NO SUBSIDIES WITHOUT VERIFICATION ACT; Congressional Record Vol. 159, No. 120
(House of Representatives - September 12, 2013)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.


[Pages H5517-H5529]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 NO SUBSIDIES WITHOUT VERIFICATION ACT

  Mrs. ELLMERS. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 339, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 2775) to condition the provision of premium and cost-
sharing subsidies under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 
upon a certification that a program to verify household income and 
other qualifications for such subsidies is operational, and for other 
purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 339, the 
amendment printed in House Report 113-206 is adopted, and the bill, as 
amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 2775

       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 ``No Subsidies Without 
     Verification Act''.

     SEC. 2. CONDITIONING PROVISION OF ACA PREMIUM AND COST-
                   SHARING SUBSIDIES UPON CERTIFICATION THAT A 
                   PROGRAM TO VERIFY HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND OTHER 
                   QUALIFICATIONS FOR THOSE SUBSIDIES IS 
                   OPERATIONAL.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no premium tax 
     credits shall be allowed under section 36B of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 and no reductions in cost-sharing shall 
     be allowed under section 1402 of the Patient Protection and 
     Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18071) before the date that 
     the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human 
     Services certifies to the Congress that there is in place a 
     program that successfully and consistently verifies, 
     consistent with section 1411 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 18081), 
     the household income and coverage requirements of individuals 
     applying for such credits and cost-sharing reductions prior 
     to making the benefits available.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour with 
40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and 20 minutes 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 
by the Committee on Ways and Means.
  The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Ellmers) and the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 20 minutes. The 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Levin) each will control 10 minutes.


                             General Leave

  Mrs. ELLMERS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to 
include extraneous materials on H.R. 2275.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. ELLMERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise today to speak about the economic disaster facing all 
Americans on October 1.
  Nearly 3 years ago, I decided to run for office for one primary 
reason: to defeat and repeal Obamacare. Three years later, this 
terrible law is set to be implemented and the dire warnings and 
predictions are already coming true.
  This past summer alone, we saw three major delays in the law's 
implementation--from the employee mandate to consumer price caps to the 
issue we are debating here today.
  Congresswoman Black's bill, H.R. 2775, the No Subsidies Without 
Verification Act, is a first step at attacking the latter.
  The premise of this bill is quite simple. Serving as the stewards of 
taxpayer dollars is one of our most important jobs as Members of 
Congress. After all, dollars wasted by Congress or improperly spent by 
the executive branch has a direct impact on the budgets of families 
across this country who are struggling to pay their bills.
  This is why I was appalled by this summer's announcement by the 
Department of Health and Human Services. In the 600-page rule issued 
during the July 4 holiday, HHS stated that they would no longer verify 
income for ObamaCare subsidies. Instead, the Obama administration would 
now rely on self-attestation and sample audits when launching the 
ObamaCare exchange subsidy program--an initiative that is estimated to 
cost over $1 trillion over the next decade.
  After receiving criticism, HHS announced that they would reverse 
course and extend audits to all applicants. Yet, to this date, the 
administration has issued no formal change in the rule to codify this 
policy. In other words, they are saying one thing and doing another.
  As it stands today, the rule issued by HHS reads:

       The exchange may accept the applicant's attestation without 
     further verification.

  And yet, while verification has been removed, the fines remain in 
place. Any applicant who enters information improperly could possibly 
face a $25,000 fine. If the mistake is knowing and willful, the fine 
could grow as high as $250,000.
  As Ronald Reagan famously said, ``trust, but verify.'' If history is 
any guide, these claims of accountability will be disregarded unless 
oversight is enforced.
  This only reinforces the need for the No Subsidies Without 
Verification Act. The bill would simply require certification systems 
to be in place so that the administrators can successfully and 
consistently verify eligibility before any premiums and cost-sharing 
credits are paid out.
  Similar language was adopted by the Senate, but the bill before us 
would implement a bipartisan consensus and protect taxpayer dollars. It 
would do so by requiring the inspector general of HHS to certify that 
income verification is in place before precious taxpayer dollars are 
wasted and abused.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 2775, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The bill before us today is nothing more than another page out of the 
Republican playbook to delay, derail, and otherwise repeal the 
Affordable Care Act. Rather than a productive, bipartisan effort to 
ensure successful implementation, Republicans will instead waste more 
precious floor time to take their 41st vote that undermines and repeals 
the Affordable Care Act.
  H.R. 2775 is based on a flawed premise that HHS does not have the 
verifications in place to ensure that families who are getting 
financial help are eligible for that help.
  But my Republican friends, that's simply not true, and your bill will 
do nothing but prevent millions of hardworking American families from 
gaining Affordable Care Act coverage.

  First and foremost, this bill is totally unnecessary. HHS already has

[[Page H5518]]

stated in regulations that they will check and verify income on 100 
percent of the applications. If someone receives payments that they 
determine aren't substantiated, those payments will have to be paid 
back--100 percent verified and reconciled.
  Here is how it works. To get subsidies to make their health insurance 
affordable, hardworking Americans and families will submit their 
projected annual household income through the marketplaces. The data 
will then be checked against IRS data, Social Security data, and 
current wage information. If there is an inconsistency, the 
marketplaces will require additional documentation from applicants.
  In addition, marketplaces will check employer coverage information 
from the applicant and their employer against data from a number of 
employer data sources approved by HHS to verify eligibility for the 
subsidies. If applicant information and other data do not match, the 
marketplaces will ask for further supporting documentation.
  And lastly, all payments of premium tax credits are reconciled by IRS 
the following year. The income data submitted to the marketplaces are 
reconciled against the actual wages and health-covered information on 
the individual's income tax return. If there is an inconsistency, the 
applicant pays back the excess.
  Let me repeat that part, that last part, Madam Speaker, because it is 
the most critical. Even after HHS has verified wage information on each 
individual situation that arises before tax credits are sent out, the 
income information will still be doublechecked again against actual 
wages on the individual's income tax return the following year. So if 
there is an inconsistency, the applicant pays back the excess. There 
is, again, 100 percent income verification and reconciliation on the 
back end.
  Madam Speaker, both CBO and JCT, the Joint Committee on Taxation, 
confirmed this, stating that the program HHS has in place satisfies the 
certification requirements under section 1411 of the law--proving, 
again, that this bill is simply irrelevant.
  But, of course, in light of this report, our Republicans at the 
twelfth hour have hastily amended the bill. The new language will 
basically ask the IG of HHS to formally certify these verification 
systems, which does nothing but delay the start of the law and deny 
millions of hardworking Americans from getting the tax credits they're 
clearly eligible for.
  I maintained in Rules last night, and I'll maintain again, this is 
not the responsibility of the inspector general. The inspector general 
doesn't do this. They probably can't do this.
  The IG's office has confirmed these implications by stating that this 
new language places unworkable requirements on their office and that it 
has no resources to perform this and that it is outside of its 
traditional role. The Republicans know very well all of this, and 
that's the exact reason they made this change. It's simply a delay 
tactic.

                              {time}  0930

  Again, the IG won't be able to do this. This is not its traditional 
role. So the only thing that happens here, Madam Speaker, is that this 
is a legislation which, of course, will never pass; but if it did pass 
and got signed by the President, which would never happen, it would 
simply delay the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, and that's 
what the Republicans want. Repeal, delay, defund--this is what they're 
all about. It's the 41st vote, again, to repeal the Affordable Care 
Act.
  Madam Speaker, we are 20 days away from October 1, when millions of 
uninsured Americans will finally get access to quality, affordable 
health care. No longer will hardworking families worry about getting 
sick or injured or losing coverage because of the loss of a job, 
because the Affordable Care Act gives health security and peace of 
mind. For those hardworking families who need additional tools to help 
them afford their health coverage, the ACA will help make coverage a 
reality.
  So despite the delay tactics in this bill and the millions of hours 
and dollars spent to derail the ACA, the law is moving forward. 
Organizations across this country, including labor, small businesses, 
employers, health care providers, advocates, religious leaders, and 
others, will continue to focus on helping uninsured Americans gain 
access to health care.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. It is, again, an 
unnecessary delay; but I at least am optimistic in knowing that the ACA 
will move forward and that the Republicans will not have success.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. ELLMERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce 
Health Subcommittee.
  Mr. PITTS. I rise in support of H.R. 2775, and I commend the 
gentlelady, Congresswoman Black, and also Congresswoman Ellmers for 
their leadership on this issue.
  Madam Speaker, earlier this year, we found out that the IRS flagged 
for further review 90 percent of Americans who claimed the adoption tax 
credit, and 70 percent of the adoptive families faced at least a 
partial audit. Only a minuscule percentage of the tax credits given to 
those families were disallowed. Many needy families saw their returns 
delayed for months. We also found out this year that hundreds of 
conservative nonprofits had their applications for tax-exempt status 
delayed for months and years by IRS agents.
  Ask millions of small business owners who have spent hours laboring 
over tax returns--the government doesn't typically operate by the honor 
system, but when it comes to doling out billions of dollars in new 
ObamaCare subsidies, the government is just going to accept 
applications without question, on the honor system.
  This is all in the interest of getting ObamaCare up and running as 
soon as possible without any regard to potential fraud, and it's after 
the old ``pay and chase'' model. We are entrusted with protecting 
taxpayer dollars, not watching them go out to people who don't need 
them. If the Treasury Department can't figure out how to prevent fraud, 
then subsidies shouldn't be going out the door. And if the tax subsidy 
is overpaid to the insurance companies for the tax credits for 
individuals, guess who pays back the overpayment? It's not the 
insurance companies. It comes out of the individual's pocket.
  I'm sure I won't be the only person on the floor today to recall 
President Reagan's words of ``trust, but verify.'' The byword for 
ObamaCare is just simply ``trust.'' The Obama administration doesn't 
trust adoptive parents or conservative nonprofits or small businesses; 
but for the purpose of getting the President's signature legislation up 
and running, they are perfectly willing to see taxpayers get fleeced. 
This is simply wrong. We need to demand that the administration follow 
the law. ObamaCare was such a landmark piece of legislation. Why does 
it have to be ignored at every turn?
  I urge Members to support the bill.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield), a member of our committee.
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you very much, Mr. Pallone, for yielding time 
this morning, and thank you for your extraordinary leadership on our 
committee and for giving affordable health care to every American.
  Madam Speaker, I rise this morning to oppose H.R. 2775. This bill, if 
passed by the House and passed by the Senate and signed by the 
President, which I would say is highly unlikely, would require the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services to certify to Congress that an 
income verification system is in place before any subsidies can be 
distributed for individuals to purchase health insurance through the 
marketplace.
  Here you go again--repeal effort No. 41.
  The Republican majority is obsessed with discrediting the President 
of the United States by using every procedural maneuver imaginable to 
weaken this law, which was passed by the Congress and upheld by the 
United States Supreme Court.

