[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14401-14407]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3522, EMPLOYEE HEALTH CARE 
                         PROTECTION ACT OF 2014

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 717 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 717

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3522) to 
     authorize health insurance issuers to continue to offer for 
     sale current group health insurance coverage in satisfaction 
     of the minimum essential health insurance coverage 
     requirement, and for other purposes. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived. An amendment in 
     the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
     Committee Print 113-56, modified by the amendment printed in 
     the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as 
     amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 
     as amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1 
hour.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.

                              {time}  1245


                             General Leave

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 717 provides for 
consideration of H.R. 3522, the Employer Health Care Protection Act. 
The rule provides for 1 hour of debate controlled by the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce, equally divided between the majority and minority. 
One clarifying amendment has been included to clarify that group health 
plans for the upcoming year can be covered under 2013 plans. The 
minority is afforded the customary opportunity to offer one motion to 
recommit, should they so choose. This is a fair rule to allow us to 
give some relief to Americans who want to keep their health insurance 
plan but are being told that, because of the Affordable Care Act, they 
may not.
  Mr. Speaker, it seems that the President has quickly forgotten some 
of the promises he made to the American people about this law. In a 
June 2009 speech before the American Medical Association, President 
Obama, addressing the house of delegates, said:

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

  In March of 2010, the President said:

       Your employer, it's estimated, will see premiums fall by as 
     much as 3,000 percent, which means they could give you a 
     raise.

  It is obvious that both statements were not only nonoperational, they 
were completely false. Individuals and businesses have experienced or 
will face in the future the loss of current health insurance if it does 
not comply with Affordable Care Act coverage requirements. The 
Affordable Care Act is, quite simply, a job killer. Employers are 
reducing hours and limiting pay increases just to keep up with the 
demands of the law.
  Just a few weeks ago, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York reported 
that over half of employers are changing insurance in response to the 
Affordable Care Act. These changes aren't being done for the benefit of 
the employees. All across the country, employees have lost doctors, 
seen premiums rise, seen hours cut, or had their coverage dropped. This 
will continue as long as the Affordable Care Act continues with the 
benefit mandates, burdensome taxes, and unreasonable regulation. In 
fact, employees are paying more in out-of-pocket costs than ever 
before. Premiums have skyrocketed under the Affordable Care Act, but 
access to doctors has narrowed.
  Today, H.R. 3522 offers a solution to this problem. This bill would 
allow employer-sponsored plans that were available at any point in 2013 
to continue to be offered. This bill would also help protect both 
employers offering these plans and their employees enrolled in them 
from the Affordable Care Act's costly taxes and penalties.
  The President recognizes that there are serious flaws in his 
signature

[[Page 14402]]

health care law, a law that he championed and, in fact, was written at 
the White House. Since the law was passed, the President has signed 
seven bills into law that repealed parts of the Affordable Care Act, 
bills that passed both the House and the Senate, went to the President 
for his signature, and he signed them.
  In addition to these statutory changes, there have been attempts to 
fix this broken law through a series of unilateral executive orders and 
regulations. Can we really expect the same administration that wrote 
this disastrous law to now fix it?
  Last year, the President unilaterally decided to delay the employer 
mandate. Even the administration doesn't believe that businesses and 
their employees can handle the burdens imposed by the Affordable Care 
Act.
  H.R. 3522 is offering the American people a legal solution to get out 
from under the crushing demands of the health care law. The law would 
grandfather in employer plans that existed before the law went into 
effect. With the passage of this bill before us today, no employee 
would have to lose their coverage or have their out-of-pocket costs 
soar because of the Affordable Care Act.
  It is clear that H.R. 3522 offers the only feasible lifeline to 
millions of employees who want to keep their health care plan. It is 
Congress' job to protect the American people. I urge men and women on 
both sides of the dais to pass this law so that Americans will have the 
opportunity to keep their plans and their doctors and reduce their out-
of-pocket costs.
  To be clear, this bill before us today, if signed into law, will not 
fix the Affordable Care Act. No piece of legislation, short of a full-
fledged repeal, could ever achieve that. The bill we are voting on 
today serves to stop the hemorrhaging that is occurring as a 
consequence of this ill-conceived government takeover of the American 
health care industry. As a physician, I know that sometimes it is 
important to just stop the hemorrhage if you are going to save the 
patient. That is what the House of Representatives will do today. I 
hope all colleagues from both sides of the dais will support this.
  I encourage everyone to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the 
underlying bill and stand with millions of Americans who are losing 
their employer health care coverage and access to their doctors, 
despite what has been promised to them repeatedly by this disastrous 
law.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  I am hearing quotes given about what people promised when and what is 
happening now, and yet under this very rule that we are considering, I 
fail to see how it is consistent with promises that our current Speaker 
has made.
  On January 5, 2011, our current Speaker, promised:

       You will always have the right to a robust debate and open 
     process that allows you to represent your constituents, to 
     make your case, offer alternatives, and to be heard. 
     Furthermore, to my friends in the minority, I offer a 
     commitment: openness.

