then she 
received her letter saying you cannot keep your policy.
  A working mom with two young children, her family's premium has risen 
to $770 from $450 per quarter. Her responsibility for coinsurance is 
now 50 percent, up from what it was before at 15 percent. Her out-of-
pocket costs rose to over $2,000, and she is paying more for less now.
  This isn't a better policy, as we have been told. It takes a big 
chunk of their family budget. Unfortunately, under ObamaCare, she can't 
keep her plan. She gets more with less.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie).
  Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this legislation 
allowing individuals to keep their plans into 2014.
  Yesterday, my colleagues and I shared powerful stories of many of our 
constituents who have experienced cancellations and mass rate increases 
due to ObamaCare. In addition to these individuals, I have many more 
stories of Kentuckians seeing their plans canceled due to ObamaCare.
  More recently, Sylvia Martin from Owensboro wrote to me that her 
coverage was canceled, and she so far has been unable to get insurance.
  H.R. 3350 would allow insurance companies to continue offering 2013 
plans, which would benefit the millions of Americans who have seen 
their current plans canceled. The American people were told repeatedly 
that if they liked their plan, they can keep it. House Republicans 
today are trying to honor that promise.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Roe).
  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, and I rise 
in support of the Keep Your Health Plan Act.
  This bill is important for many people in my district, including 
Joann. Joann lives in Limestone, Tennessee, and because her policy 
doesn't meet the minimum requirements set by ObamaCare, she has been 
forced to buy a more expensive health care plan. Her premiums will rise 
from about $95 a month to $200 a month. Joann thought $95 was 
affordable, but $200 not.
  Despite promises of more affordable health care, this law is making 
insurance unattainable for many across my home State.
  BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee, our State's largest insurer, has 
announced it will be forced to send 66,000 cancellation notices to my 
fellow Tennesseeans because of ObamaCare; a Medicaid plan called Cover 
Tennessee, another 16,000 lose their care.
  Mr. Speaker, it is well past the time for President Obama to work 
with Members of Congress to provide relief to families hurting because 
of this law. I urge my colleagues to support the Keep Your Health Plan 
Act.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 7 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from California has 3\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Meadows).
  Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3350, the 
Keep Your Health Plan Act, and I would like to thank Chairman Upton for 
bringing this bill forward.
  Despite President Obama's reassurances that ``if you like your health 
care plan, you can keep it,'' 3.5 million plans have already been 
canceled because of ObamaCare.
  Cynthia, a constituent from Granite Falls, North Carolina, told me 
about her family recently. She and her husband and three boys have a 
premium that was $300 that has now risen to $1,206, Mr. Speaker.
  The rhetoric from the Democrats has said that the Republicans are 
only interested in pushing for a repeal of the health care law, rather 
than fixing it, but this is not true. So far this Congress, Republicans 
have introduced 102 bills designed to fix the broken areas of 
ObamaCare. The Democrats by contrast, a mere 17.
  Republicans are bringing another fix today, Mr. Speaker, to the House 
floor. The Keep your Health Plan Act allows families across the country 
like Cynthia's to keep their policies without penalty.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I 
rise in strong support of H.R. 3350.
  This is a piece of legislation that protects the people, not a 
political party, not politicians, not Presidents who don't keep 
promises.
  This is a letter I got from Melissa and Riley from Hermitage, 
Pennsylvania. Riley is a college student paying for her own education. 
She is working part time at minimum wage in a local grocery store, 
paying for what she calls an affordable $70 per month for her health 
care coverage. Because of the Affordable Care Act, her hours at the 
store have been cut back, and now, to add insult to injury, she has 
been notified by the insurance provider that because of ObamaCare, she 
will be canceled after another year and that she is going to be forced 
to choose a plan that costs triple what she is paying now.
  Riley's mom, Melissa, also sent a letter to our office, a letter of 
desperation stating that her health insurance provider, the one she has 
always relied on, has now informed her that she will no longer be 
covered after November 25. In her letter to our office, Melissa writes:

       When my daughter or I purchase our own health care in an 
     attempt to be self-sufficient in this country, we are 
     penalized, not rewarded.

  Mr. President, keep your promise. I can't believe for 3 years we have 
told people you can keep these policies, you don't have to worry about 
it, period. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, period.
  Now we find out that it was all just talk, and that is what this 
country is fed up with. They are tired of the talk that comes out of 
Washington. They want to have people start representing them. That is 
what we are here to do. Both sides of the aisle, ladies and gentlemen, 
both sides of the aisle. It is time to stop the spin.
  I really feel sorry for the people who sit in the gallery here. We 
need to put seatbelts in. This room is spinning so fast sometimes, it 
is hard for them to walk straight when they walk out of here.
  I tell you what. Our party will continue to commit ourselves to doing 
what is right for the American people.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks 
to the Chair.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.

[[Page 17190]]