  I invite my Republican colleagues to read a report published by the 
Congressional Budget Office, which states that HHS already has in place 
sufficient safeguards for distributing subsidies to assist uninsured 
Americans with the purchase of insurance.

[[Page H5519]]

  This is not an honor system, Mr. Pitts. It is written into the law, 
and the Congressional Budget Office recognizes that we do have in place 
a system to verify the incomes.
  Madam Speaker, I am still fuming about the 15 Republicans on the 
Energy and Commerce Committee who on August 29 sent a multi-page 
investigatory letter to 51 community nonprofits that have been approved 
to receive navigator grants to assist the uninsured with the process. I 
simply do not understand how the chairman of a committee and a few 
like-minded committee members can author a letter to grant recipients, 
demanding that they answer questions and produce documents. I suggest 
that this letter exceeds the authority of these individuals to harass 
and to intimidate grant recipients.
  I urge the Republican majority to stop trying to discredit President 
Obama. Stop trying to defund and repeal the Affordable Care Act. It is 
the law of the land. Millions of Americans are benefiting from it today 
and will be in the future. You should be using this creativity and 
energy expended this morning to pass a budget and lift the sequester, 
which is hurting families and communities all across America.
  My friends, get serious; and let's stop playing games with the 
American people.
  Mrs. ELLMERS. I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Tennessee 
(Mrs. Blackburn), the vice chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentlelady.
  Madam Speaker, I want to commend Mrs. Black, my colleague from 
Tennessee. She has done a tremendous job in bringing this legislation 
forward, and she brings it forward because of the experience we have 
had in Tennessee with a program that was called TennCare, which had no 
verification. It became ``just in time'' insurance, and guess what? It 
became too expensive to afford. When you do not exercise appropriate 
oversight and verification, that is what happens--you incentivize the 
use. Those who really do not qualify come into the program. Indeed, we 
had a Governor--a Democrat Governor by the way--who removed about 
300,000 individuals from this program.
  I am pleased that as we discuss and stand in support of H.R. 2775 
that my colleagues across the aisle are getting our message. When it 
comes to ObamaCare, yes, delay, defund, repeal, replace. That is 
exactly what we want to do because this law has become so amazingly 
unpopular with the American people and, indeed, with women. Over 65 
percent of all American women oppose this law and the implementation of 
this law.
  The reason we are bringing this legislation forward is that there is 
a gaping hole. We know that having self-attestation for getting these 
taxpayer subsidies in these exchanges is going to lead to an incredible 
amount of fraud. We are even having estimates of as much as $250 
billion worth of fraud, which could be going into this program. We're 
not acting on theory. We're looking at what has previously happened 
with programs such as TennCare. Indeed, my colleague from New Jersey 
has heard me talk about this for years, and he knows that when we look 
at something that is public option health care that that is the public 
option from which we draw our experience.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps), who is a long-time supporter and person in the 
mix on health care, certainly as a nurse and as a health care 
professional.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, my friend from New Jersey.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. Our Nation 
is facing a host of challenges: we need to end the sequester; we need 
to fund our government properly to avoid a shutdown; we need to 
increase the deficit limit so that we can pay our bills and maintain a 
strong credit rating; and we must have a full and open debate about 
what to do in response to chemical weapons being used in Syria.
  But instead of any of these pressing issues, here we are again, at 
the insistence of the House majority, voting for the 41st time to 
repeal, defund, obstruct, or derail the Affordable Care Act; and they 
want to do so as more and more Americans, including my constituents on 
the central coast of California, are now beginning to benefit from the 
law.
  Already 11,000 young adults in my district have gained health care 
insurance coverage under their parents' plans, allowing them to pursue 
their education or to start new ventures without the fear of going 
bankrupt if they should get sick. Almost 300,000 of my constituents are 
now able to get the preventative health services they need without 
worrying about the cost, and 10,000 seniors have already found relief 
when falling into the dreaded prescription drug doughnut hole in 
Medicare; and in less than 1 month, California families who for so long 
have been priced out or denied coverage in the private health insurance 
market will finally get the coverage they want and deserve.
  Throughout the program--we call it Covered California Exchange--along 
with health care at marketplaces all across this country, individuals, 
families and small businesses will gain a transparent, one-stop shop to 
compare health insurance policies. They will also be able to receive 
financial assistance and to sign up for high-quality, affordable, and 
secure insurance coverage; and they won't have to worry about being 
denied coverage for their preexisting conditions. Yet this bill before 
us would erode all of these benefits, essentially blocking hardworking 
families from getting the affordable health insurance coverage they 
need.
  The American people have moved on. They want us to come together to 
improve our Nation, not to divide it. So I urge my colleagues to vote 
``no'' on this bill. Let's get to work on the many critical issues 
facing our Nation.
  Mrs. ELLMERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from 
Washington, Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers, the chair of our Republican 
Conference.
  Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. I thank the gentlelady.
  Madam Speaker, in less than a month, enrollment for ObamaCare's 
largest entitlement program will begin. Subsidies will go out the door 
on January 1, and they will go to anyone who claims he is eligible--no 
verification, no accountability. The GAO and the Inspectors General for 
both Health and Human Services and the IRS have told us that the 
administration's verification system is extremely vulnerable to fraud, 
but the picture gets worse.
  In 2012 alone, Health and Human Services gave out more than $64 
billion in improper payments. In fact, the Department of Health and 
Human Services, the agency charged with implementing these exchanges, 
has the highest annual improper payment rate among Federal agencies. 
The Department of the Treasury, which is responsible for enforcing 47 
different tax provisions, is second only to Health and Human Services. 
The Wall Street Journal recently reported that not verifying 
eligibility could cost taxpayers more than $250 billion in improper 
payments. Yet the administration doesn't seem to care.
  Over the last several months, we've seen the wheels falling off--the 
delay in the employer mandate, the delay in the consumer cost 
containment rule, the delay in the finalizing of agreements with 
insurance plans, and now this delay in ensuring that the verification 
mechanisms are in place to protect taxpayers. This administration has 
made one thing clear, that it will stop at nothing to ensure that 7 
million people are enrolled in exchanges in 2014--2.7 million of whom 
must be young in order to make it work--and that subsidies are handed 
out to as many Americans as possible.

                              {time}  0945

  The administration's decision to allow enrollees to self-attest to 
the information provided to the exchanges is not only irresponsible, 
but ripe for fraud. The only real solution is the passage of H.R. 2775, 
and I urge our colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, this is sort of a charade that's going 
on today. Our Republican friends allow, for example, businesses to 
self-certify in a whole range of other areas. This is not about that. 
What this is, is another attempt to sabotage health care reform.

[[Page H5520]]