  And yet how ironic is it that this very rule is the 75th closed rule 
of the 113th Congress?
  Now, what does a closed rule mean? A closed rule means that even if 
Democrats or Republicans have great ideas about how to improve or amend 
a bill, they are not even allowed to be discussed or voted upon on the 
floor of the House.
  A closed rule means the only say that I or my friends get as Members 
of Congress is to say ``yes'' or ``no.'' We don't get to improve upon 
the idea. We don't get to make it work better for our country. We don't 
get to offer changes that will reduce costs to taxpayers or improve the 
efficiency of the bill.
  We had a commitment from this current Speaker to have an open 
process, and yet here we have before us the 75th closed rule. This is 
the diamond jubilee of closed rules that we are celebrating here on the 
floor of the House today with this 75th closed rule that doesn't allow 
my Democratic or Republican colleagues to bring forth simple, 
commonsense ideas to improve the bill before us and make it work for 
our country.
  In addition to the diamond jubilee of closed rules, we also have the 
53rd attempted repeal of ObamaCare, or the Affordable Care Act. Now, we 
get that. Our friends on the other side want to repeal the Affordable 
Care Act. We have heard that. This is the 53rd time we have heard that.
  Whenever our colleagues on the other side are serious about rolling 
up their sleeves and working in a bipartisan way to improve the 
Affordable Care Act, to make it work better for our country, to 
increase competition, to reduce costs, we are happy to have that 
discussion.
  I myself am the sponsor of several bills to change the Affordable 
Care Act, as are many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, but 
instead of having that discussion, we are having the 53rd vote to 
repeal the Affordable Care Act under the 75th closed rule of the 
current Congress. I think the American people are learning no longer to 
be surprised by these kinds of maneuvers. We wonder why the approval of 
rating Congress is at a record low of 12 percent.
  There was a commitment from our Speaker to allow us to represent our 
constituents, to allow us to make our case, to allow us to offer 
alternatives. We are going to do that under the previous question. We 
are going to do that under the motion to recommit. But in terms of 
actually being able to amend this bill, the process has been closed, 
not only from my fellow Democrats, but from the many fine Republicans 
who have ideas to make this bill better and make health care more 
affordable.
  This Congress deserves better, and I know that we can do better.
  I know that under this rule, my colleague, Mr. Burgess, managed to 
have his amendment included. They use a self-executed amendment in the 
rule. That means that by passing this rule there is a special amendment 
that actually becomes part of the bill. We don't even have the 
opportunity to debate the merits of that amendment, whatever they are, 
but any other ideas from Democrats or Republicans are closed down for 
the 75th time. They are not even able to bring them forward.
  My colleagues have a lot of ideas for improving the Affordable Care 
Act. I am the sponsor of a number of bills. Rather than bringing forth 
the 53rd repeal of the Affordable Care Act, let's move forward. The 
country is ready to go. Let's make sure that Americans that have used 
the health care marketplace to enroll in affordable, high-quality 
health care are able to continue doing so. Let's make sure we improve 
the Affordable Care Act rather than end it.
  Instead of rolling back protections that benefit millions of 
Americans, let's get back to work on the issues that matter, like 
reducing costs in health care, like fixing our broken immigration, like 
raising the minimum wage and making sure that we can get our economy 
going with an infrastructure investment.
  For instance, on immigration reform alone, this body's failure to act 
continues to cost taxpayers money every day. There is a bill that 
passed the Senate with more than a two-thirds majority. That is not 
easy to do over there. If that bill were simply allowed to come to a 
vote in the open process that the Speaker promised and allow us to vote 
for our constituents, I think it would pass.
  We have a bipartisan bill in the House called H.R. 15. It is a 
version of the Senate bill. We can bring that bill forward under a 
rule. Let's do it. It will pass tomorrow and address our broken 
immigration system and save taxpayers over $200 billion over 10 years, 
create hundreds of thousands of jobs for Americans, secure our borders, 
and make sure that the rule of law in our country is restored. The 
longer we put that off, the worse that issue becomes and the harder it 
will be to address.
  Again, while this bill is an anniversary of sorts--the diamond 
jubilee of closed bills and the 53rd attempt to repeal the Affordable 
Care Act--it doesn't offer anything new to the American people, and it 
doesn't allow