  Mr. UPTON. May I ask the gentleman from California how many speakers 
he has left?
  Mr. WAXMAN. We have two speakers left.
  Mr. UPTON. We just have two speakers as well, myself and Mrs. 
Ellmers.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
(Mrs. Ellmers).
  Mrs. ELLMERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3350, the 
Keep Your Health Plan Act of 2013.
  As my colleagues across the aisle have pointed out over and over and 
over again, the ACA is law, but it cannot simply be undone by the White 
House, and it does call on us in the Congress to do so.
  Mr. Speaker, we women in this country make 80 percent of the health 
care decisions, and women in this country have now been told by the 
President and our Democratic colleagues that the health care choices 
that they have made to cover their families are not adequate. In fact, 
they are being called subpar, and they are trying to intervene. They 
are trying to keep the women in this country from providing that good, 
sound health care coverage for their families.
  That is why we are voting on this bill today, Mr. Speaker. We are 
voting on it because these are good decisions that have been made by 
the American people, they are good decisions that have been made by the 
moms across this country for their families, and we need to do 
everything we can to protect that.
  I call on my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 3350, so that women 
in this country can continue to do the good job they are doing for 
their families and provide good health care coverage.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
commend him for his great leadership in helping to pass the Affordable 
Care Act, honoring the vows of our Founders for liberty, the freedom to 
pursue their happiness. It is life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. A 
healthier life and freedom to pursue that happiness.
  It is a funny thing when people talk about Washington, DC, and how 
people don't get along well; we disagree. We have major disagreements 
on policy, and one of them is whether health care is a right for all in 
our country or a privilege for the few, but it doesn't take away from 
the fact that we are people and we serve in this institution, and we 
have some areas of agreement one day and the kaleidoscope changes the 
next day to the point where people are always surprised when I say to 
them, ``I pray for the Congress every day, and on Sunday especially. I 
pray for our Republican colleagues, as well as our Democratic 
colleagues, as well as the President of the United States, Barack Obama 
or George W. Bush, or whoever he may be, because the success of the 
President and the success of all of us is a success for the American 
people, if we can work together to find common ground for the public 
good.''
  When I pray for all of us, I have wishes for us. I wish that my 
Republican colleagues could see how successful the Affordable Care Act 
is in California. I wish you could hear the stories of family after 
family after family being liberated, freed from the constraint of being 
job-locked because the family has a preexisting condition so that now 
they can follow their passion and not be chained by a policy, follow 
their passion to be self-employed, to start a business, or to change 
jobs.
  I wish you could hear all of these stories. I wish you would not 
close your mind to them because this initiative has been 
transformative. I would have hoped that whatever had been proposed 
would be to strengthen or improve it, and we all have the humility to 
know that any bill, whatever our pride of involvement in it is, can be 
improved.
  That is why it is particularly disappointing to come to the floor 
today to see a bill that says to the Affordable Care Act and all of 
these people with all of their stories, we are going to unravel this, 
we are going to unravel all of the good things, whether it is 
preexisting conditions, ending that discrimination, whether it is 
lifetime limits, whether it is annual limits, whether it is being a 
women no longer being a preexisting condition, whether it is for 
seniors or for kids 18-26 years old or for little children, even now, 
before the bill is fully enacted. So I hope and I pray, and I wish that 
our colleagues could see the evidence and that the decisions would be 
evidence-based rather than politically motivated.
  I think it is really important what this Congress does today. Each 
Member has to make his or her own decisions, but the fact is that in 
this body, our words weigh a ton and our votes are even weightier than 
that. I hope the message that comes out of this Congress is that there 
is a discussion going on, but there is a values decision that has been 
made in favor of the American people. If we have to thread a needle to 
get a result, let's do that, but let's not unravel the whole sweater 
because that would not be a comfort to the American people.
  Let's act to strengthen, not weaken. Let's vote ``no'' on the Upton 
bill.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle), a very distinguished member of 
the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, let's think about where America was prior to 
the enactment of the Affordable Care Act.
  There were 30 to 40 million of our citizens without insurance. People 
with preexisting conditions either couldn't get insurance or had to pay 
so much they couldn't afford their insurance. Women were being charged 
twice as much as men. People that had insurance had annual and lifetime 
caps.
  Did you ever wonder why when you would see families holding 
fundraisers to raise money for their kid's drugs when a kid has cancer? 
These are people who had insurance and came up against the annual caps 
or lifetime caps, and the insurance company didn't pay any more. Half 
the families in America are filing bankruptcy. People with insurance up 
against caps, no more payments, families losing everything.
  We put an end to that with the Affordable Care Act. How did we do 
that? We come up with a private system that required everybody to 
participate--young and old, rich and poor, healthy and sick. When you 
put everybody in that risk pool, healthy people help us enable the 
insurance industry to keep rates at an affordable rate for those people 
who have preexisting conditions and who have chronic diseases. That is 
how the system works.
  What my colleague, Mr. Upton, is proposing today unravels that 
system. Make no mistake about it. If we continue to allow private 
insurance companies to sell policies that discriminate against women, 
that set annual caps and lifetime caps, if we continue to allow all of 
those practices that 80 percent to 90 percent of Americans say they 
want in their health care system, then that risk pool goes away, rates 
go sky high, and you will have raised premiums for every American in 
this country.
  I say to my colleagues, there are unforeseen circumstances we knew 
would come up in this bill. I led the charge in my caucus. I told my 
caucus if the President doesn't come up with a fix, if our leadership 
doesn't have an alternative solution to this, many of us would consider 
voting for the Upton bill, as bad as it is, because it undermines the 
health care bill.
  The good news is the President has responded. We will have a motion 
to recommit today that responds, and I want to make it clear that there 
is nothing in the Upton bill that mandates insurance companies to do 
this. This is a shallow bill.
  In the end, let me just say, my friends, have some credibility. You 
introduced 102 bills, and you never put one of them on the floor for a 
vote. So don't pretend you care about the American people's health care 
here. You are just trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Democrats 
are not going to let you do that.

[[Page 17191]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair and not to others in the second person.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I say to my friend from Pennsylvania, we would have liked to have had 
some amendments when the Affordable Care Act passed. The rule denied us 
any amendments.
  Why are we here this afternoon?
  Most observers of the legislative process would say that the 
President's health care act would never have passed back in 2010 
without the assurance that the President gave, even many times this 
year, that you could keep your health care if you liked it. If you 
liked it, you didn't have to do anything, period. I don't think it 
would have passed in this Chamber or in this Senate without that 
promise that the President gave.
  Then, millions of Americans in the last couple of months have gotten 
mail. In that mail, there are the cancellation notices. They are seeing 
their rates go up 200 percent, 300 percent, even 400 percent. 
Deductibles are going up in the thousands of dollars. People were 
coming to us all last week when we were home for our veterans events 
and parades and all the things that we did. They were bringing those 
letters to us and saying, Hey, what is going on? I thought I could keep 
this?
  Until yesterday afternoon, when it looked like we were going to get 
as many as 300 votes, including perhaps Mr. Doyle's and others, when it 
looked like we were going to get 300 votes for a bill that we 
introduced only a week and a half ago, all of a sudden the President 
felt that he needed to act. It wasn't until this bill that he came to 
the mic and said, You know what? I made a mistake. I am sorry. Maybe 
this thing will fix it.

                              {time}  1230

  But until then, he was going to sit on his hands and just watch us, 
watch millions of Americans literally watch their health care, watch 
maybe their economic lives, just go over the cliff. He was prepared to 
do that, until we showed that we had some bipartisan zip around here to 
try and, in fact, enforce, make whole his promise that he has said over 
and over and over again.
  That is what this bill does. Read it. It is not too long, a couple of 
sentences long.
  I commend our leadership for bringing this bill to the floor as fast 
as they can. Man, 5 or 6 legislative days from when it was introduced, 
that is pretty good.
  More importantly, it got a wake-up call to someone down the street on 
Pennsylvania Avenue, saying, hey, something is wrong. Let's restore 
what we might have said. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 
unnecessary legislation. The President has stepped up to the plate, 
admitted he made a mistake, and took steps to remedy it. This 
legislation rolls back too many important provisions without doing 
anything good beyond what the President has already done.
  I believe in the Affordable Care Act. This important legislation 
ended insurance company practices that prevented Americans from 
accessing quality health insurance. But, I am disappointed in how the 
law has been rolled out since October 1st. In fact, I think that we 
should extend open enrollment for an equal amount of time as the 
website has been down. Why are we not doing that today instead?
  This law is too important to fumble the roll out. I represent an area 
that has one of the highest uninsured rates in the country. Our 
district also has one of the highest rates of people who have jobs but 
no health insurance. Before the ACA, the individual marketplace wasn't 
the right solution for our constituents and after the ACA, the 
individual marketplace is still not the right place.
  The bill before us essentially restores the individual marketplace as 
it was prior to the ACA. It means insurance companies can refuse 
coverage because of pre-existing conditions and it means people can 
lose coverage because they have gotten too sick. I agree that we should 
allow people who are in the individual marketplace in 2013 and want to 
remain in it, to do so for another year.
  But the bill today is yet another attempt to undo some of the best 
parts of this law: the minimum essential benefits and I cannot support 
it.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 
3350, the ``Keep Your Health Plan Act of 2013.'' I oppose the bill for 
two reasons.
  First, the Affordable Care Act health insurance plans offered by 
private insurance companies have 10 basic options that saves lives. 
Second, the legislation is unnecessary in light of the action taken 
yesterday by President Obama, which should satisfy the proponents of 
this legislation while at the same time minimizing the risk to the 
health and safety of underinsured Americans, who are persons who have 
insurance but spend more than 10 percent of their income on out-of-
pocket medical expenses.
  Were it to become law, H.R. 3350 would jeopardize the life and health 
of those underinsured who purchase these plans this bill protects, even 
though health insurance plans are available that would in nearly every 
case provide more health coverage for less.
  Mr. Speaker, the Affordable Care Act that the Republicans have tried 
for 46 times to end, delay or impede is working my constituents of the 
18th Congressional District and the people of Texas.
  Flora Alexandra Brewer of Fort Worth a real estate development 
business owner who works from home kept trying to sign into the 
website. She was determined to participate in the exchange. She said 
that her family had pre-existing conditions. Flora said that, ``There's 
nothing more expensive out there on any of the websites that I have 
looked at than what I am currently paying for COBRA.
  For the past 10 months, Flora has been paying nearly $1,900 a month 
for health insurance for her, her husband and one of her sons. She 
knows that she will most likely not qualify for any subsidies, but she 
believes she will save around $500 a month under the program commonly 
known as Obamacare.
  Those potential savings motivate Brewer not to give up on the 
exchange.
  On Wednesday, she called the toll free number listed on 
healthcare.gov. She spoke to a representative and enrolled in 15 
minutes. She will soon receive an email and a packet in the mail 
detailing the polices and rates she and her family are eligible for.''
  Mark Sullivan, an Entrepreneur from Austin, enrolled in a Plan that 
reduces his monthly premiums by half, expands his coverage, and gave 
him the financial security to focus on his small business. ``Mark now 
feels confident focusing on the success of his new consulting business, 
saying health insurance is `one less thing I have to think about' as he 
pours his time and talent into this next major career move.
  Mark also thinks the marketplace will make it possible for more 
people to start new businesses and wants to share his success with the 
larger entrepreneurial community in Austin. After comparing plans, Mark 
settled on a bronze option and added dental insurance. He will receive 
an $82 per month subsidy, which will halve the monthly premium he will 
pay down to $78.''
  Lucy after choosing from over 30 plans is saving $2,300 a year on her 
premium and $4,000 on her deductible, said that ``I signed up at 
Healthcare.gov and I'm going to save $2,300 a year on my premium 
alone--and more, because my deductible will drop from $7,500 a year to 
$3,000 a year. It's still Blue Cross insurance, and I don't have to 
change doctors, either. I had a choice of over 30 plans and several 
different companies.''
  Mr. Speaker, according to the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the 
Uninsured 47 million persons under the age of retirement were uninsured 
in 2012. Most of the uninsured are self-employed or employed by small 
businesses. Another 28 million people were enrolled in Medicaid or CHIP 
programs to gain access to health insurance.
  The overwhelming majority (59 percent) of the insured receive their 
insurance through employer health plans. However, one in six of the 
uninsured have at least one working person in their household.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the cost of underinsurance in America--and this 
is what we can expect more of should H.R. 3350 become law. The express 
purpose of this bill is to allow underinsured persons to retain an 
inadequate ``health insurance'' plan on the ground that supposedly it 
is the plan the person ``wants to keep.''
  Unfortunately, there is nothing in this bill that would provide 
consumer education on the

