Expatriate Health Coverage Clarification Act of 2014

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, this is a bill that could have been worked out. This is a bill that could have accomplished the purpose that I know that our colleague from Delaware wants to see put into place, and I applaud him for working hard to improve the bill under very difficult circumstances.

In trying to allow the American insurance companies to sell policies to expats, we could craft a bill that is narrow, but we are not getting cooperation to get to that point. The reason we are not getting cooperation is we are told we must pass a bill right away. Well, we were told that 2 weeks ago when we had the bill under suspension, and we couldn't consider any amendments under suspension. Now we have the bill under a rule. Oh, and the rule provides for no amendments either.

There is a bill to be crafted, but this bill before us does not accomplish the goal in a way that really doesn't hurt some people's insurance coverage.

There are still two major problems with the legislation before us today. First, it does not have enough safeguards to guarantee that these expatriate plans are high quality, and the second issue is the bill creates problems for millions of other people who are legal permanent residents here in the United States and others working in this country who are currently protected by the Affordable Care Act.

On the first issue, the insurers tell us that their expatriate plans are going to be extremely generous. They say they cover people in dozens of countries around the world and they have comprehensive benefits, but we don't see any language to verify that claim. Supporters of the bill claim to guarantee the plans are as high quality as the insurers say they are. But it is one thing to say that their plans will be of high quality; it is another thing to actually require them to offer comprehensive benefits. As President Reagan used to say, ``Trust, but verify.''

The second issue has nothing to do with the expatriate plans and the companies that are threatening to shut down their operations here in the United States. It has to do with millions of other people who are legal permanent residents and workers on visas who currently benefit from the ACA's protections. But this bill creates a loophole that could allow these people to be sold plans here in the United States that do not meet ACA standards. That is why a lot of people looking at this legislation are saying--such as major labor unions, immigration advocacy organizations--that this bill is not one they can support, and they urge that we vote against it.

So I think we can fix both of those issues. We should have fixed both of those issues before this bill was brought up on the House floor. But as it stands, we don't know if the Senate can pass any bill, and I don't believe the President can sign this bill.

My colleague from Delaware and my other colleagues have already helped make important improvements for the bill. Changing the definition of an expatriate to someone who is outside of the country for 6 months is an important step. We should continue to make progress.

There have been productive negotiations on the legislation in recent days. We need to reach an agreement, and we should bring that compromise to the House floor; but without that compromise, I don't feel I can vote for the bill as it presently stands. There are these two glaring problems that need to be fixed; and without it, we will not know if those expatriate plans really are the high quality they claim to be, and we will not know if legal residents of the United States will be able to get the kind of high-quality plan that everybody else in the United States will have.

So I urge a ``no'' vote and suggest that we get back to the negotiating table.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source