[[Page 14403]]

Democrats or Republicans who have thoughtful ideas for improving the 
Affordable Care Act to bring them forward at all to be discussed on 
their merits or voted on here in this body.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule.
  Again, Mr. Polis, I think, very powerfully stated how this majority 
once again is denying a free and open amendment process, or even a 
limited amendment process, with this totalitarian version of debate.
  I also want to speak in opposition to the underlying bill. We heard a 
lot about skyrocketing premiums. I come from a State where a Governor 
actually embraced the Affordable Care Act. What we saw just a few days 
ago, with the new premiums that are released for 2015, was reported on 
by Kaiser Family Foundation, which is the gold standard for health care 
reporting in this country, is that the State of Connecticut is actually 
going to see a 4 percent reduction in the plans sold through the 
Affordable Care Act exchange. My friend from Colorado is one of the 
real lucky States. They are looking at a 15 percent reduction in terms 
of their silver plans that are sold through the exchange.
  Again, this chart which we have prepared for today shows that, rather 
than skyrocketing premiums, what we are seeing in State after State 
after State in terms of premiums for next year is that there are either 
reductions or very modest increases.
  The bill that we are going to be voting on later today would actually 
damage the progress that is being made in a lot of these States because 
it basically expands plans that protect discriminating against people 
with preexisting conditions, which was, sadly, what the insurance 
market looked like before the Affordable Care Act was passed. It, 
again, allows cherry-picking plans that picked healthier populations as 
opposed to what we are seeing with the plans that have been implemented 
and now are high-functioning.

                              {time}  1300

  256,000 people enrolled through the exchange in the State of 
Connecticut last year, far shattering all the projections that HHS had 
set forth, because we had a high-functioning Web site--kudos to 
Governor Malloy--but also because people voted with their feet; that 
when they actually got the facts and had a chance to look at the 
coverage that was being offered and the price that it was going to 
cost, they, again, shattered all the projections. And we are poised to 
move forward again next year.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I am happy to yield an additional 45 seconds to the 
gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. COURTNEY. In the small group market, what we are seeing is that 
since the enrollment ended for the individual market, the shop 
exchange, as the small market is called, tripled in terms of small 
businesses in the State of Connecticut that enrolled, with protections 
so that people with preexisting conditions, who are born with diabetes, 
or arthritis, are not going to be shut out of the market, which these 
old plans that the Cassidy bill seeks to enshrine and enlarge did under 
the provisions of that legislation.
  We, as Mr. Polis said, need to roll up our sleeves and talk about 
ways that we can improve the law. This is a huge, terrible step 
backwards, which, for all these States which are seeing rate reductions 
for 2015, would be lost.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting recitation.
  I wanted to draw my colleagues' attention to Bloomberg View and an 
article by Megan McArdle from September 9 of 2014, just a couple of 
paragraphs in the article that prices--talking about reissue rates--
that prices are not being based on claims data. She points out, and I 
am quoting here: ``Companies began setting these rates just a few 
months ago after open enrollment closed, and because so many people 
bought in the last few weeks, they had no meaningful idea of what their 
expenses would be, that is, the insurance companies.''
  And, further quoting: ``The companies that are coming in are looking 
to gain market share, not make a profit.''
  Continuing to quote: ``The other reason we cannot learn much from 
these data right now is that for the next year, insurers are operating 
under the expectation of large subsidies from the Obama administration 
via the various reinsurance provisions in ObamaCare. These provisions 
expire in 2016.''
  Continuing to quote: ``Right now, it is just not very risky to write 
a policy that loses money because your losses are capped. Starting in 
2017, all that changes. Insurers are going to need to price policies 
with the expectation of making money and the fear of losing it.''
  Mr. Speaker, what Megan McArdle is saying is, right now you don't 
really know much about the renewal rates on insurance policies because 
there is distortion in the market because of the reinsurance provisions 
in the Affordable Care Act.
  But I will share this with you. I bought insurance in the Texas 
Federal fallback exchange. I bought a bronze plan on Blue Cross/Blue 
Shield. It is the most expensive insurance I have ever had in my life. 
Trying to plan and trying to budget for next year, I can't because here 
we sit, September 10, and I do not know what the renewal rates are 
going to be. And in all likelihood I will not know until around 
election day, with very little time to plan.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will 
offer an amendment to the rule to bring up two pieces of legislation. 
The first is the Stop Corporate Inversions Act of 2014, and the second 
is a constitutional amendment to address the issues surrounding 
Citizens United.
  To discuss our proposal, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Deutch).
  Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Colorado for 
yielding.
  I rise to urge the defeat of the motion on ordering the previous 
question on this rule.
  Most Americans would be outraged to see the 113th Congress, on track 
to be the most unproductive Congress in this Nation's history, return 
from a 5-week recess, only to waste more time. Yet, that is what is 
happening today with the GOP's 53rd attack on the Affordable Care Act.
  We could be doing so much more. We could stand up against special 
interests and advance the American people's priorities.
  We could raise the minimum wage to prevent big corporations from 
paying workers starvation wages.
  We could stand up to the gun lobby and pass background checks to stop 
criminals from buying guns online.
  We could stand up to companies that use fancy corporate inversions to 
skirt their responsibility to pay taxes towards American 
infrastructure, American schools, and American research.
  Yet, these priorities will just as surely go ignored this 113th 
Congress as they did in the 112th Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, it is no coincidence that we are not dealing with the 
people's business today. Since the 2010 Supreme Court decision in 
Citizens United, Congress has become mired in dysfunction. The people's 
House is now paralyzed by the threat of attacks from corporations and a 
handful of billionaires with their Super PACs and their secret front 
groups.
  When Members spend more time fundraising and dodging Super PAC attack 
ads than working on bipartisan solutions and championing their 
constituents' priorities, our democracy is dysfunctional. And that 
dysfunction is a form of corruption. It is money from the left and the 
right, and it is only getting worse.
  This year, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in McCutcheon that the wealthy 
have a right to hold more influence over elected officials than actual 
voters. This idea threatens our entire system of elected self-
government, and we