[[Page 17192]]

inadequacies of the plan and that something much better is available. 
For example, there is no requirement in this bill for the insurer to 
notify the insured that health insurance provided through the exchange 
that provides more and better coverage for less money.
  This means that under H.R. 3350 people will still have problems 
paying their medical bills, they will have high bills, and they will 
not be able to afford prescription medication or be hounded by medical 
bill collectors. Further, this bill would allow these health insurance 
plans to be sold to new customers who may not know about the 
potentially better options available on the health insurance exchanges.
  The second reason for opposing this rule and bill is that it is 
unnecessary in view the actions taken yesterday by President Obama. As 
the President announced, insurers will be permitted to offer consumers 
the option to renew their 2013 health plans in 2014, without change, 
allowing them to keep their plans. This should satisfy the proponents 
of the bill.
  But the President went further than that because he recognizes that 
inadequate insurance is really no insurance at all. That is why the 
President conditioned the ability of insurers to offer plan renewals 
upon the following:
  1. That insurers notify enrollees that they can purchase coverage 
through the Health Insurance Marketplace where they can potentially 
qualify for premium tax credits; and
  2. Those insurers must inform consumers of the protections they are 
giving up to keep the plan they have.
  Taken together, President Obama's actions are a tempered and measured 
response to the alleged problem that this bill seeks to remedy.
  I fully applaud what the President has done.
  There may be some who think the availability of the types of health 
care insurance that H.R. 3350 would protect is sufficient for 
Americans. I do not. Neither does President Obama. The majority of the 
American people do not. We believe, and the Affordable Care Act 
ensures, that healthcare should be available, accessible and adequate.
  Mr. Speaker, adequate health plans have in common the inclusion of 
certain minimal benefits and services.
  Mr. Speaker, my constituents in the 18th Congressional District of 
Texas favor the Affordable Care Act because they understand the 
insecurity and feeling of helplessness of being uninsured or 
underinsured. My home state of Texas has the highest percentage of 
uninsured (27.6 percent) in the nation, 4 percent more than Louisiana 
the next state on the list.
  The state of Massachusetts, in contrast, boasts the lowest uninsured 
rate in the country (4 percent). This is because Massachusetts several 
years ago adopted the health insurance system upon which the Affordable 
Health Care Act is based.
  Mr. Speaker, health care coverage must be not only available and 
affordable but also adequate in order for consumers to have the health 
security and financial protection they need and deserve. The Affordable 
Care Act satisfies these criteria; the bill before us does not. That is 
why we should reject this rule and the underlying bill.
  H.R. 3350 is nothing more than the House Republicans' newest 
variation on their very old theme, which is to repeal, impede or 
undermine the Affordable Care Act. This bill is the 46th attempt by the 
Republicans to deprive the American people of the security and peace of 
mind that comes with health care that is affordable, accessible and 
adequate.
  Of course we should not be surprised. After all, it was the House 
Republicans who shut down the Federal Government for 16 days and cost 
the economy $24 billion while refusing to consider any legislation that 
would create jobs or address the real needs of the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is strongly opposed by a coalition of 
some of the nation's leading health and consumer organizations, 
including the following:
  Paralyzed Veterans of America.
  American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network.
  American Diabetes Association.
  American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees 
(AFSCME).
  American Heart Association/American Stroke Association.
  American Music Therapy Association.
  The Arc of the United States.
  The Autistic Self Advocacy Network.
  Community Catalyst.
  Families USA.
  Health and Wholeness Ministries, Disciples Center for Public Witness.
  Health Care for America Now.
  National Alliance on Mental Illness.
  National Association of County Behavioral Health & Developmental 
Disability Directors.
  National Council of Jewish Women.
  National Partnership for Women & Families.
  These groups oppose the bill for substantially the same reasons I 
have discussed. While sympathizing with consumers who are receiving 
notices from their insurance companies that their policies are not 
being renewed for next year because they do not comply with the ACA's 
consumer protections, the Coalition rightly observes that:

       [T]he solution is not to allow for the continued sale of 
     inadequate policies[.] Rather, we must educate consumers 
     about their new health insurance options and ensure that 
     notices being sent by insurers clearly inform them of the 
     shortfalls with their current coverage and explain all of 
     their options for finding better coverage.

