Victory for Texas Consumers

Today the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) denied the Texas Department of Insurance's (TDI) request to delay implementation of an important piece of the Affordable Care Act. The "medical loss ratio (MLR)" rule requires insurance companies to spend at least 80% of insurance premiums on actual health care services, and 20% on overhead costs for individual health insurance plans. In July, TDI asked to delay implementation of the "medical loss ratio" rule claiming that implementation would "destabilize" the individual health insurance market in Texas. In December, I along with members of the House Democratic Caucus, sent a letter in opposition to TDI's request that would have resulted in the return of $260 million to insurance companies instead of to the pockets of everyday Texans who buy their own health insurance. I applaud HHS for their decision and thank them for enforcing this crucial piece of the Affordable Care Act in order to make quality, affordable health care a closer reality for Texas families.


Below are some clips that further explain the MLR rule:

The Texas Tribune: Feds Reject Texas' Request to Delay Insurance Reform
by Becca Aaronson
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has rejected the Texas Department of Insurance's proposal to delay implementation of a federal health care reform provision aimed at curbing rising premiums.

The Dallas Morning News: Federal Officials Reject Texas' Plea to Slash Health Insurance Rebates to Consumers
by Robert T. Garrett
The federal government on Friday refused to let Texas ease a requirement that health insurers devote at least 80 percent of premium revenue to medical care.

Memorandum on Medical Loss Ratio Adjustments
by Stacey Pogue, Center for Public Policy Priorities
Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), health insurers must spend a reasonable share of premium dollars on medical care and quality improvement efforts, as opposed to administration, marketing, and profits. These standards, known as medical loss ratio (MLR) requirements, hold insurers accountable for how they use consumers' premium dollars.

An America Within Our Reach

Last night, President Obama gave his State of the Union address where he laid out his vision for an America that works for those that believe in the promise of our great country--- where being middle class is not a dream but the reward for hard work. Where the majority of American families are not just surviving, but thriving. In his speech, President Obama introduced a common sense blueprint to achieve the goal of rebuilding an economy where hard work and responsibility are rewarded. Creating American jobs, renewing the American manufacturing sector, working towards energy independence, investing in a world-class education system, and ensuring economic fairness are how we can give assurance that every American gets a fair chance.

Ensuring economic fairness:
We cannot settle for an America where the wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few while millions of families struggle to make ends meet. President Obama's proposals create a more level playing field by ending subsidies for millionaires, closing loopholes in the tax code that benefit the wealthiest Americans, and extending the payroll tax cut for the middle-class.

Investing in education:
Education and a skilled workforce go hand in hand. By fostering partnerships between community colleges and business up to 2 million workers will be trained and placed in jobs. President Obama also stressed that higher education should not be a luxury, but one that every family should be able to afford. Extending the tuition tax credit will save working families thousands of dollars and allow many students a chance to attend college that would otherwise not be able to without this. Educating our students and training our workers builds a workforce that is ready to take on the challenges of today and the future.

Renewing American manufacturing:
American companies will be rewarded for bringing American jobs back from overseas and given lower tax rates. By making outsourcing less attractive, small American business will once again be able to compete and flourish. The President's proposals will bring about a new era of American manufacturing where instead of seeing "Made in China" on everything, we will once again see "Made in the USA".

Moving toward energy independence:
Preventing the U.S. from becoming dependent on foreign energy sources by building up homegrown and alternative energy sources will not only move us toward energy dependence, but will create clean energy jobs for American workers.

Last night, our President stood up for everyday families and made the case that everyone who works hard deserves a fair shot. I fully support President Obama as he pushes for a system that encourages us to work together to achieve a better America. At a time when politics is dominated by cynicism and obstruction, it's refreshing to hear a vision that challenges us to cooperate for an America we all know is within our reach.