  America is involved in a grand reform. Some of us are in States like 
Oregon, California, Washington, New York, and Maryland where we're 
actually working to implement the reform, and our citizens are going to 
have lower rates, more choices, and subsidies for individuals and small 
businesses for better coverage.
  In other parts of the country some of our Republican friends have 
decided to sabotage implementation. Customers won't get extra help in 
Alabama, Oklahoma, Texas, or Wyoming, where insurance commissioners 
won't even review health plans to make sure that they're offered in the 
new marketplaces to provide consumers with required benefits and 
protections. In Missouri, believe it or not, the Republican legislature 
has made it illegal for new health insurance marketplaces for State 
employees to tell people what they're eligible for. Today, this is one 
more effort to throw sand in the gears.
  The response from Republicans, who have no vision for health care, 
refuses to acknowledge that what we are working on now and what they 
derisively call ObamaCare, actually had its roots in a bipartisan 
consensus of what's necessary to get more value out of American health 
care.
  The health care reform train has left the station. We should simply 
reject today this misguided attempt to sabotage it. Americans from 
coast to coast will be able to see the difference in communities that 
are embracing it and implementing it versus those that are trying to 
sabotage it.
  In the course of the next 2 years, the facts will be clear. 
Mercifully, what the House is going to pass today is not going to be 
enacted into law, and the rest of us can get to work implementing 
reform.
  Mrs. ELLMERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds just to 
outline some of the things that have already been repealed in 
ObamaCare.
  As a consequence of Congress passing ObamaCare to find out what is in 
it, we have found some terrible ideas in the law. To date, the 
President has actually signed into law seven bipartisan bills repealing 
or defunding parts of the health care law. H.R. 4 repealed the small 
business paperwork mandate, or the 1099. H.R. 1473 cut $2.2 billion 
from a stealth public plan and froze the IRS budget. H.R. 674 saved 
taxpayers $13 billion by adjusting eligibility for ObamaCare programs. 
H.R. 2055 made more cuts to CO-OPs, IPAB, and the IRS. H.R. 3630 
slashed billions from ObamaCare slush funds. I could go on, Madam 
Chairwoman.
  Now I would like to yield 2 minutes to my colleague from 
Pennsylvania, Congressman Pat Meehan.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the No 
Subsidies Without Verification Act, legislation of which I'm a proud 
cosponsor. October 1 is only days away, and almost every day we see a 
brand new headline about ObamaCare, demonstrating the ``train wreck,'' 
as one Senator put it. Those are their words, not mine.
  The thousands of rules, regulations, and mandates are only increasing 
the cost of health insurance and dramatically expanding the bureaucracy 
in our health care. And the implementation of ObamaCare has been one 
disaster after another.
  Buried in the hundreds of pages of regulations that have been 
released this summer was a rule change announcing that the government 
will no longer verify whether applicants for ObamaCare's insurance 
exchange are actually qualified for the aid. Instead, they will simply 
rely on the honor system.
  Madam Speaker, we're talking about billions of dollars here. How can 
we possibly be relying on an honor system? According to The Wall Street 
Journal, it's estimated that not verifying the eligibility could result 
in approximately $250 billion in fraudulent payments.
  The No Subsidies Without Verification Act will stop any taxpayer 
funding subsidies until an accurate real-time verification system is in 
place to ensure the applicants are indeed eligible. It seems like 
common sense to me. We need a trusted system in place to stop any 
waste, fraud, and abuse resulting from not verifying eligibility for 
ObamaCare insurance subsidies.
  This is being operated through a data hub, which will have millions 
of persons' personally identifying information. Of most concern, this 
is going to be a honeypot for identity theft and the very purpose for 
which it was put in place in the first place. This income verification 
is not capable of being accurately done because this administration has 
refused to allow the businesses who will give the information to apply.
  I am a proud cosponsor, and I urge passage of this bill.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New 
Jersey.
  I rise today to ask an incredulous question of how many times do we 
have to say, ``No,'' and how many times do the American people have to 
say, ``Take your hands off my good Affordable Care Act'' that has 
allowed millions of Americans to have preventible care that is being 
poised to attack the scandalous high percentage of uninsured in the 
State of Texas, being the number one State with uninsured persons? How 
many times?
  First of all, this bill is frivolous. The reason is because there is 
a construct in the Affordable Care Act to deal with all of the 
questions that they've asked. First of all, it will require that 
individuals will have to submit their projected annual household 
income. All income data submitted through the marketplace will then be 
checked against IRS data, Social Security data, current wage 
information. If there is inconsistency, the marketplace will require 
additional documentation. In addition, marketplaces will check employer 
coverage information from the applicant and their employer against 
data, OPM, and the SHOP Marketplaces, as well as other data sources.
  It is absolutely absurd for this bill to place more responsibilities 
on an already sequestered government. If my colleagues want to do 
anything to provide any substance to what they're talking about, let's 
put a bill on the floor to end sequestration. There's no resources that 
would add to the inspector general's ability to do all that they said.
  Let me add further insult to injury, and I want my constituents to 
listen closely. $67 million was given to navigators to provide the kind 
of oversight and construction that these individuals on this bill have 
suggested they need. What I find appalling and what I've not seen in my 
tenure in Congress is the number of Members on the Energy and Commerce 
Committee that have sent a letter to the 51 navigators governed by 
Health and Human Services to require them to send information.
  I want my navigator that received a grant from HHS to refuse to do 
anything with that letter, and I'm going to ask the Secretary of HHS to 
reject this letter that has no authority in law. Again, it is trying to 
abuse and reject the idea of the Affordable Care Act.
  This bill should go down, and don't answer the letter. This is a bad 
way to deal with health care in America.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2775, the so-
called ``No Subsidies Without Verification Act.'' I oppose this 
unnecessary and dilatory legislation which imposes unnecessary and 
burdensome conditions on the ability of Americans to utilize the tax 
credits provided by the Affordable Care Act which will enable them to 
purchase affordable health insurance for themselves and their families.
  This is the 41st attempt by House Republicans to repeal, delay, or 
undermine effective implementation of the Affordable Care Act.
  Even though the Affordable Care Act, which has been upheld by the 
Supreme Court and is here to stay, House Republicans refuse to abandon 
their quixotic quest to derail a law that will bring peace of mind to 
millions of Americans and reduce the deficit by $1 trillion.
  Their latest attempt is the bill before us which prohibits any health 
insurance premium tax credits from being provided until the HHS 
Inspector General Office certifies there is a program in place that 
``successfully and consistently verifies'' household income and 
coverage requirements for those applying for these credits.
  This bill, H.R. 2775, is unnecessary because HHS already has a strong 
income verification system in place, as confirmed by CBO. The only 
purpose of this legislation is to hinder the implementation of the 
Affordable Care Act.
  The impact of the enactment of this GOP bill would be an 
unconscionable delay in obtaining health insurance for more than 25.7 
million Americans, 22.7 million of whom are members of working class 
families.
  The new requirement imposed by the irresponsible bill before us would 
delay millions of

[[Page H5521]]

our hard-working constituents from getting the premium tax credits they 
are clearly eligible for beginning on January 1, 2014.
  Madam Speaker, Americans do not have to be told that justice delayed 
is justice denied!
  Under current law, to receive the premium tax credits to make their 
health insurance affordable, individuals will have to submit their 
projected annual household income. All income data submitted through 
the Marketplaces will then be checked against IRS data, Social Security 
data, and current wage information. If there is an inconsistency, the 
Marketplaces will require additional documentation from applicants.
  In addition, Marketplaces will check employer coverage information 
from the applicant and their employer against data from OPM and the 
SHOP Marketplaces as well as other data sources approved by HHS to 
verify eligibility for the tax credits. If applicant information and 
other data do not match, the Marketplaces will ask for further 
supporting documentation.
  Further, all payments of premium tax credits are reconciled by IRS 
the following year. The income data submitted is reconciled against the 
actual wages and health coverage information on the individual's income 
tax return. If there is an inconsistency, the applicant pays back the 
excess, subject to statutory limit and there is 100 percent income 
verification and reconciliation on this back-end.
  In sum, there are ample existing safeguards to ensure that premium 
tax credits are available only to those eligible to receive them.
  Madam Speaker, after the sobering events of the last week, regarding 
war and peace, I would hope all my colleagues would take into 
consideration the importance of using our limited legislative time more 
wisely.
  We should be addressing the need to eliminate sequestration, raising 
the debt ceiling and passing the jobs bill in order to repair 
infrastructure. But instead House Republicans continue to repeal, 
delay, or undermine the Affordable Care Act. Instead of wasting time on 
these time-consuming but futile efforts, our friends across the aisle 
should join with their Democratic colleagues to work together to create 
jobs and educational opportunities for our people.
  Moreover, the Affordable Care Act is working and my constituents--and 
those of my colleagues--are benefiting from this landmark legislation.
  Many of those most in need of the healthcare coverage provided by the 
Affordable Care Act live in the districts of many members on both sides 
of this argument. My home state of Texas leads the list of states with 
the highest percentages of uninsured residents. The states with the 
highest percentage of uninsured are:
  1. Texas: 28.8%.
  2. Louisiana: 24%.
  3. Nevada: 23.3%.
  4. California: 23.2%.
  5. Florida: 22.8%.
  6. Georgia: 22.5%.
  7. Arkansas: 21.9%.
  8. Mississippi: 21.7%.
  9. Oklahoma: 21.4%.
  The highest concentration of the uninsured is the poor. The 
Affordable Care Act provides at no or nearly no cost to states an 
option to enroll those living in or near poverty into their Medicaid 
program, which would benefit my state of Texas tremendously if the 
Governor can be persuaded to follow the example of his Republican 
counterparts and accept a deal of a lifetime.
  I cannot understand the continued refusal by House Republicans to 
accept the Affordable Care Act, which is now the law of the land and is 
modeled after the plan put in place in Massachusetts by the nominee of 
their party in the last presidential election.
  Instead of focusing on the issues that the American people want 
addressed, we are having the same discussion to repeal the Affordable 
Care Act in efforts of my colleagues to repeal, obstruct and undermine 
this law.
  What is even more frustrating is that while there is so much energy 
in trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act, there has been no plan or 
suggestions posed on how to replace it.
  Additionally, I oppose this misguided legislation because the 
Affordable Care Act is working for America and for my constituents in 
the 18th Congressional District of Texas. Let me count the ways:
  13 million Americans benefited from $1.1 billion in rebates sent to 
them from their health insurance companies last year.
  105 million Americans have access to free preventive services, 
including 71 million Americans in private plans and 34 million seniors 
on Medicare.
  Millions of women began receiving free coverage for comprehensive 
women's preventive services in August 2012.
  100 million Americans no longer have a life-time limit on healthcare 
coverage.
  Nearly 17 million children with pre-existing conditions can no longer 
be denied coverage by insurers.
  6.6 million young-adults up to age 26 have health insurance through 
their parents' plan, half of whom would be uninsured without this 
coverage.
  6.3 million Seniors in the `donut hole' have already saved $6.1 
billion on their prescription drugs.
  3.2 million Seniors have access to free annual wellness visits under 
Medicare, and
  360,000 small employers have already taken advantage of the Small 
Business Health Care Tax Credit to provide health insurance to 2 
million workers.
  Because of the Affordable Care Act 3.8 million people in Texas--
including 2.2 million seniors on Medicare now receive preventative care 
services. Over 7 million Texans no longer have to fear lifetime limits 
on their healthcare insurance. Texas parents of 300,731 young adults 
can sleep easier at night knowing that their children can remain on 
their health insurance until age 26.
  The protection provided by this law is a guarantee to 5 million Texas 
residents that their insurance companies will spend 8o percent of their 
premium dollars on healthcare, or customers will get a rebate from 
their insurance company.
  In my state, there are 4,029 people who had no insurance because of 
pre-existing conditions, but today the Affordable Care Act has provided 
them with access to coverage. The Affordable Care Act means that many 
Texans are free of worry about having access to healthcare insurance.
  The Affordable Care Act has helped my constituents in the 18th 
Congressional District of Texas tremendously. Because of the Affordable 
Care Act:
  11,400 young adults in the district now have health insurance through 
their parents' plan;
  Over 4,100 seniors in the district received prescription drug 
discounts worth $5.4 million, an average discount of $600 per person in 
2011, $650 in 2012, and $1,040 thus far in 2013;
  71,000 seniors in the district are now eligible for Medicare 
preventive services without paying any co-pays, coinsurance, or 
deductible;
  121,000 individuals in the district--including 23,000 children and 
50,000 women--now have health insurance that covers preventive services 
without any co-pays, coinsurance, or deductible;
  113,000 individuals in the district are saving money due to ACA 
provisions that prevent insurance companies from spending more than 20 
percent of their premiums on profits and administrative overhead. 
Because of these protections;
  Over 31,100 consumers in the district received approximately $4.4 
million in insurance company rebates in 2012 and 2011--an average 
rebate of $95 per family in 2012 and $187 per family in 2011;
  Up to 46,000 children in the district with preexisting health 
conditions can no longer be denied coverage by health insurers;
  153,000 individuals in the district now have insurance that cannot 
place lifetime limits on their coverage and will not face annual limits 
on coverage starting in 2014;
  Up to 193,000 individuals in the district who lack health insurance 
will have access to quality, affordable coverage without fear of 
discrimination or higher rates because of a preexisting health 
condition; and
  The 17,000 individuals who currently purchase private health 
insurance on the individual or small group market will have access to 
more secure, higher quality coverage and many will be eligible for 
financial assistance.
  However, the list of benefits from the Affordable Care Act is not 
complete. In 2014, when the Affordable Care Act's final provisions will 
become effective, insurance companies will be banned from: 
discriminating against anyone with a pre-existing condition; charging 
higher rates based on gender or health status; enforcing lifetime 
dollar limits; and enforcing annual dollar limits on health benefits.
  In 2014, access to affordable healthcare for the self employed or 
those who decide to purchase their own coverage will be easier because 
of Affordable Insurance Exchanges. There will be a one-stop marketplace 
where consumers can do what Federal employees have done for decades--
purchase insurance at reasonable rates from an insurer of their choice. 
This will ensure that health care consumers get the care that they need 
from the medical professionals they trust most at a price they can 
afford.
  This Congress has work that needs to be done, and it is work that 
should be taken up to restore workers, their families, and communities 
to sound economic health. We do not have time time for partisan 
political games that do not advance the interests of the American 
people.
  With less than 20 days before enrollment in the Marketplaces begins, 
the last thing we should be doing is considering legislation that 
serves no purpose other than to delay affordable health care coverage 
to millions of Americans who need and deserve the security and peace of 
mind such coverage brings.