  I agree. Therefore, I urge all Members to join me in voting against 
this bill.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3350. This bill 
has no purpose, other than to destroy the effort to provide excellent, 
affordable health care to Americans in every walk of life. Yesterday, 
the President provided a workable solution to allow insurance companies 
to continue to offer existing policies to people who want to keep their 
policies. But the Upton bill we are considering today would allow both 
those that had these plans, and those that did not, to obtain care 
under these plans. Especially, people could buy plans that don't really 
offer much ``insurance'' at all should anyone in their family get sick.
  The comprehensive health care reform legislation we passed in 2010 
was a sincere and honorable effort to provide every American with 
access to affordable and quality health coverage. The law was designed 
to ensure that health coverage would include access to free preventive 
services, and would also be robust enough to actually help an 
individual afford critical, life-saving care should they fall ill.
  The legislation that we are considering today accomplishes none of 
those goals. H.R. 3350 would allow insurance companies to continue to 
sell and attract new customers to substandard health plans that offer 
little protection.
  I have received calls and letters from constituents over the past 
several weeks who share with me their frustration that their health 
plan has been cancelled. And I sympathize with them. They tell me in 
complete sincerity that they like these plans--after all, they are not 
used to having any choice. They think their previous insurance plan is 
all they can afford. But under the Affordable Care Act they now have 
the ability to buy real insurance that will not drop them when their 
kid gets sick or require them to a huge deductible and with government 
subsidies in an active insurance marketplace, most will probably save 
money on their premiums.
  But I have also heard from constituents who have fallen ill, and 
during that time of personal turmoil, learn that their insurance does 
not cover the treatment they need. Their ``Basic and Essential Plan,'' 
as they're called in New Jersey, does not cover their basic or 
essential needs. They are on their own, and they will have to pay out-
of-pocket for the chemotherapy, hospital tests, or physical therapy 
their doctor ordered.
  Prior to health reform, in 2007, more than 60 percent of all 
bankruptcies were a result of illness and medical bills, and nearly 80 
percent of those who filed for medical bankruptcy were insured.
  We passed the Affordable Care Act not only to extend coverage to the 
48 million uninsured Americans, but also to improve insurance for the 
millions more Americans who are underinsured. H.R. 3350 would undermine 
the Affordable Care Act by allowing new, additional customers to 
purchase health insurance that provides limited protection, and little 
prevention. It would result in even more Americans becoming 
underinsured and lead to additional family's filing for medical 
bankruptcy.
  Many parts of the ACA are working and have very beneficial effects 
for ordinary Americans--removing caps that cut off coverage even in the 
middle of critical treatments, allowing 25 year olds who are trying to 
get on their feet professionally to stay on their parent's policies, 
guaranteeing equally good coverage at equal cost for women, increasing 
access to preventive care, and other things. I would hope the sponsors 
of this bill would devote their best efforts to making the remaining 
parts of the legislation work. That is what they owe their 
constituents, rather than trying to destroy this sincere, honorable 
effort to make health care as good as possible in America.
  The rollout of the health insurance Marketplace has not been smooth, 
and I am as frustrated as everyone else, but the potential for 
Americans to gain affordable and comprehensive coverage is still 
enormous. Nearly one million New Jerseyans lack health insurance, and 
there are still many more underinsured. I am committed to protecting 
the provisions of health care reform so that New Jerseyans have access 
to health coverage that is affordable, comprehensive, and reliable. 
Therefore, I

[[Page 17193]]

urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill and get to work on 
implementing the Affordable Care Act so Americans have access to better 
health care coverage.
  Mr. POSEY. Mr. Speaker, as a direct result of the health care law, 10 
million Americans risk having their health insurance plans cancelled. 
Tens of millions more are seeing their costs go up and coverage 
changed, and they are losing access to their doctors and health care 
networks.
  I get messages daily from my constituents who have had their policies 
cancelled, seen 200%-400% increases in their health insurance premiums, 
or who have been cut to part-time work because of the new law. They are 
finding the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to be unaffordable for their 
families.
  Today the House will consider bipartisan legislation that will help 
reverse these effects of this law for many Americans, providing relief 
to some of those who have been harmed.
  The sad reality is that the ACA is inherently flawed and unworkable, 
and this reality is starting to catch-up with Americans across this 
nation. The broken website is just the tip of the disastrous iceberg as 
the law has fundamental and costly flaws.
  The fact that the Administration has now decided to waive ACA 
mandates is testimony to the fact that the health care law is directly 
responsible for millions of Americans losing their coverage, huge 
increases in health care premiums, along with the loss of access to 
doctors and hospital networks. There would be no need for the 
Administration to waive the health care law if the law was not the 
problem.
  Unfortunately, the Administration's proposal falls short by only 
providing a short-term waiver of the mandates. If it's so bad, then we 
really should be addressing the fundamental flaws, not simply trying to 
get beyond the next election. The only way to fix this situation, which 
will get worse, is for Washington to scrap this law and start over in a 
transparent process with bipartisan reforms that respect individual 
freedom and fairness.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, today the House considered a bill 
introduced by Rep. Fred Upton deceptively titled the ``Keep Your Health 
Plan Act of 2013.'' The bill actually does nothing to address the 
situation in which some individuals have had their coverage canceled by 
their insurance provider. Rather this bill would allow insurance 
companies to continue selling substandard insurance plans to anyone, 
even those who currently do not have any insurance, on the open market 
without the new benefits or protections of the Affordable Care Act 
(ACA).
  In contrast, President Obama has put forth a reasonable solution that 
extends the grandfathering provision of the law. Under that provision, 
insurance plans in place on March 23, 2010, the date the ACA was signed 
into law, are considered grandfathered. At issue now are those plans 
issued since then that do not meet the minimum standards of the ACA. 
This week, the President announced an extension of the grandfathering 
provisions that will empower insurance companies and state 
commissioners of insurance to allow those older plans to continue to be 
offered for one more year. If the insurance companies decide to 
continue offering those plans, they must notify all individuals who 
have received a cancellation notice and anyone else at risk of 
receiving one to inform them of their right to continue their previous 
coverage so long as the insurer discloses what benefits and 
protections--such as caps on premiums and out-of-pocket expenses, free 
preventive care, or guaranteed coverage for pre-existing conditions--
will not be provided. They also have to inform these individuals of 
their right to pursue new coverage that does include the wide range of 
consumer protections and reforms through the health insurance 
exchanges.
  The reason I voted for and continue to support the ACA is precisely 
because of those consumer and patient protection reforms. We cannot 
allow Americans to be subjected to capricious cancellations, lifetime 
limits on their coverage, no coverage or unaffordable coverage because 
of pre-existing conditions, and higher premiums based on gender for the 
same basic coverage. Enrollment in the new insurance plans is 
increasing with each passing day along with reports of people being 
pleasantly surprised that they can in fact find insurance plans with 
premiums that are comparable to, or in many cases less than, their 
current coverage, and we expect that to continue.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3350, 
the so-called ``Keep Your Health Plan Act of 2013.'' This bill is not a 
fix to the problems that have arisen because insurance companies are 
canceling plans that are insufficient to qualify under the new 
Affordable Care Act standards or are not viewed as economically viable 
and worth offering.
  Instead, this bill will raise premiums in insurance marketplaces and 
undermine the overall market reforms that Obamacare is designed to 
remedy. Yesterday, President Obama offered a better solution than this 
bill, to address these issues.
  As one of the few members that were here during the creation of 
Medicare, I remember first-hand the tactics used by those opposed to 
its creation. While this is a very different time and context in 
history, the vehemence of the opposition has its parallels.
  Let me remind you that Medicare was once described by George H.W. 
Bush as ``socialized medicine'' and Ronald Reagan once stated that, 
``one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years 
telling our children and our children's children what it once was like 
in America when men were free.''
  Today, Republicans have done little but resist and fear-monger in 
opposition to Obamacare's implementation. These conservatives see H.R. 
3350 as ``a metaphorical bullet to the gut of Obamacare.'' James 
Capretta, a conservative health care policy expert at the Heritage 
Foundation and American Enterprise Institute, described it as having an 
``end result that would be one more step toward fully reversing'' what 
he describes as the ``catastrophic mistake of Obamacare.'' And even 
Leader John Boehner has argued that it is part of a larger strategy to 
``stop this law.''
  Although, Medicare has issues that need to be addressed, it has 
dramatically improved access to health care for America's seniors, 
leading to longer and healthier lives, reducing poverty, desegregating 
southern hospitals, and becoming one of the most popular government 
programs. From my own political experience, I can safely say that once 
in place and allowed to operate as designed, Obamacare will have a 
similarly positive affect.
  Allowing H.R. 3350 to pass would be a step backward in the advances 
we have made in curbing healthcare costs and expanding access. The 
increase in grandfathered plans this bill allows would open the door to 
the cherry-picking by health insurance companies that Obamacare is 
designed to eliminate. Encouraging younger, healthier, and cheaper-to-
cover-adults to withdrawal from the Marketplaces will cause premiums 
within the Marketplaces to substantially increase.
  The bill would also allow insurers to continue to offer plans that 
don't include essential health benefits, don't comply with the 
requirement banning annual caps on coverage, aren't subject to premium 
rate reviews to determine whether their premiums are reasonable, allow 
discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions, and force 
women to pay more than men for the same coverage. These are many of the 
past problems of the private insurance industry that Obamacare was 
specifically designed to correct.
  Further, it would cause major delays in the start of coverage because 
insurers would need to establish and file new rates to state insurance 
departments for review. This would impose major delays to Obamacare's 
implementation, which is the ultimate goal of this bill and the 
Republican agenda.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the 46th attempt by Republicans to vote to 
undermine and effectively repeal the Affordable Care Act. I rise today 
in strong opposition to H.R. 3350, but in support of Rep. Miller's 
Motion to Recommit which legislates the President's position. I 
encourage all my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. PETERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of a 
temporary, one year extension of health care plans in the individual 
market. Although this bill isn't perfect, I believe it is important 
that Congress works together to give Michigan residents certainty and 
stability in their healthcare choices while the Administration works 
out the problems in the implementation of the Affordable Care Act.
  I want to emphasize my support for health care reform. I voted for 
this important law in 2010, and have voted 40 times against efforts to 
repeal and dismantle health care reform. However, many of my 
constituents have called my office confused by the cancellation letters 
sent by insurers. Compounding this confusion is the ongoing technology 
glitches that are keeping people from signing up on the exchanges and 
learning about new options for health insurance.
  At a time when too many Michigan families are still struggling 
economically, it is important that we keep our promises that the law 
would allow you to keep your insurance and doctor if you want to.
  The President announced his plan to grandfather in health care plans 
that have been recently canceled, but I believe that Congress must also 
vote to support that decision legislatively. I believe that this 
temporary, one year extension of health care plans is necessary while 
people can get the information they need to make the right choices for 
their family on the benefits of the Affordable Care Act.