Redistricting: What's Happening

On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court returned the interim maps to the three judge panel in San Antonio for further review. Although Attorney General Greg Abbott and Republican leadership claim this as a win, the Supreme Court did not say to use the Republican passed legislative maps as the interim maps. Instead, the Justices told the San Antonio panel to use the Texas maps as a starting point and make changes to the maps if they conclude there is a "reasonable probability" of violating section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The maps passed by our Republican controlled Legislature, just like the Voter ID legislation, are another attempt to disenfranchise minority voters. We will make the case that there is "reasonable probability" that these maps violate section 5 and advocate to preserve one person, one vote. But ultimately the decision will be made by the courts.

This Friday, January 27th at 1:00 p.m. the federal court in San Antonio will hold a status hearing to discuss redistricting developments and the Texas election schedule. The San Antonio court will carry on with its task of redrawing the maps with direction from the Supreme Court's opinion. Meanwhile, the federal preclearance case in D.C. continues and is not scheduled to wrap up until February 3rd. A decision in the D.C. preclearance case--- whether the legislatively passed maps are precleared--- is unlikely to happen until mid-February. With two courts working on separate cases surrounding redistricting, and time running short, it's unclear if an April 3rd unified primary date is still possible.

I will continue to update you on redistricting matters and developments in both cases--the federal preclearance case in Washington, D.C. and the case in San Antonio. Below is an article from the Quorum Report, an Austin-insider online publication, that goes into more detail about Friday's status conference in San Antonio and an article from Friday's Washington Post on the Supreme Court decision.


Harvey Kronberg's Quorum Report: January 23, 2012 3:13 PM
SA COURT ISSUES NEW ORDER, MOVES STATUS CONFERENCE UP TO JAN. 27

"If all parties wish to maintain the current election schedule, they should confer and submit agreed-upon interim maps for this Court's consideration by February 6. This Court would not be bound by any such agreement but would take it into careful consideration in announcing interim plans."

On first glance, a couple of things jump out. The first is the San Antonio court's recognition that the U.S. Supreme Court ruling from last Friday now puts this panel in the position of possibly having to guess how the D.C. district court will decide on the state's request for pre-clearance.

In his order, District Judge Orlando Garcia asks the parties to request the D.C. court to rule in time to help his panel in coming up with a final version of the interim maps for this year.

"Any guidance from the D.C. Court as to the timing of its decision will greatly assist this Court in completing its task," Garcia writes. "But if for whatever reason, this Court needs to rule on the interim plans without the benefit of a ruling from the D.C. Court, it will need to anticipate what those rulings might be, using the Supreme Court's recent opinion as the binding and best available guide."

Also, Garcia writes that the San Antonio court "is giving serious consideration to whether a so-called ‘split primary' will be required because of the legal requirements and practical logistics of the 2012 election cycle."

Garcia also suggests how such a split primary would work. A first primary would take place on either April 3 or early to mid-April at the latest. That primary would have the Presidential primary as well as "certain other designated primaries that do not depend on the district lines that this Court will ultimately announce for the interim plans." The remaining primaries would be conducted at a later date, unspecified by Garcia today.

Garcia added that the state should be prepared to discuss at the status conference whether it can cover the added costs of a split primary.



The Washington Post: Supreme Court sides with Texas on redistricting plan
By Robert Barnes

The Supreme Court on Friday set aside court-drawn redistricting plans for Texas that were favored by minorities and Democrats, saying the lower court "exceeded its mission" by not deferring to maps drawn by the state legislature.

In an unsigned opinion that drew no dissents, the justices said a legislature's reapportionment plan should be the "starting point" for judges who are called upon to draw maps when there are constitutional challenges. The plan by the Republican-dominated Texas legislature is the subject of lawsuits from organizations representing the minority groups that make up about three-quarters of the state's population boom.

The population growth means Texas will have four additional seats in Congress, and some political analysts say the redistricting maps are critical because they could help decide which party controls the House of Representatives.

The Supreme Court's opinion was the first round in a series of looming challenges in which the justices are likely to be asked to referee battles over redistricting, the application of the Voting Rights Act of 1964 and the Obama administration's vow to police voter law changes enacted by Republican-dominated state legislatures.