[[Page H5522]]

  I urge my Colleagues to put partisan politics aside and join me in 
voting no on the passage of this bill.
  Thank you, Madam Speaker.

                                          House of Representatives


                             Committee on Energy and Commerce,

                                  Washington, DC, August 29, 2013.
       Dear ------: Pursuant to Rules X and XI of the United 
     States House of Representatives, the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce is examining the role Navigators will play in 
     efforts to enroll individuals in health insurance exchanges 
     under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).
       On August 15, 2013, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 
     Services (CMS) awarded $67 million in Navigator Cooperative 
     Agreements to entities that will assist consumers in 
     preparing electronic and paper applications to establish 
     eligibility and enroll in coverage through the PPACA 
     marketplaces. Your organization was identified as a recipient 
     of a Navigator grant by the Center for Consumer Information 
     and Insurance Oversight (CCIIO).\1\
       In order to better understand the work you will perform as 
     a Navigator and the consumer protections that will be in 
     place before open enrollment begins on October 1, 2013, we 
     ask that you contact Committee staff to schedule a briefing 
     to occur no later than September 13, 2013, to discuss your 
     participation as a Navigator in the health insurance 
     exchanges. We also ask that you provide written answers to 
     the following questions and produce the materials requested 
     no later than September 13, 2013:
       1. Provide a written description of the work that will be 
     performed with the funds obtained via your Navigator grant. 
     This would include a description of the number of employees, 
     volunteers, or representatives that will be utilized and the 
     pay and duties for each, as well as a written description of 
     how any other portion of the grant may be spent. If a budget 
     or detailed description of how this funding will be utilized 
     exists or will be created, provide these documents in 
     addition to the written response requested.
       2. Provide a written description of the training or 
     education employees, volunteers, or representatives must 
     complete, including training or education required by the 
     Department of Health and Human Services (HMS), CMS, CCIIO, or 
     any other federal or state entity. Provide a written 
     description of any training or educational efforts employees, 
     volunteers, or representatives must complete that are 
     required by your organization beyond that required by any 
     federal or state entity. Provide copies of these materials.
       3. Provide a written description of the processes and 
     procedures in place to monitor, review, or otherwise 
     supervise your employees, volunteers, or representatives. If 
     documentation of these standards exists or will be created, 
     provide these documents in addition to the written response 
     requested.
       4. Provide a written description of how your organization 
     will utilize the information obtained during performance of 
     your Navigator grant. This would include, but is not limited 
     to, descriptions of the measures your organization will take 
     to safeguard an individual's personal and medical 
     information. Furthermore, provide a written description of 
     whether your organization may use any of the information 
     obtained during performance of your Navigator grant, 
     including any prohibitions on the use of that information. 
     For example, please provide a written description of whether 
     your organization may contact individuals who have utilized 
     your services as a Navigator for the purposes of fundraising, 
     voter registration efforts, campaign activities, or any other 
     reason.
       5. Provide a written description of whether your 
     organization has been contacted by any health insurance 
     company or health care provider to discuss your Navigator 
     grant. This would include, but is not limited to, discussions 
     of supporting your organization in any way or promoting the 
     health insurance company or health care provider to 
     individuals your organization may contact.
       6. Provide all documentation and communications related to 
     your Navigator grant. This would include, but is not limited 
     to, materials your organization submitted in order to obtain 
     the grant, materials provided to your organization upon 
     obtaining the grant, and communications between your 
     organization and representatives from HHS, CMS, CCIIO or any 
     other federal or state entity. This request also includes, 
     but is not limited to, any documents provided by (or 
     communications with), representatives from HHS, CMS, CCIIO, 
     Enroll America, or any other entity including federal or 
     state governments discussing individuals to target or solicit 
     for enrollment under the PPACA, including discussions or 
     documents related to geographic area.
       Instructions for responding to the Committee's document 
     request are included as an attachment to this letter. Thank 
     you for your prompt attention to this matter. If you have 
     questions or wish to discuss your responses or production, 
     please contact Karen Christian or Sean Hayes.
           Sincerely,
         Fred Upton, Chairman; Tim Murphy, Chairman, Marsha 
           Blackburn, Vice Chairman; Phil Gingrey; Gregg Harper; 
           Cory Gardner; Joe Barton, Chairman Emeritus; Joseph R. 
           Pitts, Chairman, Subcommittee on Health; Michael C. 
           Burgess, Vice Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight and 
           Investigations; Steve Scalise; Pete Olson; Morgan 
           Griffith; Bill Johnson; Renee Ellmers; Billy Long.

  Mrs. ELLMERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would just like to point out to my colleagues across the aisle that 
in the latest Wall Street Journal article of September 10, one of the 
things that they point out again is that in the Senate, which is the 
Democrat majority, they put in an HHS spending bill a sense of the 
Senate that the provision for income verification be in place.
  This is something that is very important. It is common sense. Madam 
Speaker, wouldn't it be just a major commonsense issue to just simply 
put in place a proactive prevention of fraud, waste, and abuse?
  I would also like to point out to my colleagues that have discussed 
the issue of whether or not the inspector general has the ability to do 
so, first and foremost, we wouldn't be approaching this in this manner 
if the rule had not been removed. Yet, we have to have a system in 
place that will address these issues.
  There is no reason that we can't approach it from this, again, very 
commonsense approach where we ask that we actually have a rule put in 
place. We can't simply move forward on this incredible disaster of a 
law when we are not asking for some verification. I think it's a very 
simple move. I think it's a very commonsense move.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I ask how much time remains on both 
sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey has 5 minutes 
remaining, and the gentlewoman from North Carolina has 6 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. PALLONE. I now yield 3 minutes to the chairman emeritus of the 
Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Dingell.
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, here we go again. Time in the House is 
being wasted. The business of the Nation is being obfuscated. The 
Republicans have got more nonsense to put on the floor.
  We're told that this is important. That's baloney. This is the 41st 
time that the Republicans have tried to gut the Affordable Care Act. 
They don't understand that you're supposed to respect the will of the 
people and to carry forward the business of the Nation. What a shame 
that we have such behavior on that side of the aisle.
  All Members agree that we have to verify the incomes of those getting 
subsidies through the marketplaces, and that is exactly what will take 
place starting on October 1. This is obfuscation and deceit. All income 
data will be submitted through the marketplaces and will be checked 
against data from both the IRS and the Social Security Administration 
under existing practices. This is a lot of witchcraft and baloney. If 
there is an inconsistency, then additional documentation is going to be 
required. Furthermore, all the subsidies are reconciled by the IRS when 
an individual files their tax returns.
  This is just spinning by people who don't want the legislation to 
come to be, and again, this is the 41st time we've engaged in this 
silly exercise.
  The practical impact of this bill is to deny millions of Americans 
from getting subsidies for purchasing health insurance. Its purpose is 
to delay and obfuscate the implementation of the legislation that it is 
supposed to be helping. To pass this bill is simply going to prove to 
be a malicious assault on the most vulnerable people in our country and 
those most in need of the Affordable Care Act.
  We've seen this song and dance before. As I mentioned, this is the 
41st time we've engaged in this nonsense, wasting about $1.5 million 
each hour we're doing this. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in 
opposing H.R. 2775. This is political gimmickry. It is going to have 
harmful effects, and it is intended to do so.
  I urge that the legislation be rejected and that we stop this 
nonsense and we get going forward to try to see to it that we do 
implement, in a proper way, the Affordable Care Act.
  I thank my good friend New Jersey for yielding this time to me, and I 
urge my colleagues to reject this nonsense.

[[Page H5523]]

  Mrs. ELLMERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes to respond to 
some of the comments from my esteemed colleague.
  This is theory. That's basically what we have now, because, as the 
rule was removed the week of the Fourth of July, there has been no rule 
put in place to replace it. Basically what we're hearing is the 
description of how it would be run if the rule were in place.
  Mr. Speaker, an August 5 frequently asked question document was given 
out by HHS and the administration, which basically explains the verify 
process of the Federal exchange but outlines no details on how it will 
occur. Additionally, this fact sheet has no force of law. Even worse, 
the fact sheet doesn't even pretend to address the verification 
applications submitted to ObamaCare exchanges administered by the 
States. It simply says that the State can choose whatever sample size 
it wants to audit, meaning no actual verification may occur before 
millions of dollars of taxpayer-financed benefits are paid out.