[[Page 17194]]

  I support the President's requirement to have insurers disclose 
better information about these grandfathered plans and new plans that 
might be available. That is why I also joined in sending a letter to 
Secretary Sebelius stating that we must require insurers to explain to 
policyholders what benefits they would be losing under the 
grandfathered plans, and the tax credits and subsidies they could be 
eligible for in the new insurance marketplace. We must ensure that 
insurance companies provide a clear explanation when any future changes 
to plans are not a requirement of the Affordable Care Act.
  As I have always said, I am willing to work in order to make 
improvements to ACA as they are needed. Clearly a fix is needed to 
ensure that people can keep their insurance if they like it. It is 
important that we work together to give certainty on this issue, and 
Congress should pass a bipartisan bill to achieve this goal.
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to 
H.R. 3350, the so called ``Keep Your Health Plan Act''.
  This bill is nothing more than the latest Republican effort to delay, 
defund, dismantle, or derail the Affordable Care Act.
  I remain committed to ensuring that my constituents in California and 
millions across the country have access to quality, affordable health 
care.
  Yet, the Republicans want nothing more than to capitalize on any 
opportunity to undermine the fundamental human right to healthcare. And 
that is what this latest attack is.
  While we must certainly address any challenges that arise in the roll 
out and implementation of the Affordable Care Act, we cannot undermine 
its effectiveness by passing this cynical bill.
  In fact, just today, I received an email from a constituent who said 
that his plan had been cancelled, but once he had a chance to view the 
options on Covered California--California's healthcare exchange--he 
found a better plan at a better price.
  Stories like this one are happening all over the country and are 
further proof that we must not do anything to undermine the 
implementation of the Affordable Care Act.
  My constituents depend on it, as do millions of Americans.
  I urge my colleagues to vote `no' on this bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 413, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill.
  The question is on 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.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. ANDREWS. I am opposed to the bill.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order from the gentleman from 
Michigan has been reserved.
  The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Andrews moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3350 to the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Consumer Health Plan 
     Protection Act of 2013''.

     SEC. 2. MAINTAINING EXISTING COVERAGE.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any provision of the 
     Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (including any 
     amendment made by such Act or by the Health Care and 
     Education Reconciliation Act of 2010), in the case of health 
     insurance coverage offered by a health insurance issuer in 
     the individual market that is in effect for an individual as 
     of October 1, 2013, the issuer may continue such coverage for 
     such individual for a plan year beginning in 2014 in such 
     market outside of an Exchange established under section 1311 
     or 1321 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 18031, 18041).
       (b) Treatment as Grandfathered Health Plan in Satisfaction 
     of Minimum Essential Coverage.--Health insurance coverage 
     described in subsection (a) shall be treated as a 
     grandfathered health plan for purposes of the amendment made 
     by section 1501(b) of the Patient Protection and Affordable 
     Care Act.
       (c) Notice.--As a condition for a health insurance issuer 
     to continue health insurance coverage under subsection (a), 
     the issuer shall provide for notice to each individual to be 
     offered such continued coverage (and for other individuals 
     covered under health insurance coverage offered by such 
     issuer for whom such continued coverage is not offered) 
     prompt notice of the following:
       (1) The health insurance coverage options available to the 
     individual through the Marketplace under the Patient 
     Protection and Affordable Care Act and how to exercise such 
     options.
       (2) The premium and cost-sharing assistance available for 
     coverage obtained through such Marketplace.
       (3) The consumer protections provided under such Act that 
     are not provided under the continuing health insurance 
     coverage.

     SEC. 3. REQUIRING STATE INSURANCE COMMISSIONERS TO 
                   INVESTIGATE INSTANCES OF INADEQUATE NOTICES OF 
                   CANCELLATION OR CONVERSION OF INDIVIDUAL HEALTH 
                   INSURANCE POLICIES.