Just hours after the Texas ruling, the justices stayed a lower court decision that struck down West Virginia's congressional redistricting plan because the judges said it deviated too much from the "one-person, one-vote" standard.

"In every decade since the 1960s, the court has stepped up its role in regulating the elections process," said Heather Gerken, an election law expert at Yale Law School who is advising President Obama's reelection effort.

Friday's decision was a modest one, she said. "But my feeling is this begins with a whimper and ends with a bang."

The ruling, which came 11 days after the court heard arguments, sent the case back to a three-judge panel in San Antonio.

"A district court should take guidance from the state's recently enacted plan in drafting an interim plan," the justices wrote. At the same time, they said, the court must be careful not to incorporate parts of a state's plan that might violate the Constitution and Voting Rights Act.

The ruling was nuanced enough that both sides found reason to claim victory.

"The Supreme Court confirmed that the San Antonio court drew illegal maps, without regard for the policy decisions of elected leaders," Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said in a statement. "As the justices point out, courts are ill-suited to make policy judgments and redistricting is primarily the responsibility of the state."

But Pamela Karlan, a constitutional law expert at Stanford University who is representing challengers to the Texas plan, said the ruling simply requires lower court judges to be more clear about the decisions they make.

She compared the court's decision with a schoolteacher telling a student, "You got the right answer, but you didn't show enough of your work."

Because of its population growth over the past decade, Texas was awarded four new congressional districts, bringing its total to 36. Nearly two-thirds of that growth was in the Hispanic community, and Latino groups said the plans approved by Texas's legislature and signed by Gov. Rick Perry (R) improperly diluted their power.

Political analysts said the legislature's plan could result in Republicans claiming three of the new districts. The plan by the three-judge panel in San Antonio could result in just the opposite, they said.

The Supreme Court's mission was complicated by the fact that Texas's redistricting was being considered in two courts with different objectives.

Because of past discrimination against minorities, Texas is one of the states covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, meaning its electoral laws must be "pre-cleared" — approved by the Justice Department or a panel of federal judges in Washington.

Texas chose to go the judicial route, and a three-judge panel in Washington this week held a trial to consider the Section 5 challenges. It is not expected to rule until next month.

Until that is settled, the San Antonio judges were charged with drawing an interim map, so that Texas's elections could proceed.

Texas has delayed its primaries, which are among the earliest in the nation, because of the dispute. The state says it needs a new plan by Feb. 1 to hold primary elections on its new date, April 3.

Texas last month asked the Supreme Court to keep the judicial plan from being used even on an interim basis, and that was the request granted Friday.

The court's order noted the difficulties facing the San Antonio judges. The plan passed by the legislature cannot be used, the justices agreed, because it has not been pre-cleared.

"But that does not mean that the plan is of no account or that the policy judgments it reflects can be disregarded by a district court drawing an interim plan," the justices wrote.

The court was especially critical of the San Antonio judges for drawing a congressional district that appeared to be a "minority coalition" district. The justices said it was unclear whether the district was intentionally drawn to allow two different minority groups to band together to form a majority.

But, "if the district court did set out to create a minority coalition district, rather than drawing a district that simply reflected population growth, it had no basis for doing so," the order said.

New York University School of Law professor Richard Pildes said it is far from clear which plan will be used in the Texas elections. "I think we're only at the beginning stages of sorting this out," he said.

While the constitutionality of Section 5's pre-clearance requirement was not at issue in the case, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote separately to reiterate his opinion that it should not stand. No other justice joined him, although the ruling did note that the court in a 2009 case from Texas said Section 5 raised "serious constitutional questions" because of its intrusion on state sovereignty.

The challenges to the plan are collectively known as Perry v. Perez.

U.S. Supreme Court Returns Redistricting Maps to San Antonio Judges

Today the United States Supreme Court released its opinhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifion on the interim maps drawn by the San Antonio court, sending them back to the three judge panel in San Antonio for further action. A copy of the opinion can be read . I will continue to update you on developments in Texas redistricting as things become clearer as to what will happen next.