                              {time}  1000

  While I believe America is a Nation of honorable people, we have to 
remember there are always those who will abuse the system. The fact 
sheet from CMS doesn't change the status of the rule. States can 
continue to audit whatever sample size they see fit or simply not audit 
at all.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Gene Green) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this unnecessary piece 
of legislation.
  Thank you for the time to speak. The bill before us is unnecessary. 
It is burdensome and serves as a barrier for those who are qualified to 
receive the core they need. Health and Human Services (HHS), the 
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and the marketplaces are equipped to 
handle income verification. If people lie on their tax forms, that is a 
federal crime.
  This is nothing more than one more attempt to block implementation of 
this law. The Republicans know that as implementation moves ahead their 
exaggerations and their fear mongering will be exposed. This is a 
desperate, last ditch effort to stop millions of qualified individuals 
and families from being able to access care by holding back any 
subsidies until unreasonable requirements are met by HHS. We have 
controls in place. The marketplaces and the IRS are tasked with 
reconciling the data they receive. Americans who are eligible for 
subsidies should receive them and this bill prevents it from happening.
  The Affordable Care Act is a critical law but it's not a perfect law. 
However, we are spending time with 11th hour attempts at thwarting the 
law of the land, upheld by the Supreme Court, rather than spending time 
helping our constituents navigate the new health landscape.
  I oppose this bill and urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New Jersey for 
yielding, and I'm glad he's back with us.
  The purpose of this bill is to make it as hard as possible for a 
hardworking person to get health insurance for their family. So 
somewhere in America today there's a person working in a nursing home 
or a retail store or driving a schoolbus, and if their children got 
sick tonight, they could not take them to a hospital with an insurance 
card in their pocket; they'd have to pay for it whatever way they 
could, which is not at all.
  The new law says that that person, under most circumstances, starting 
October 1, can sign up for a health insurance policy as good as the 
ones that Members of Congress have, for a reasonable and affordable 
price, maybe $30 or $40 a week for that family. This is not someone on 
public assistance. This is not someone sitting around watching someone 
else pay their bills. This is a hardworking, taxpaying American. That 
person has to report their income. They have to follow the rules and do 
all the things that are needed to be done. This bill makes it as hard 
as possible for that person to do that, and that's why it should be 
defeated.
  So here we are again. This is attempt number--what number are we 
using today--44, 45, 46, whatever the number is. The government is 
going to shut down on September 30 if we don't pass a budget. The 
majority said it was going to bring that budget to the floor this 
morning, but they're not doing that. Instead, we're having attempt 
number 44 to repeal the Affordable Care Act. This is not only a waste 
of the country's time, it's an imposition on hardworking people who 
finally deserve a break after all these years.
  Vote ``no'' on this unwise piece of legislation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) 
has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mrs. ELLMERS. Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to close. I would like to 
ask my colleague if he has any further speakers remaining?
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the 
remaining 30 seconds to our Ways and Means Committee time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. ELLMERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Here in Washington we have a way of doing things, and one of those 
ways is to deal with problems after they've been created.
  Prior to coming to Washington, I was a nurse for many, many years. 
One of the rules that we had drummed into our heads was, if it's not 
documented, it did not happen. This is a rule that is not documented, 
so it will not happen. It is not enough that we simply ask to be on the 
honor system. This is a very important piece of legislation. We must 
ensure the hard-earned taxpayer dollars are protected and abuses are 
avoided. I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 2775 for 
this purpose. I believe it is incumbent on the American people and the 
job that we do here in Washington to ensure that this happens.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas). The gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Brady) has 10 minutes. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has 
10\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise in strong support of the No Subsidies Without Verification Act 
because too many of our precious tax dollars are being lost to fraud. 
That's the simple goal of this bill by Representative Diane Black, 
stopping fraud and abuse in ObamaCare.
  We wouldn't allow an individual to apply for a mortgage, a car loan 
or a credit card without verifying their income. You can't go into a 
restaurant, grocery store, or gasoline station and just pay on the 
honor system. Yet today--because the White House, frankly, has botched 
the last 3\1/2\ years, and ObamaCare is still not ready--somehow they 
believe that it's okay for billions of dollars in new taxpayer 
subsidies to go out the door without a bat of the eye on the honor 
system.
  As hard as you work to earn every paycheck, how much more fraud in 
health care can we accept? Today we have the opportunity, and I think 
the responsibility, to hold the Federal Government's feet to the fire 
and insist it put in place strong protections that will end this pay 
first and chase later model that's been so ineffective at stopping 
fraud.
  This bill simply insists that the independent inspector general of 
the Health and Human Services agency certifies there is a real, genuine 
program in place to stop fraud and abuse in ObamaCare by stopping 
taxpayer subsidies from going out the door to those who aren't 
eligible. Wow, that's radical in Washington--not paying those who 
aren't eligible.
  This will give American taxpayers some assurance that we're 
protecting their hard-earned tax dollars. President Obama has admitted 
in ObamaCare it's not ready for businesses, and so he waived that. 
Everyone knows it's not ready for families and workers either. Is it 
asking too much to at least insist that it be ready to protect 
taxpayers against a mountain of more fraud?
  Now, the White House and our Democratic friends tell us, trust us, 
we'll

[[Page H5524]]

verify everything before giving out taxpayer subsidies. Really? This is 
from the same White House that said exchanges may accept the 
applicant's attestation without further verification. This is from the 
same Health and Human Services agency that had to backtrack and explain 
maybe they would audit all of the applications, but not for State 
exchanges; they're on their own.
  Sorry, but I'm not buying it, and nor are taxpayers in my State of 
Texas. Time and time again, Health and Human Services and the White 
House have ducked the real details about ObamaCare. They have no real 
plan in place. Meanwhile, taxpayer subsidies will fly out the door as 
individuals pinky swear that their income is accurate.
  Only Members of Congress who refuse to stop fraud, who enjoy wasting 
taxpayer dollars, and who want to turn a blind eye to wasted money 
could oppose this bill. I strongly urge a ``yes'' vote on this 
legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  So why are we going through the motions once again--I guess 41 times 
now? Because the health care reform train is rolling. It's picking up 
momentum, and the Republicans are once again trying to throw a monkey 
wrench in its way. In Michigan, 14 different insurance entities are 
competing. Tens and tens and tens of organizations are working to make 
this work. Medicaid is now available. Republicans see this happening, 
and they just can't stand the thought.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady 
from Tennessee (Mrs. Black) who has really led the effort to stop fraud 
and abuse in ObamaCare and who understands health care herself.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  As Members of the people's House, protecting the American taxpayer 
from fraud and abuse is absolutely a critical part of our job. And if, 
like me, you spent the last few weeks visiting your constituents, you 
will know that the American people are fed up and they're tired of 
footing the bill for Washington's failures. That's why passing the No 
Subsidies Without Verification Act is so important.
  This bill would protect American taxpayers from the staggering amount 
of fraud and abuse in ObamaCare exchanges by simply requiring that 
ObamaCare live up to its original guarantee in their original law that 
only those who certify to be eligible for taxpayer subsidies receive 
them. Unfortunately, because of this administration's clandestine rule 
change on the July 4 holiday, this is not currently the case. It is 
estimated that as much as $50 billion of hard-earned American taxpayer 
dollars could be given out in fraudulent ObamaCare subsidy claims.
  Protecting the taxpayers' money is not a partisan issue. The health 
care law was originally written--yes, was originally written--so that 
only those who qualify would receive Federal subsidies in the 
exchanges. And the Democratic controlled Senate Appropriations 
Committee has passed legislation expressing their sense that 
verification needs to occur before subsidies are doled out.
  I urge my colleagues here in the House today to join me in helping to 
protect the American taxpayer, and I call on the Senate to bring this 
for a vote so that we can send a commonsense measure to the President 
and protect the American taxpayer from fraud and abuse.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee, and I ask unanimous consent that the balance of my time be 
managed by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time 
to speak against this bill.
  The American public should know what this bill is all about. It is 
the 41st attempt in the House to repeal and confuse the American people 
about the Affordable Care Act. It's a deliberate distortion of the 
actions that have already been in place to protect the taxpayers.
  We have letters from the Department of Health and Human Services as 
well the Congressional Budget Office that the verification system is in 
place so that taxpayers' money is being protected.
  But the message that the Republicans have been sending over and over 
again is that we should delay, defund, repeal, but never replace the 
Affordable Care Act. If they needed further evidence to ignore, just 
yesterday the nonpartisan CBO reported that HHS has already put the 
verification system in place that their bill suggests we do. Mr. 
Speaker, what they want to do is to create a duplicative, unworkable 
process to certify a verification system, and they want to give it to 
the inspector general of HHS, but the Inspector General's Office has 
told us that they have no idea what this bill is proposing or what that 
office would have to do. They have no experience in doing it.
  So this is not a credible bill. It's a political bill. They can't 
repeal the Affordable Care Act, so they're determined to keep it from 
working. It's a clear effort to delay the implementation of the 
Affordable Care Act.
  When I was home, my constituents, particularly those who are looking 
forward to the legislation going into effect, people who have had 
preexisting conditions or inability to get insurance in the past, keep 
on asking me: Is this really going to happen, or are the Republicans 
going to stop it?
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill because it's another effort by the 
Republicans to stop health care for all Americans.