       (a) In General.--Each State insurance commissioner shall 
     investigate and take appropriate administrative or other 
     actions (such as the imposition of a fine) on cases of 
     inadequate notices of cancellations or conversions of health 
     insurance coverage in the individual market that take effect 
     on or after January 1, 2014.
       (b) Inadequate Notice.--In this section, a notice of the 
     cancellation or conversion of individual health insurance 
     coverage shall be treated as inadequate if the notice--
       (1) fails to contain information--
       (A) on obtaining health insurance coverage through an 
     Exchange under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care 
     Act;
       (B) on the possible availability of assistance under such 
     Act towards payment of the premiums and cost-sharing for such 
     coverage; and
       (C) on the improved benefits for coverage through an 
     Exchange, compared to health insurance coverage not offered 
     through an Exchange;
       (2) fails to be transparent by inappropriately steering 
     individuals to more expensive plans provided by the 
     cancelling issuer; or
       (3) fails to otherwise comply with requirements of law.
       (c) Reports.--
       (1) State commissioners to hhs.--Not later than March 31, 
     2014, each State insurance commissioner shall submit to the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services a report on the 
     investigations and actions described in subsection (a).
       (2) HHS report to congress.--Not later than April 30, 2014, 
     the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on such 
     investigations and actions.
       (d) Definitions of State, Health Insurance Coverage, and 
     Individual Market.--In this section, the terms ``State'', 
     ``health insurance coverage'', and ``individual market'' have 
     the meanings given such terms for purposes of title I of the 
     Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

     SEC. 4. PROTECTION OF CONSUMERS FROM EXCESSIVE, UNJUSTIFIED, 
                   OR UNFAIRLY DISCRIMINATORY RATES.

       (a) Protection From Excessive, Unjustified, or Unfairly 
     Discriminatory Rates.--The first section 2794 of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-94), as added by section 
     1003 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 
     (Public Law 111-148), is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(e) Protection From Excessive, Unjustified, or Unfairly 
     Discriminatory Rates.--
       ``(1) Authority of states.--Nothing in this section shall 
     be construed to prohibit a State from imposing requirements 
     (including requirements relating to rate review standards and 
     procedures and information reporting) on health insurance 
     issuers with respect to rates that are in addition to the 
     requirements of this section and are more protective of 
     consumers than such requirements.
       ``(2) Consultation in rate review process.--In carrying out 
     this section, the Secretary shall consult with the National 
     Association of Insurance Commissioners and consumer groups.
       ``(3) Determination of who conducts reviews for each 
     state.--The Secretary shall determine, after the date of 
     enactment of this section and periodically thereafter, the 
     following:
       ``(A) In which markets in each State the State insurance 
     commissioner or relevant State regulator shall undertake the 
     corrective actions under paragraph (4), as a condition of the 
     State receiving the grant in subsection (c), based on the 
     Secretary's determination that the State regulator is 
     adequately undertaking and utilizing such actions in that 
     market.
       ``(B) In which markets in each State the Secretary shall 
     undertake the corrective actions under paragraph (4), in 
     cooperation with the relevant State insurance commissioner or 
     State regulator, based on the Secretary's determination that 
     the State is not adequately undertaking and utilizing such 
     actions in that market.
       ``(4) Corrective action for excessive, unjustified, or 
     unfairly discriminatory rates.--In accordance with the 
     process established under this section, the Secretary or the 
     relevant State insurance commissioner or State regulator 
     shall take corrective actions to ensure that any excessive, 
     unjustified, or unfairly discriminatory rates are corrected 
     prior to implementation, or as soon as possible thereafter, 
     through mechanisms such as--
       ``(A) denying rates;

[[Page 17195]]

       ``(B) modifying rates; or
       ``(C) requiring rebates to consumers.
       ``(5) Noncompliance.--Failure to comply with any corrective 
     action taken by the Secretary under this subsection may 
     result in the application of civil monetary penalties and, if 
     the Secretary determines appropriate, make the plan involved 
     ineligible for classification as a Qualified Health Plan.''.
       (b) Clarification of Regulatory Authority.--Such section is 
     further amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the heading, by striking ``Premium'' and inserting 
     ``Rate'';
       (B) in paragraph (1), by striking ``unreasonable increases 
     in premiums'' and inserting ``potentially excessive, 
     unjustified, or unfairly discriminatory rates, including 
     premiums,''; and
       (C) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by striking ``an unreasonable premium increase'' and 
     inserting ``a potentially excessive, unjustified, or unfairly 
     discriminatory rate'';
       (ii) by striking ``the increase'' and inserting ``the 
     rate''; and
       (iii) by striking ``such increases'' and inserting ``such 
     rates'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking ``premium increases'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``rates''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ``premium'' and 
     inserting ``rate''; and
       (3) in subsection (c)(1)--
       (A) in the heading, by striking ``Premium'' and inserting 
     ``Rate'';
       (B) by inserting ``that satisfy the condition under 
     subsection (e)(3)(A)'' after ``award grants to States''; and
       (C) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``premium increases'' 
     and inserting ``rates''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Title XXVII of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg et seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 2723 (42 U.S.C. 300gg-22), as redesignated 
     by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act--
       (A) in subsection (a)--
       (i) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``and section 2794'' 
     after ``this part''; and
       (ii) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or section 2794'' 
     after ``this part''; and
       (B) in subsection (b)--
       (i) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``and section 2794'' 
     after ``this part''; and
       (ii) in paragraph (2)--

       (I) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``or section 2794 
     that is'' after ``this part''; and
       (II) in subparagraph (C)(ii), by inserting ``or section 
     2794'' after ``this part''; and

       (2) in section 2761 (42 U.S.C. 300gg-61)--
       (A) in subsection (a)--
       (i) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``and section 2794'' 
     after ``this part''; and
       (ii) in paragraph (2)--

       (I) by inserting ``or section 2794'' after ``set forth in 
     this part''; and
       (II) by inserting ``and section 2794'' after ``the 
     requirements of this part''; and

       (B) in subsection (b)--
       (i) by inserting ``and section 2794'' after ``this part''; 
     and
       (ii) by inserting ``and section 2794'' after ``part A''.
       (d) Applicability to Grandfathered Plans.--Section 
     1251(a)(4)(A) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care 
     Act (Public Law 111-148), as added by section 2301 of the 
     Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public 
     Law 111-152), is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(v) Section 2794 (relating to reasonableness of rates 
     with respect to health insurance coverage).''.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, such sums as 
     may be necessary.
       (f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act and 
     shall be implemented with respect to health plans beginning 
     not later than January 1, 2014.