Below are some clips that help explain today's order and possible next steps.


New York Times: Justices' Texas Redistricting Ruling Likely to Help G.O.P.
The Supreme Court on Friday instructed a lower court in Texas to take a fresh look at election maps it had drawn in place of a competing set of maps from the Texas Legislature.

Houston Chronicle: High court throws out Texas election map
The Supreme Court on Friday threw out electoral maps drawn by federal judges in Texas that favored minorities. The unsigned opinion left the fate of Texas' April primaries unclear. The justices ordered the three-judge court in San Antonio to come up with new plans, but did not compel the use of maps created by Texas' Republican-dominated state Legislature.

Austin American-Statesman: Court throws out judge-drawn Texas electoral maps
The Supreme Court on Friday threw out electoral maps drawn by federal judges in Texas that favored minorities. The decision ultimately could affect control of the U.S. House of Representatives and leaves the fate of Texas' April primaries unclear. The justices ordered the three-judge court in San Antonio to come up with new plans that pay more attention to maps created by Texas' Republican-dominated state Legislature.

Dallas Morning News: Supreme Court throws out court-drawn Texas redistricting maps
The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected redistricting maps drawn by a federal court in San Antonio, dealing a blow to Democrats and minority groups that had challenged maps drawn by the GOP-controlled Legislature.

Celebrate MLK Day With Us

As we celebrate Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day on Monday, please stop by the Children's Museum of Houston on 1500 Binz Street, for our annual MLK Day celebration. For 14 years, I've had the pleasure of partnering with the Children's Museum of Houston in hosting this celebration. Bring the entire family to honor Dr. King's legacy. The museum opens at 10:00am with the MLK Day program starting at noon. The day will be filled with family-friendly activities and exhibits meant to teach the message and principles of Dr. King and inspire our children to follow his example of service. As part of our day of service a blood drive will also be held from noon to 4:00pm. To start the rally, I have the distinct honor of introducing this year's Gardere Martin Luther King, Jr. Oratorical Competition winner. We will honor Harris County Court Precinct 7's Justice of the Peace Judge Zinetta A. Burney for her service with the Caryakid Award. I encourage you to take part in the peace rally organized by the Children's Museum Kids Committee in celebration of civil rights and world peace. I am extremely proud of being a part of this event since its inception and believe it is a wonderful way to present Dr. King's values and dreams to the children of Houston. I hope to see you there. Come join our peace rally! See below for more details on our MLK Day celebration.


MLK DAY PEACE RALLY

Children's Museum of Houston commemorates Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and his legendary "I Have a Dream" speech

Gardere Oratory Competition winner to recite speech

Museum open Monday, January 16
Special Event $5 General Admission
Brought to you by State Rep. Garnet Coleman (D)

CELEBRATE MLK DAY OF SERVICE BY DONATING BLOOD:

We're partnering with Gulf Coast Regional Blood Centers and hosting a blood drive at the Museum as part of our MLK Day events.

12 noon – 4:30 p.m.
2nd Floor Room
FREE T-SHIRT for all who donate!

Schedule Your Appointment online in Digital Donor or contact The Blood Center at 713-791-6326.


WHAT: Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. dreamed for us to live in a world where we would "not be judged by the color of [our] skin, but by the content of [our] character." Take a trip to the Children's Museum of Houston (CMH) to honor his acclaimed "I Have a Dream Speech" which rocked the nation during the Civil Rights Movement in 1963 and sparked his everlasting legacy.

WHEN: MLK Day Peace Rally, January 16, 2012 at Noon

WHERE: Children's Museum of Houston, 1500 Binz, Houston, TX 77004

MUSEUM HOURS: Monday, January 16; 10 a.m. – 6 p.m.
Special event general Museum admission: $5 per person. Children under one and Museum Members receive free admission. For more information, visit www.cmhouston.org or call (713) 522-1138.

SPECIAL EVENTS:
• State Rep. Garnet Coleman and Gardere Oratory Speech Winner Recital: Listen to the uplifting words of State Rep. Garnet Coleman as he introduces this year's Gardere Martin Luther King, Jr. Oratorical Competition winner.