                              {time}  1015

  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford), the head of the Republican Policy 
Committee, and a leader in health care.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Speaker, this administration's been very proud of 
the work that they have done to reduce fraud in Medicare, that they 
have done to reduce fraud in durable medical equipment. Just a couple 
of weeks ago there was a huge bust in Puerto Rico trying to deal with 
Social Security disability fraud that has happened there for years.
  But for whatever reason, they have chosen, on this piece of 
legislation, to look the other way, to actually turn away and say we're 
going to allow people to self-verify whether they're eligible for the 
subsidies, when right now people don't even know if they're eligible 
for the subsidies.
  If I walked up to 100 people on the street today and asked them the 
two questions on that--does your employer provide you a qualified 
health plan--most of them would say: I have no idea. What's a qualified 
health plan?
  And then if I said, Do you qualify for the subsidies?, just about 
every American would say: I don't know. I have no idea.
  Yet, they're being asked, when no one knows right now, to self-verify 
that you know one way or the other. They don't have the information. 
They don't know the information. We don't even know what's going to 
happen on the exchanges yet. That's not been released yet, and it 
starts in 3 weeks.
  So to say to people something that doesn't even exist yet, you've got 
to be able to say whether you certify for it or not, whether you can 
say that, yes, I do qualify for, this is absurd.
  We're just asking the simple question: Shouldn't we stick with the 
original plan on this if we're going to do this?
  The law itself said that it had to be certified. Then they created a 
waiver out of thin air and said, no, this is going to be too 
complicated; we're going to delay that for a while.
  Then people say, what's your plan?
  I can tell you, my State is begging to keep our own plan for Insure 
Oklahoma. We're having to go back to the Federal Government and request 
that we can keep the plan we've had for a while taking care of those in 
poverty. This is absurd.
  There is a straightforward, simple way to do this that can be done; 
but, instead, we've created this convoluted mess.
  Just this morning I've heard people on the other side say that the 
train has left the station on this. I've heard health care reform, that 
train is rolling.

[[Page H5525]]

  Well, I can tell you, in the Senate the Democrats are saying, at 
least some of them are saying, this is a train wreck. And I agree.
  The train has left the station, and if we don't step out and say this 
has to stop, then we'll continue to have more and more fraud. We have 
got to take this on and take it on right now.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I will enter into the Record four 
documents. One is a letter from the President, in his opposition to the 
bill. The second is technical assistance from the Inspector General, 
saying they have no ability to do this. The third is a cost estimate 
from CBO, and the fourth is a letter from HHS detailing their 
verification plans.

         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                               Washington, DC, September 10, 2013.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


            H.R. 2775--No Subsidies Without Verification Act

                 (Rep. Black, R-TN, and 103 cosponsors)

       The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 
     2775 because the goal of the bill is already being 
     accomplished while the text of the bill would create delays 
     that could cost millions of hard-working middle-class 
     families the security of affordable health coverage and care 
     they deserve. It is time for the Congress to stop fighting 
     old political battles and join the President in an agenda 
     focused on providing greater economic opportunity and 
     security for middle class families and all those working to 
     get into the middle-class.
       The Affordable Care Act gives people greater control over 
     their own health care and has already improved many aspects 
     of the Nation's health care system. Beginning in October 
     2013, millions of low- and middle-income Americans will be 
     eligible to receive tax credits to help them purchase 
     insurance and cost-sharing reductions to help with out-of-
     pocket expenses for coverage effective January 1, 2014. Tens 
     of millions of Americans who have previously been denied 
     coverage due to a pre-existing medical condition will now be 
     covered. The nearly one in two Americans under the age of 65 
     with pre-existing medical conditions will have the peace of 
     mind that comes from knowing that they cannot be dropped from 
     their health plan or denied coverage because of those 
     conditions. House passage of H.R. 2775 would undermine this 
     security by delaying tax credits and cost-sharing reductions 
     that will otherwise be provided to millions of Americans.
       H.R. 2775 is unnecessary because the Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services has already put in place an effective and 
     efficient system for verification of eligibility for premium 
     tax credits and cost sharing reductions. Moreover, it would 
     create vague standards for the Inspector General, whose 
     office has never performed this type of prospective review, 
     to ``successfully and consistently'' verify eligibility. As a 
     result, this legislation's unnecessary pre-certification 
     requirement would impede opening the Marketplaces on October 
     1, 2013, driving up out-of-pocket health care costs for 
     millions of Americans and reducing timely access to much-
     needed and long-denied affordable coverage.
       If the President were presented with H.R. 2775, his senior 
     advisers would recommend that he veto the bill.
                                  ____


            Technical Assistance From the Inspector General

       We offer the following technical assistance on draft HR 
     2775, as amended, as requested. We note that this technical 
     assistance represents the views of the Office of Inspector 
     General (OIG) and does not necessarily represent the views of 
     the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)/the 
     Administration.
       Page 2, line 13, as amended by the amendment: The draft 
     legislation would require the IG to make a certification to 
     Congress. We are uncertain what Congress means by a 
     certification. The certification function described in the 
     legislation is substantially outside a traditional OIG 
     oversight role. There is no generally accepted auditing 
     definition or standard for a ``certification'', nor are 
     certifications of the type described in the legislation among 
     the types of work articulated under the IG Act.
       The legislation can be read as contemplating a prospective 
     certification occurring before the program starts operations 
     (or, if operations have begun, before the program has been 
     operational long enough for a statistically sound review of 
     actual operations; typically, we require more than three 
     months of data). As an OIG using accepted auditing and 
     oversight standards, it is difficult to predict whether 
     programs will, in fact, work as intended. More traditionally, 
     an OIG might review internal controls and make 
     recommendations to strengthen them if needed; conduct 
     statistically-valid, retrospective reviews of actual 
     operational history; or issue an opinion on design controls. 
     These options may be more effective for oversight of the 
     verification program.
       Page 2, line 14, as amended by the amendment: We note that 
     the ``successfully and consistently'' standard articulated in 
     the amendment is a standard without clear meaning from an 
     audit perspective. It is not clear to us how this standard 
     would intersect with Yellow Book standards.
       General comment on the legislation, as amended: While we 
     are not entirely clear about the scope and nature of the work 
     contemplated by the drafters, under any interpretation of 
     this draft legislation, the OIG would need to develop 
     additional programmatic and technical expertise in a new 
     program area and would need resources. Given the potential 
     scope of the work described in the draft legislation, the 
     apparent timeframe contemplated, and the serious implications 
     of not completing the work on an expedited basis, we would 
     need substantial additional resources, including auditors, 
     contractors, or other staff. If the certification were to 
     cover multiple systems (including the Federal and State-based 
     exchanges) or require auditing of complex operations, we 
     might need dozens of staff to do the work in the time 
     allotted. To do the certification proposed in the 
     legislation, or the alternative internal controls review and 
     retrospective reviews of operations in accordance with OIG's 
     historic oversight role,--as well as other essential 
     oversight of ACA--we need OIG's 2014 budget appropriated.
                                  ____

     H.R. 2775--A bill to condition the provision of premium and 
         cost-sharing subsidies under the Patient Protection and 
         Affordable Care Act upon a certification that a program 
         to verify household income and other qualifications for 
         such subsidies is operational, and for other purposes
       Summary: H.R. 2775 would make the availability of premium 
     tax credits and cost-sharing subsidies to eligible 
     individuals and families under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) 
     contingent on a certification to the Congress by the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) that a program 
     is in place that verifies, consistent with section 1411 of 
     the ACA, the household income and coverage qualifications of 
     people applying for such credits and cost-sharing subsidies. 
     Section 1411 of the ACA establishes requirements for a 
     program to determine whether someone meets the income and 
     coverage qualifications for such premium tax credits and 
     cost-sharing subsidies (among other things).
       CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) 
     estimate that enacting H.R. 2775 would not affect direct 
     spending or revenues. A program is currently being put in 
     place to verify income and coverage qualifications for the 
     tax credits and subsidies, and that program appears to CBO 
     and JCT to be in accordance with section 1411. Accordingly, 
     we expect that the Secretary would certify before the 
     beginning of 2014, when premium tax credits and cost-sharing 
     subsidies would first be paid, that the requirements in H.R 
     2775 are satisfied.
       Pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply to H.R. 2775 because 
     enacting the bill will not affect direct spending or revenues 
     in CBO and JCT's estimation.
       H.R. 2775 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
     mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 
     1995 (UMRA).
       Estimated Cost to the Federal Government: H.R. 2775 would 
     prohibit premium tax credits and cost-sharing subsidies from 
     being paid before the Secretary of HHS has certified to 
     Congress that a program is in place that verifies, in 
     accordance with section 1411 of the ACA, the household income 
     and coverage qualifications of people applying for such tax 
     credits and subsidies.
       Section 1411 of the ACA describes a program to determine 
     whether someone meets income, coverage, and other 
     qualifications for premium tax credits and cost-sharing 
     subsidies. The section specifies methods for verifying the 
     information provided by applicants and establishes penalties 
     for the provision of false or fraudulent information. In 
     addition, section 1411 establishes reporting requirements for 
     individuals related to determining if the individual has an 
     affordable offer of insurance coverage from an employer. 
     Further, the section specifically grants flexibility to the 
     Secretary of HHS to modify the methods used for verification 
     of information provided by applicants.
       In July, the Administration delayed for one year two 
     reporting requirements for certain large employers and health 
     insurance coverage providers. Further, regulations issued by 
     HHS in July provided state-based insurance exchanges with 
     limited flexibility when verifying applicants' household 
     incomes and offers of employment-based health insurance 
     coverage for the 2014 benefit year.
       CBO and JCT do not expect that those administrative actions 
     and regulations, by themselves, would prohibit the Secretary 
     from being able to provide certification under H.R. 2775. In 
     particular, the reporting requirements for employers are not 
     covered by section 1411, and the flexibility regarding 
     verification that is provided in the regulations issued by 
     HHS appears to us to be consistent with section 1411. (The 
     regulations that were issued regarding verification are 
     slightly looser than CBO and JCT had previously expected, so 
     we revised our baseline projections following the 
     announcement of those regulations.\1\ However, in our 
     judgment, the regulations are consistent with the flexibility 
     granted the Secretary by section 1411.)
       1. Congressional Budget Office, Letter to the Honorable 
     Paul Ryan Re: Analysis of the Administration's Announced 
     Delay of Certain Requirements Under the Affordable

[[Page H5526]]