  Mr. ANDREWS (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to dispense with the reading.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk will continue to read.
  The Clerk continued to read.
  Mr. UPTON (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
to dispense with the reading of the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized 
for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues, we have listened to the 
many stories told by people this morning with great empathy about 
people who got a cancellation notice and want to keep the policy that 
they have.
  The issue before the House is whether we want to solve the problem or 
create another problem. That is the issue. If we want to work together, 
as we should, to solve the problem of Americans receiving cancellation 
notices and not being able to keep policies that they have, it requires 
us to do three things.
  First, we have to legally authorize insurance companies to offer 
these policies on into the future. The Democratic plan which I have 
proposed does that and, frankly, so does Mr. Upton's bill.
  The second thing that we have to do, though, is make sure that the 
insurance companies offer the plans for sale. It really does you no 
good at all if you have the right to buy a plan that the insurance 
company refuses to sell.
  Mr. Upton's bill is mute on that point. It might be called the 
``Insurance Companies Bill of Rights'' because they have the right to 
do or not do anything they choose, but the people that we all say that 
we want to protect really have no rights at all. This is an important 
distinguishing point in the plan that I am offering now, and I would 
urge everyone to support.
  We have drawn from language offered by my friend from Illinois (Ms. 
Schakowsky) which requires State insurance commissioners around this 
country to be vigilant protectors of consumers, rather than corporate 
apologists for insurance companies.
  Our plan says that if someone's cancellation was arbitrary and 
thoughtless and unfair, the insurance commissioner must act and protect 
the people that we heard read in those letters today.
  Our plan says that if rate increases are discriminatory, if you got a 
rate increase because you are a woman who is pregnant, or you got a 
rate increase because you had skin cancer, or breast cancer, or 
diabetes, that the insurance commissioner must act and protect the 
consumer against that indignity.
  It does you no good that this bill is called the ``Keep Your 
Insurance If You Want To Bill.'' It should be called the ``Keep Your 
Insurance If You Want To And The Insurance Company Allows You To 
Bill.'' We are correcting that wrong and remedying that wrong with our 
plan.
  Thirdly, it doesn't do any good to give people the chance to renew 
their plans if that renewal results in a huge premium increase for 
everyone else in the country. That is what the underlying bill does.
  The underlying bill says that these plans, which I would really 
equate to selling an automobile with no airbags and no seatbelts--now, 
our plan says, look, if you want to keep driving a car with no airbags 
and no seatbelts, you can keep driving, but people can't sell a car 
with no airbags and no seatbelts to a new consumer, which is what the 
underlying bill permits.
  Now, when that happens, here is what is going to happen. People in 
the new State marketplaces are going to see a huge increase in their 
premiums. People who get covered at work are going to see a huge 
increase in their premiums. It is going to spill over to Medigap 
policies for seniors and people on Medicare.
  The bill really should be called the ``Guaranteed Premium Increase 
Act of 2013'' because that is what it is.
  Our bill corrects that by saying, let's help the people we say we 
want to try to help, people who like their plan and want to keep it, 
not everyone that the insurance company could dupe or lure into buying 
a car with no airbag and no seatbelts.
  Finally, working together means not forgetting about some other 
people who write letters we haven't heard much about today, the family 
that Mr. Doyle talked about, whose daughter has cancer, who has an 
insurance policy, but has to have a beef and beer or a golf tournament 
to raise money to pay their bills. I want to help that person and not 
repeal the Affordable Care Act.
  How about the woman who had breast cancer 10 years ago and can now be 
told, we are sorry, you can't buy an insurance policy. You have got to 
pay more if you do. I want to help her by banning discrimination based 
on preexisting conditions.
  If we really want to work together, let's adopt this plan. Let's 
really help the people we say we are trying to help, and not the 
insurance industry of the United States of America.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page 17196]]




                             Point of Order

  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I do insist on the point of 
order.
  In my opinion, the pending amendment violates clause 7 of rule XVI of 
the rules of the House which requires that an amendment be germane to 
the matter it is amending. It is not germane to the bill because 
section 3 imposes a mandate on State insurance commissioners, and 
section 4 amends the Public Health Service Act which is, in fact, 
beyond the scope of the base text.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any Member wish to speak to the point 
of order?
  Mr. ANDREWS. I do, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized 
to speak to the point of order.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, my understanding is my friend, the 
chairman's objection is based on the principle of germaneness. The 
underlying bill, by its very title, purports to protect Americans who 
have received a cancellation notice for a policy that they want to 
keep.
  Now, there is a disagreement here over how to protect those 
Americans. The underlying bill does not have requirements that State 
insurance commissioners act to protect those individuals. Our plan 
does. Our plan does.
  This is a disagreement over the means to protect American consumers. 
The underlying bill says we will trust the insurance industry. Our bill 
says, no, we will enforce the insurance laws.
  I would respectfully submit this does not rise to a difference in 
germaneness. This is a difference of opinion. The bill on the floor 
purports to protect the Americans that I talked about. We think it 
doesn't. Our plan does protect those Americans in a different way.
  The underlying subject matter of this bill is how do you protect 
Americans who wish to keep the insurance plan that they have. We 
believe we have a more effective way of doing that. The majority 
disagrees. The House deserves a vote on that. No technicality, no 
procedural nicety should deny us the chance to take a vote on whose 
plan is right. We should proceed with this vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to speak to the 
point of order?
  Seeing none, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The gentleman from Michigan makes a point of order that the 
instructions proposed in the motion to recommit offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey are not germane.
  Clause 7 of rule XVI, the germaneness rule, provides that no 
proposition on a subject different from that under consideration shall 
be admitted under color of amendment.
  The bill permits health insurance issuers that offered health 
insurance coverage in the individual market on January 1, 2013, to 
continue to make such coverage available for sale during 2014.
  The amendment proposed in the motion to recommit, in pertinent part, 
requires State insurance commissioners to examine notices of health 
insurance cancellations or conversions. It also addresses the 
regulation of health insurance rates. Specifically, the amendment 
delineates what would constitute inadequate notice of cancellation or 
conversions of health insurance coverage, and directs State insurance 
commissioners to investigate such cases of inadequate notice. 
Additionally, it permits the Secretary of Health and Human Services or 
the relevant State insurance regulator to take corrective actions if 
health insurance rates are determined to be excessive, unjustified, or 
unfairly discriminatory. Such corrective action may include the 
assessment of civil monetary penalties.
  The bill does not address any of these subject matters. Instead, it 
is confined to the subject matter of extending into 2014 the authority 
to offer health insurance coverage that was for sale on the individual 
market in 2013.
  The Chair finds that the amendment proposed in the motion to recommit 
goes beyond the subject matter of the underlying bill. It is therefore 
not germane. The point of order is sustained.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully appeal the ruling of the 
Chair.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Shall the decision of the 
Chair stand as the judgment of the House?
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to table the appeal of the ruling of 
the Chair.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to table.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on the motion to table will be followed by a 5-minute vote 
on passage of the bill, if arising without further proceedings in 
recommittal.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 229, 
nays 191, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 585]

                               YEAS--229

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--191

     Andrews
     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford

[[Page 17197]]


     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Becerra
     Campbell
     Gosar
     Granger
     Jones
     McCarthy (NY)
     Miller, George
     Rush
     Sires
     Tsongas

                              {time}  1307

  Messrs. GARAMENDI, DEUTCH, BLUMENAUER, OWENS, LARSEN of Washington, 
BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico, and Ms. WILSON of Florida changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. ROE of Tennessee, TERRY, JORDAN, BARTON, TIBERI, MURPHY of 
Pennsylvania, KING of New York, CANTOR, and McINTYRE changed their vote 
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to table was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. ANDREWS. I am opposed to the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Andrews moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3350 to the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Consumer Health Plan 
     Protection Act of 2013''.