• Caryakid Award Honoring Judge Zinetta A. Burney: We'll pay tribute to Harris County Court Precinct 7's Justice of the Peace for her service.

• Peace Rally Led by CMH Kid's Committee and MLK "I Have a Dream Speech" rendition: Join the Kid's Committee in a peaceful march down Kid's Hall to celebrate our civil rights then hear the speech that changed it all.

• Young Harmonies of Houston: Listen to the moving and inspirational sounds of this young group of performers.

• Freedom Hands: Dr. King taught us to work together toward freedom. Express with your hands freedoms you have at the Alexander Art Academy.

• Dream Portraits: Reflect on your own talent, personality and dreams for the future by making a life size portrait of yourself in Tree Top and One World.

• Dream Wall: Dr. King had dreams, and we know you do too. Come to Junktion, write down your dream and share it with us on our Dream Wall.

• Family Seal: Design a special symbol which represents the beliefs of you and your family at Junktion.

• Paper Cranes: Embrace a different culture and Dr. King's message of peace through symbolic origami cranes at Junktion.

• African American Scientist and Inventors: Learn about their achievements and explore how they have impacted our society at Science Station.

Keeping Families Together Through Fair Immigration Policy

Yesterday, the Obama Administration proposed changes to the immigration system that will keep American families together by cutting bureacratic wait times and relieving an undue hardship on Americans who are unfairly separated from their loved ones.

Currently, U.S. citizens can apply for green cards on behalf of their undocumented spouses and/or children, but the law requires that spouse or child to return back to his or her country of origin in order to receive the visa. The catch is that current law prohibits them from returning to the U.S. for three or ten years, depending on how long the spouse or child was in the U.S.while undocumented. This rule, called the "3-and-10 Year Bar," was originally meant to discourage illegal immigration, but in practice it simply serves either to break up families for up to a decade or force people who otherwise would have a path to citizenship to remain undocumented.

The Obama Administration proposal is a smarter way forward: it would allow those who qualify for a green card to remain in the country for the duration of the application process. Parents and spouses of undocumented loved ones will no longer be faced with the awful choice of either remaining undocumented or going 10 years without seeing each other.

This is yet another accomplishment in a growing list of humane, common sense immigration reforms from the Obama Administration. Other efforts the President has made to fix our broken immigration system include prioritizing the removal of undocumented immigrants who have been convicted of crimes over those who pose little threat to our communities, streamlining the process for naturalizing members of the military, creating a Start-Up Visa to allow foreign entrepreneurs to establish businesses to create jobs here in America, and lifting the HIV travel ban.

Taken together, this is a great start. However, there is still more work to be done. Along with the President, we must continue fighting for the DREAM Act, which would create a path to citizenship for those young undocumented immigrants who are here through no fault of their own yet are still working against all odds to obtain an education or contribute to our national security through military service. We must also do something to help the millions of undocumented workers who are already here, paying taxes, and simply want the same opportunity for the American Dream that we have all had.

Progress on these issues has been agonizingly slow because these bigger changes need the support of Congress. Unfortunately, many in the Republican Party, particularly Mitt Romney, are strongly opposed toward a smarter immigration policy. Romney even went so far as to vow to veto the DREAM Act, calling it a "handout," as if these bright young immigrants have done nothing to earn the right to participate in this great country. Further, he advocates kicking immigrants out of America – even families who've lived here for a generation, raised children and grandchildren here, paid their taxes, obeyed the law, are members of their churches and communities, and even serve in the military.

I stand with the President in this latest effort to reform our broken immigration system and will continue to advocate for immigrants, as they are, and always were, one of this country's greatest strengths.

You can read more about the new immigration changes here.

Another Landmark Accomplishment by the President

Today President Obama appointed former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray as head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. I applaud the President's leadership and his executive action to appoint a consumer watchdog for the American people. American families will now have someone protecting them from the abuses of the financial industry and the egregious practices of predatory lenders. The Republicans may not think a consumer watchdog is needed, but I firmly believe President Obama's action is another important step to strengthen our economy and safeguard hard working Americans.