     Care Act (July 30, 2013), www.cbo.gov/publication/44465 
       Thus, CBO and JCT conclude that a program is currently 
     being put in place in accordance with section 1411 regarding 
     the verification of household income and coverage 
     qualifications. CBO and JCT expect that this program will be 
     in place by January 1, 2014, when the premium tax credits and 
     cost-sharing subsidies would begin to be paid. We therefore 
     expect that the Secretary would certify by that time that the 
     requirements in H.R. 2775 are satisfied, allowing premium tax 
     credits and cost-sharing subsidies to be made available on 
     schedule. As a result, we estimate that H.R. 2775 would have 
     no budgetary effects relative to our current baseline 
     projections.
       This conclusion, however, is uncertain. The language of 
     H.R. 2775 is unclear regarding the meaning of the term 
     ``program.'' That term might be construed to go beyond 
     regulations and guidance to encompass operational competence, 
     such as software and enrollment procedures that have been 
     proven to work as provided for in regulations. Determining 
     whether or not those systems work as provided for in 
     regulations, however, may not be possible until there is some 
     experience or data that can be used to evaluate the systems.
       Estimate Prepared by: Federal Costs: Jean Hearne, Sarah 
     Masi, and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation; 
     Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Lisa Ramirez-
     Branum; Impact on the Private Sector: Alexia Diorio.
       Estimate Approved by: Holly Harvey, Deputy Assistant 
     Director for Budget Analysis.
                                  ____

         Department of Health & Human Services, Office of the 
           Assistant Secretary for Legislation,
                                  Washington, DC, August 22, 2013.
     Hon. Fred Upton,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Upton: The Secretary has asked that I respond 
     to your letter concerning eligibility determinations under 
     the Affordable Care Act. The Department of Health and Human 
     Services (HHS) has been working tirelessly to implement the 
     Affordable Care Act to ensure that on October 1, 2013, 
     millions of Americans will have access to quality, affordable 
     health coverage, including private insurance plans through 
     the Marketplaces. This work includes close collaboration with 
     other federal agencies and the states to ensure a consumer-
     friendly experience for individuals, families, and small 
     businesses applying for coverage while implementing 
     appropriate verification procedures and safeguards to protect 
     federal taxpayer dollars.
       It is important to note that verification of income and 
     employer-sponsored coverage applies only to individuals and 
     families seeking financial assistance in the Marketplaces 
     through the insurance affordability programs, which include 
     Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), 
     premium tax credits, and cost-sharing reductions. Federal 
     regulations at 45 CFR 155.320 provide detailed verification 
     procedures for household income and eligibility for and 
     enrollment in employer-sponsored coverage for individuals and 
     families applying for insurance affordability programs.
       The Marketplace will check the income information submitted 
     by every individual applying for insurance affordability 
     programs by comparing it with data from tax filings and 
     Social Security data, and in many cases, with the additional 
     use of current wage information that is available 
     electronically. The multi-step process begins when an 
     individual applies for an insurance affordability program 
     through the Marketplace and affirms or inputs his or her 
     projected annual household income. The Marketplace then 
     compares the applicant's projected annual household income 
     with information available from the Internal Revenue Service 
     (IRS) and Social Security Administration (SSA). If the data 
     submitted by the applicant cannot be verified by the 
     Marketplace using IRS and SSA data, then the information is 
     compared with wage information from employers provided by 
     Equifax Workforce Solutions (Equifax), which is under 
     contract with HHS to provide this information. If Equifax 
     data does not substantiate the applicant's inputted income, 
     the Marketplace will request an explanation or additional 
     documentation from the applicant.
       When documentation is requested, the regulations, at 45 CFR 
     155.315 (f)(4)(ii), specify that if the consumer meets all 
     other eligibility requirements, he or she will be provided 
     with time-limited advanced payments of the premium tax 
     credits and cost-sharing reductions based on his or her 
     attestation to projected household income, while 
     documentation is gathered and submitted to the Marketplace. 
     If documentation is requested and is not provided within the 
     specified timeframe (90 days, which may be extended based on 
     the applicant's good faith efforts to obtain required 
     documentation), the statute specifies that the Marketplace 
     will base its eligibility determination on data from IRS and 
     SSA. If no data from IRS is available, the Marketplace will 
     discontinue advanced payments of premium tax credits and 
     cost-sharing reductions.
       For eligibility for 2014 only, we recently indicated that 
     HHS will exercise enforcement discretion such that a 
     Marketplace may choose to request additional documentation 
     from a statistically-significant sample of the group of 
     individuals in only one specific situation: when the 
     Marketplace has IRS data, the applicant attests to projected 
     annual household income that is more than ten percent below 
     IRS and SSA data, Equifax data is unavailable, and the 
     individual does not provide a reasonable explanation for the 
     inconsistency between the attestation and IRS and SSA data. 
     In all other cases in which the data submitted by the 
     individual cannot be verified using IRS and SSA data or 
     Equifax data, and the individual does not provide a 
     reasonable explanation for any discrepancy identified between 
     their attestation and electronic data, the Marketplace must 
     request additional documentation. This includes, for example, 
     all cases in which IRS data is not available for an 
     individual, and the attestation to projected annual household 
     income cannot be verified using Equifax data; and all cases 
     in which there is both IRS data and Equifax data for an 
     individual but the attestation to projected annual household 
     income cannot be verified using that data.
       We have clarified that, for the Federally-facilitated 
     Marketplace, CMS intends to set the initial size of the 
     sample at 100 percent, such that everyone who is in the 
     circumstance described above in which sampling may be used is 
     asked to submit satisfactory documentation. Since publication 
     of the final rule, we have ascertained that there are 
     sufficient resources to ask every individual in this 
     circumstance for such documentation with no exceptions. 
     State-based Marketplaces may choose to use other sample 
     sizes, provided that they are statistically significant for 
     2014. As described in 45 CFR 155.320(c)(3)(vi)(F), if 
     satisfactory documentation is not submitted by the end of the 
     resolution period, the Marketplace will determine eligibility 
     based on the IRS and SSA data.
       With respect to verification of employer-sponsored 
     coverage, section 1411(a) of the Affordable Care Act requires 
     the Secretary to establish a program for determining 
     eligibility for enrollment in a qualified health plan (QHP) 
     through the Marketplace, advance payments of premium tax 
     credits, and cost-sharing reductions. Section 1411(b) of the 
     Affordable Care Act requires applicants for insurance 
     affordability programs to provide specific information 
     regarding employer-sponsored coverage, and section 1411(d) of 
     the Affordable Care Act requires the Secretary to verify the 
     accuracy of this information, ``in such manner as the 
     Secretary determines appropriate.''
       The Marketplace requests and verifies employer-sponsored 
     coverage information as part of the eligibility determination 
     process for advance payments of the premium tax credit and 
     cost-sharing reductions. Regulations at 45 CFR 155.320(d) 
     specify that the Marketplace must verify an applicant's 
     access to employer-sponsored coverage through data available 
     to the Marketplace. The Marketplace will have access to 
     electronic data sources for verifying access to employer-
     sponsored coverage through the Office of Personnel Management 
     (OPM) federal employment data and data from the Small 
     Business Health Options Program (SHOP) Marketplace operating 
     in its state, where available. If discrepancies are 
     identified using either OPM or SHOP data, the Marketplace 
     will notify the applicant and request additional information. 
     If the applicant does not adequately resolve the discrepancy 
     with additional information, the Marketplace will make a 
     final decision based on information obtained from the 
     electronic data sources. A Marketplace may also use 
     additional available electronic data sources that have been 
     approved by HHS for this purpose, based on evidence that the 
     sources are sufficiently current, accurate, and minimize 
     administrative burden.
       An individual who applies for insurance affordability 
     programs and has income in the premium tax credit range will 
     input information related to whether or not he or she has 
     access to employer-sponsored coverage that meets the minimum 
     value standard. This process is assisted by the Employer 
     Coverage Tool, a page that is included in the Marketplace's 
     single, streamlined application that will help applicants 
     gather information about any employer health coverage for 
     which they are eligible. Applicants may ask their employer to 
     help fill out the Employer Coverage Tool, or employers may 
     make this information available in other ways, such as by 
     making it part of the notice specified in section 18B of the 
     Fair Labor Standards Act.
       The Marketplace then compares the applicant-supplied 
     employer coverage information with information from OPM and 
     the SHOP, where the Marketplace has access to SHOP data. When 
     information provided by an applicant is inconsistent with OPM 
     or SHOP data, the Marketplace will provide a period of 90 
     days for the applicant to provide satisfactory documentation 
     or otherwise resolve the inconsistency. Consistent with 
     general Marketplace verification procedures, eligibility for 
     advance payments of the premium tax credits and cost-sharing 
     reductions is provided during the period, to the extent that 
     the applicant is otherwise eligible and attests that he or 
     she understands that any advance premium tax credit paid is 
     subject to reconciliation by the IRS. If documentation is not 
     provided within the specified timeframe (90 days, which may 
     be extended based on the applicant's good faith efforts to 
     obtain required documentation), or documentation provided is 
     not sufficient to resolve the inconsistency, the Marketplace

[[Page H5527]]