     SEC. 2. MAINTAINING EXISTING COVERAGE.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any provision of the 
     Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (including any 
     amendment made by such Act or by the Health Care and 
     Education Reconciliation Act of 2010), in the case of health 
     insurance coverage offered by a health insurance issuer in 
     the individual market that is in effect for an individual as 
     of October 1, 2013, the issuer may continue such coverage for 
     such individual for a plan year beginning in 2014 in such 
     market outside of an Exchange established under section 1311 
     or 1321 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 18031, 18041).
       (b) Treatment as Grandfathered Health Plan in Satisfaction 
     of Minimum Essential Coverage.--Health insurance coverage 
     described in subsection (a) shall be treated as a 
     grandfathered health plan for purposes of the amendment made 
     by section 1501(b) of the Patient Protection and Affordable 
     Care Act.
       (c) Notice.--As a condition for a health insurance issuer 
     to continue health insurance coverage under subsection (a), 
     the issuer shall provide for notice to each individual to be 
     offered such continued coverage (and for other individuals 
     covered under health insurance coverage offered by such 
     issuer for whom such continued coverage is not offered) 
     prompt notice of the following:
       (1) The health insurance coverage options available to the 
     individual through the Marketplace under the Patient 
     Protection and Affordable Care Act and how to exercise such 
     options.
       (2) The premium and cost-sharing assistance available for 
     coverage obtained through such Marketplace.
       (3) The consumer protections provided under such Act that 
     are not provided under the continuing health insurance 
     coverage.
       (d) Construction Regarding Notices of Cancellation or 
     Conversion.--
       (1) In general.--Nothing in this section shall be construed 
     to prevent the Secretary of Health and Human Services from 
     requiring State insurance commissioners--
       (A) to investigate and take appropriate administrative or 
     other actions (such as the imposition of a fine) on cases of 
     inadequate notices of cancellations or conversions of health 
     insurance coverage in the individual market that take effect 
     on or after January 1, 2014; and
       (B) to submit to the Secretary reports on the 
     investigations and actions so taken.
       (2) Inadequate notice.--In this subection, a notice of the 
     cancellation or conversion of individual health insurance 
     coverage shall be treated as inadequate if the notice--
       (A) fails to contain information contained in subsection 
     (c);
       (B) fails to be transparent by inappropriately steering 
     individuals to more expensive plans provided by the 
     cancelling issuer; or
       (C) fails to otherwise comply with requirements of law.
       (e) Construction Regarding Protection Against 
     Discriminatory Rates.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed as preventing the Secretary or the relevant State 
     insurance commissioner or State regulator from taking 
     corrective actions to ensure that any excessive, unjustified, 
     or unfairly discriminatory rates for the continued coverage 
     offered under subsection (a) are corrected prior to renewal.
       (f) Construction Regarding Premium Protection.--Nothing in 
     this section shall be construed as preventing the Secretary 
     from using all available tools to ensure that Marketplace 
     premiums are not adversely affected by the operation of this 
     section.

  Mr. UPTON (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of 
order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes in support 
of his motion.
  Mr. ANDREWS. We come here as stewards of a very sacred trust--to look 
after the people that are the backbone of this country. We are having 
this debate this afternoon because we have all heard from men and women 
across this country who are very upset that an insurance policy that 
they want to keep has been canceled.

                              {time}  1315

  These constituents are very upset and very troubled, and we are 
brought here to work together to figure out a solution to that problem.
  What is the solution?
  First of all, they ought to have the ability to have their insurance 
companies offer them the policies for sale. Frankly, the underlying 
bill does that, and so does the plan that I am presenting.
  Secondly, there ought to be some way that the insurance companies are 
given some incentive at the very at least, direction, to sell the 
policy. It doesn't do you a whole lot of good to have the right to buy 
a policy that the insurance company is not selling, and this plan has 
some measures which make it more likely that insurance companies would 
do that.
  Thirdly, to solve that person's problem, we have to make sure that in 
solving his problem we are not creating another one; that by permitting 
these policies to be sold for another year, which this does, that we 
are not spiking the premiums of people in the exchange marketplaces or 
of people who get their insurance through work.
  I have heard a number of Members say that they want a chance for us 
to work together to solve this problem. Here is that chance because 
this plan does the three things that I just talked about, but this 
plan, I think, is different than the underlying bill because this is 
not a step to unravel the Affordable Care Act; it is a step to improve 
it--which is the fundamental question, and there are some other people 
whose stories ought to be told here this afternoon, too.
  There is a family this weekend that is having a social to raise money 
to pay the medical bills for their son or daughter who has cancer, 
because the insurance policy they thought they had stopped paying their 
son's or daughter's bills. Their voice should be heard. If you repeal 
the Affordable Care Act, their voice is silenced.
  There are women in this country who go to try to start a business. 
They try to buy an insurance policy, and they are told, We won't sell 
you one because you had children or you are a female or you had breast 
cancer 10 years ago. If you repeal the Affordable Care Act, her voice 
is silenced.
  Mr. Speaker, there are sons and daughters of Americans who are 22, 23

[[Page 17198]]

years old who didn't have health insurance before because they couldn't 
get that first full-time job who now have health insurance because they 
are on their moms' or dads' policies. If you repeal the Affordable Care 
Act, their voices will be silenced.
  There are senior citizens who used to run out of drug coverage, 
prescription coverage, around Labor Day because the Medicare doughnut 
hole popped up. Because of the Affordable Care Act, they are now able 
to buy their prescriptions at an affordable price and are now able to 
pay their prescription bills until the end of the year. If you repeal 
the Affordable Care Act, their voices are silenced.
  We come here this afternoon to solve the problem of Americans who 
want to keep their coverage but who have had it canceled. We want to 
work together to solve that problem. That is what this plan does.
  When we look at women being turned away because of preexisting 
conditions, we will not be silenced. When we look at 22-year-olds who 
will lose their coverage if you repeal the Affordable Care Act, we will 
not be silenced. When you look at seniors who will lose the ability to 
pay their prescription drugs if you repeal the ACA, we will not be 
silenced.
  We are here to solve problems, not to create them. If you want to 
work together in a way that improves this law, we are your able and 
willing partner, but if the intention is to unravel this protection for 
the American people, we will stand, we will speak, we will fight, and 
we will oppose every such effort.
  Vote ``yes'' for this motion and ``no'' on the underlying bill.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order and seek time in 
opposition to the motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The point of order is withdrawn.
  The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, the debate today on whether to support this 
bill comes down to a very simple question: Why not?
  If millions of Americans want the choice of keeping the insurance 
that they have, why not?
  If you believe Congress acting together, not the President acting 
unilaterally, should try to help people who have lost their coverage, 
why not?
  If you believe that ordinary Americans, not the Federal Government, 
should decide what their insurance plans look like, why not?
  We have a chance today to provide hope to millions of Americans who 
got that cancellation notice, hope that they can keep the insurance 
that they like, hope that they are going to have even more choices, and 
hope that they, not the Federal Government, can pick what their 
insurance plans actually look like.
  So let me be clear.
  Our bill, H.R. 3350, does not fix ObamaCare, the President's health 
care bill. It is only an attempt to help people harmed by this law. But 
if we can provide some relief to people from this disaster, why not?
  Let's defeat the motion to recommit and pass the underlying bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage.
  This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 187, 
nays 230, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 586]

                               YEAS--187

     Andrews
     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--230

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Becerra
     Butterfield
     Campbell
     Gosar
     Granger
     Green, Gene

[[Page 17199]]


     Jeffries
     Jones
     McCarthy (NY)
     Miller, George
     Rush
     Sires
     Tsongas

                              {time}  1327

  Mr. VEASEY changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  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. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 261, 
noes 157, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 587]

                               AYES--261

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bera (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duckworth
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Enyart
     Esty
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Kuster
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Maffei
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nolan
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schneider
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shea-Porter
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vela
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--157

     Andrews
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Bridenstine
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kirkpatrick
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Massie
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Moore
     Moran
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Becerra
     Campbell
     Cardenas
     Gosar
     Granger
     Green, Gene
     Jones
     McCarthy (NY)
     Miller, George
     Rush
     Sires
     Tsongas

                              {time}  1334

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 587--Final 
Passage. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, November 15, 2013, I was unable 
to cast my floor vote on rollcall votes. Had I been present for the 
votes, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote 587.


                          Personal Explanation

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably 
detained due to official business in California today and missed roll 
Nos. 583 through 587. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on 
roll No. 586. I would have voted ``nay'' on roll Nos. 583, 584, 585, 
and 587.

                          ____________________