Thank you to Senator Chris Dodd, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, all the members of Congress who supported the legislation creating the consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and of course President Barack Obama. We never backed down when the going got rough. This is yet another landmark accomplishment by the President for Texas and the American people.

For more information on Richard Cordray and backgroun on this appointment please see the New York Times article below or click here.


The New York Times--Times Topics, January 4, 2012
Richard Cordray, the former attorney general of Ohio, was picked by President Obama in July 2011 to lead the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, passing over Elizabeth Warren, the Harvard law professor who was the driving force behind the agency's creation.

In December, his nomination received a majority of votes but was blocked by a Republican-led filibuster in the Senate. On Jan. 4, 2012, Mr. Obama said that he had used a recess appointment to put Mr. Cordray into the position.

Mr. Obama's exercise of constitutional powers to name top officials without Senate confirmation while Congress is in recess was a stiff challenge to Republicans, who had attempted to block the maneuver by holding "pro forma" sessions over the holidays.

Under the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation that created the bureau, the agency cannot write new rules or supervise other financial companies without a permanent director.

Mr. Cordray came to national attention for his aggressive investigations of mortgage foreclosure practices while he was the Ohio attorney general. Before being nominated to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, he was the leader of its enforcement division.

During confirmation hearings in September 2011, Mr. Cordray told the Senate Banking Committee that he would make it a priority "to streamline and cut back" a mountain of regulations that has grown over the last 30 years, which he said excessively burdened some banks and discouraged them from lending money to consumers. He said that if confirmed, he would use the agency's "bigger and more flexible toolbox" to police consumer financial laws and would make judicious use of "needlessly acrimonious" lawsuits to enforce financial regulations.

With those statements and others, Mr. Cordray sought to reassure the committee that he, and the bureau, would be accountable to Congress, despite the significant doubts expressed by Republicans and lobbying groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, that the bureau has too much unfettered power.

But committee Republicans repeated their assertions — made since the Dodd-Frank financial regulation law establishing the bureau was signed in July 2010 — that it and its director would wield unchecked authority over banks and other financial institutions.

Political realities were largely behind the Obama administration's decision not to battle for the confirmation of Ms. Warren, who conceived the bureau, championed its creation and orchestrated its establishment as a White House adviser. Although her candidacy was passionately supported by liberal members of Congress and consumer advocacy groups, she never won the full support of the president or his senior advisers, particularly the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, in part because of her independent streak and her outspokenness, which at times put her at odds with the administration.

Republicans made it clear that they were no more likely to confirm Mr. Cordray than Ms. Warren. Forty-four Republican senators signed a letter saying they would refuse to vote on any nominee to lead the bureau, demanding instead that the agency replace a single leader with a board of directors.

Mr. Cordray joined the consumer bureau in December 2010 after narrowly losing a re-election bid for Ohio attorney general to Mike DeWine, a Republican who suggested during the campaign that Mr. Cordray was antibusiness.

Mr. Cordray, who was born in Grove City, Ohio, first reached Washington as a Supreme Court clerk after studying at Michigan State University, at Oxford as a Marshall Scholar and at the University of Chicago Law School. He returned to Ohio to start a political career as a state representative, but was forced from office by redistricting after one term. He then served as state solicitor, arguing several cases before the Supreme Court.

After more than a decade in private practice and local political office, Mr. Cordray won a special election in 2008 to become Ohio's attorney general and soon started a series of prominent investigations of financial companies. He accused the insurance company Marsh & McLennan of publishing fictitious quotes to suppress competition. He accused credit rating agencies of overstating the value of mortgage-backed securities, which resulted in extensive losses for their investors, including Ohio pension funds. He accused Bank of America of acquiring Merrill Lynch without telling investors the full extent of the investment bank's problems.
The settlements he won totaled more than $2 billion.