     will make the determination based on available electronic 
     data.
       For eligibility for 2014 only, the Marketplace has the 
     flexibility to identify a statistically-significant sample of 
     the applicant population for which OPM, SHOP, or an approved 
     state-based data source do not have available data, and 
     request information regarding employer-sponsored coverage 
     from their employers. The Federally-facilitated Marketplace 
     will conduct the sample-based review and will collect a 
     robust set of data from the income and employer verification 
     process. This data, and information gathered by State-based 
     Marketplaces that are conducting similar reviews, will be 
     used as the basis for analysis to support the development of 
     targeted verification strategies and future enhancements to 
     the verification process.
       It is important to note that advance payments of premium 
     tax credits are provided directly to the health insurance 
     plan, not to the consumer. In addition, individuals seeking 
     to purchase insurance in the Marketplace must attest, under 
     penalty of perjury, that they are not filing false 
     information. The Affordable Care Act also provides for 
     penalties when an individual provides false or fraudulent 
     information. Individuals on whose behalf tax credits are 
     provided must acknowledge, before they receive advance 
     payments of the tax credit, that they understand that the 
     payments are reconciled at the close of the year. They must 
     also file income taxes for the year in which the credit is 
     received. All advance payments of premium tax credits are 
     reconciled with the IRS at the close of the year.
       With respect to your questions about the employer 
     responsibility requirements, as noted in previous 
     correspondence, decisions regarding administrative action 
     with respect to sections 6055, 6056 and 4980H of the Internal 
     Revenue Code remain under the purview of the Department of 
     the Treasury.
       Although HHS regularly works with and communicates with 
     other federal departments that share responsibility for 
     implementation of the Affordable Care Act, particularly with 
     respect to programs or provisions that are cross-cutting, it 
     is important to note that the Department of the Treasury's 
     decision to provide transition relief with respect to insurer 
     and employer reporting requirements under the Internal 
     Revenue Code has no impact on the process for verifying 
     employer-sponsored coverage. HHS' policy regarding 
     verification of employer sponsored coverage was articulated 
     in a series of regulatory documents beginning in August 2011, 
     culminating in the final rule, published on July 15, 2013. 
     Throughout the development of this policy HHS has been clear 
     that we would verify the availability of employer-sponsored 
     coverage against available electronic data sources.
       HHS is committed to the successful enrollment of millions 
     of Americans into qualified health plans through the 
     Marketplace, and to ensuring that individuals receive the 
     financial assistance for which they are eligible. Please let 
     me know if you have any additional questions.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Jim R. Esquea,
                              Assistant Secretary for Legislation.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We're here today because we're supposed to be dealing with the CR, 
continuing the funding of the Federal Government. But the Republicans 
are scrapping among themselves and can't figure out what to do.
  Now, right now, medical research in my district and across this 
country is grinding to a halt. Grant money is disappearing, 
laboratories are closing, and potentially world-transforming projects 
are being set aside. Researchers are being laid off, and students are 
discouraged from entering the field. There is no end in sight.
  Now, the question you have to ask yourself is, why is the sequester 
not being dealt with?
  It's the mechanism that's breaking our economy for the future because 
innovation, research, and our ability to compete in the global 
marketplace depends on research, which starts now continuously, not to 
mention the lifesaving cures and treatments we're losing because of 
these empty labs.
  So what are we doing here today?
  Thank God for ObamaCare. We've got something to do. We can try and 
repeal it for the 41st time.
  ObamaCare, folks, is not going away. It's about to take off. In 
Washington, Oregon and California, we can't wait. The rest of the 
States may be sitting on their hands, but we aren't.
  And the fact is, even Senator Cruz from Texas says ``you aren't going 
to win this one.''
  Now, maybe these endless, pathetic kind of tantrums that we have out 
here every 2 weeks wouldn't matter if there weren't so many much more 
important things that need to be done.
  We get it. I mean, we really do understand it. The American people 
even get it, that the Republicans really, really, really, really, 
really don't like this law. But can't we move on?
  Stop screaming about wanting a budget and pass one. You've had the 
budget; you put the people forward to go and have a conference 
committee.
  Quit dancing around with the CR. America needs jobs, and you can do 
something about it. It's not just some force of nature we can't 
control. Our economy is weak because we're starving it. Let's do 
something about that, instead of this biweekly announcement that you 
dislike access to affordable care.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Arkansas (Mr. Griffin), a key member of the Ways and Means 
Committee.
  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, when I look across this country 
and look at who opposes the President's health care law, ObamaCare, 
it's not just Republicans. The New York Times today says the AFL-CIO is 
fed up with the law and ready to get it repealed if they can't fix it. 
Employers across this country are fed up with it. That's why the 
President delayed it for a year till after the elections.
  Come on, let's get a grip and face reality.
  But my dislike of the law aside, that's not what this is about. This 
is about the Federal Government handing out money without verifying 
who's getting it. That's ludicrous. It's unbelievable.
  We have to verify, when I, as an Army Reservist, sign up for TRICARE 
Select, because now I'm thrown into the ObamaCare exchanges. If you buy 
alcohol, you have to show an ID. I mean, this is pretty basic.
  We just want to verify who's getting government cash. That's it. And 
that's why I support the bill. It's common sense. Let's pass it.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, 19 days, in just 19 days, millions of 
working Americans can apply to receive premium assistance tax credits 
to help them get health insurance. These are neighbors who were 
previously denied coverage, or who were excluded because of a 
preexisting condition, or because a small employer could not afford to 
provide health insurance.
  And today's bill is about one thing, and that is to deny those 
Americans their lawful opportunity, on October 1, to obtain health care 
security. This bill is certainly not about fraud because there is 
already a comprehensive system to prevent overpayment and verify 
income.
  This very afternoon, a family that suffers severe injuries in a 
traffic accident on I-35, or a San Antonio family that is notified of a 
dread disease, those families that lack affordable health insurance are 
suddenly overwhelmed with medical bills, and they deserve an 
alternative; and that alternative is coming on October 1, if these 
folks can't stop it.
  This bill would pull the affordability rug right out from under our 
working families, just as they're beginning to learn about its 
availability.
  Yes, this is the 41st time that they've tried to delay and dismantle 
and deny the rights of American working families. We know it won't be 
their last vote. In fact, next week they're so intent on blocking 
American families from getting health insurance coverage, they're 
willing to shut down the entire Federal Government.
  And as if that weren't enough, next month they propose to default on 
the full faith and credit of the United States of America for the first 
time in our history for the sole purpose of denying American families 
that don't have insurance now some health security.
  I think it's wrong. They talk about trust. Well, I don't think we 
should trust these zealots with our health care future.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 3 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, yielding myself 15 seconds, 
yesterday we learned the Federal Government is paying millions of 
dollars to prisoners for unemployment benefits, millions of dollars of 
your money to cons in prison. But don't worry, we'll stop the fraud in 
ObamaCare.

[[Page H5528]]

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, like my Republican colleagues, I too am 
concerned about fraud in any public program, whether it's ObamaCare, 
food stamps, Medicare. Who could be against verification?
  But this is not about verification. Again, the 41st failed attempt to 
submarine reform in health care.
  The question before us today is whether or not the risk of fraud in 
ObamaCare is so pervasive that we should shut down an essential part of 
the law.
  My friends on the other side would have you believe that the 
administration's decision to delay income and coverage verifications 
leaves the health care marketplace vulnerable to rampant fraud. This is 
not the case.
  First, federally operated and partnership exchanges still will verify 
such information beginning in 2014. Only 16 States and the District of 
Columbia will wait until 2015 to begin more comprehensive verification.
  In those instances, the incentive to provide false information is 
greatly overshadowed by the benefit of doing so. Lying on the exchange 
form carries with it a penalty of $25,000. On top of that, anyone who 
provides false income information will have to pay back the extra 
subsidies when filing a tax form for 2014.
  Additionally, States will audit a statistically significant number of 
individuals, meaning that everyone has an equal opportunity to be 
audited.
  Finally, fighting fraud requires an investment of funding and 
resources.
  How dare you get up here and talk about a plan when you, in the 
regular budget, want to cut every penny from resources, from research, 
from helping us get to the point where American people will be served.
  Look, you can't stand success. Help us improve the system, not 
continue a system where patients are playing second fiddle.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time in 
case the gentleman from Washington has additional speakers or would 
like to close on his side. We are prepared to close.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) to close our arguments.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, let's be clear: this is not about the 
integrity of the tax system. There are any number of areas where we 
rely far more on discretion to individual taxpayers, and there's no 
appetite, actually, to move in those areas.
  My Republican friends are not interested in providing adequate 
resources to the IRS to be able to appropriately enforce the tax law 
right now, and we have hundreds of billions of dollars of taxes that 
aren't collected.
  But this is part of a mean-spirited and shortsighted effort to 
sabotage the health care reform effort. Bear in mind what's going on in 
States around the country.
  In Missouri, the Republican legislature has been on a rampage that 
will even make it illegal for State employees to tell Missourians what 
they're entitled to under State law. This is a new low in, I think, 
political malpractice.
  The Republicans are willing to flirt with shutting down the American 
Government in their attempt to prevent Americans from getting health 
care they're entitled to under the law. This is wrong.
  I strongly urge that we reject this mean-spirited approach.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as I yield the balance of our time 
to the gentlelady from Tennessee, I make the case, this is simply 
choice. Those who want to stop fraud in ObamaCare support this bill. 
Those who want to turn a blind eye to that fraud oppose it.
  I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Tennessee 
(Mrs. Black).
  Mrs. BLACK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, even the White House veto threat actually 
proves the need for the No Subsidies Without Verification Act.
  The White House says that H.R. 2775, which simply requires the 
administration to verify whether people are eligible for taxpayer-
funded ObamaCare subsidies before they're doled out, would create 
delays is what they say. It would create delays.
  But the veto threat then goes on to say that the bill is 
``unnecessary'' because the administration officials claim they already 
have, ``an effective and efficient system for verification and 
eligibility.''
  So which is it?
  Does the Obama administration have a way, other than the honor 
system, to verify whether someone is eligible for taxpayer subsidies or 
will requiring the administration to have one create delays?

                              {time}  1030

  If they had a transparent verification system in place, one that 
actually worked, this bill would create no delays. The administration 
should actually welcome it, and so should all Members of this body, who 
should vote for this. That's why we need this bill. We need independent 
verification that programs are in place before taxpayers' subsidies go 
out the door.
  For all taxpayers, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 2775.
  Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong 
opposition to H.R. 2775, the No Subsidies without Verification Act 
sponsored by my good friend from Tennessee, Representative Black. I 
oppose because the goal of this bill is already being accomplished 
under provisions of the Affordable Care Act. Passage of this bill would 
simply bog down what is already being done and could cost hard-working 
middle class Americans millions. The security of knowing that they have 
the affordable health insurance coverage they deserve and need. For all 
practical purpose, one could say that this is the forty-first time that 
the House has sought to repeal (to no avail) the Affordable Care Act. 
It is not going to happen! Let's move on so that millions of low and 
middle income Americans will be eligible to receive tax credits to help 
them purchase insurance to the tens of millions of Americans who have 
previously been denied coverage due to preexisting medical conditions 
will knowing that they can have coverage, peace of mind and the 
healthcare they need.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 339, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill, as amended.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on passage of the bill will be followed by a 5-minute vote 
on approval of the Journal, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 235, 
nays 191, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 458]

                               YEAS--235

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     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
     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
     Gosar
     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
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     Lipinski

[[Page H5529]]


     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
     Peterson
     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)
     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 (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--191

     Andrews
     Barber
     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
     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
     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
     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
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     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
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Diaz-Balart
     Herrera Beutler
     McCarthy (NY)
     Nadler
     Rush
     Visclosky

                              {time}  1101

  Messrs. BERA of California and VELA changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay.''
  Mr. WALBERG changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________