[[Page 14404]]

have an opportunity to take action today.
  I urge my colleagues to do the courageous thing, to do the right 
thing. Join me to support the Democracy for All Amendment, H.J. Res. 
119, to amend our Constitution and overturn these destructive Supreme 
Court rulings.
  In the Senate this week, our colleagues are considering Senator 
Udall's companion to my constitutional amendment. And while the Senate 
has this important debate about money and politics, this House is 
rehashing tired old attacks on ObamaCare that everyone is sick of.
  The Democracy for All Amendment is simple. It says that the American 
people have a right to pass laws protecting the integrity of our 
elections by limiting money and politics.
  It is time to get money out and voters in and end this ``pay-to-
play'' democracy. I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion 
ordering the previous question, to allow consideration of the Democracy 
for All Amendment to overturn Citizens United, and allow the American 
people, and not the special interests, to once again set the agenda in 
Washington.
  Mr. Speaker, our Bill of Rights guarantees free speech, but free 
speech is not free if only the wealthy can afford it.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch) 
certainly convinced me. I hope he convinced you as well that, rather 
than repealing the Affordable Care Act for the 53rd time, let's take 
this body back from the special interests and return it to the people 
of this country. And his motion will do that if we defeat the previous 
question.
  Mr. Speaker, to discuss the other proposal if we defeat the previous 
question, I am proud to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I urge we defeat the previous question for 
two reasons, and I want to speak to one of them.
  Right now, corporations can move their tax address overseas and avoid 
or lower their U.S. taxes. Middle class and other typical families 
cannot do that at all. They can't simply change their address and lower 
or eliminate their taxes.
  Since the beginning of this year, more than a dozen large 
corporations have announced their plans for inversion. And yet, they 
will continue to benefit from being headquartered in our country, 
taking advantage of everything this country has to offer, whether it is 
our wealth of educated workers, government funding of basic research, 
tax credits like R&D, or our robust financial markets.
  They will pay less in U.S. taxes, so much that the American tax base 
is expected to lose $20 billion over the next 10 years if we do nothing 
to address the issue.
  And who will make up this difference? Basically, middle class 
taxpayers.
  The Republican answer? To do nothing, leave town next week, or, some 
say, to wait for tax reform at some undetermined time.
  Republicans are taking the President to court for use of executive 
authority, his executive authority. At the same time, Republicans in 
this House fail to use their own authority, failing to do their job.
  Addressing this issue cannot wait. This is an immediate problem that 
requires an immediate legislative solution. Voting ``no'' on the 
previous question provides all of us an opportunity to do just that and 
will allow us to bring up legislation to address this problem.
  If you vote to move the previous question, essentially you are 
saying, I rubberstamp this inversion process where corporations 
essentially move their address and lower or eliminate their taxes. No 
one should be doing that.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).
  Mr. SARBANES. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a vote ``no'' on the previous question as well so 
we can allow consideration of the Democracy for All constitutional 
amendment, which would allow us to put some reasonable limits on this 
outside spending, these huge expenditures of funds by Super PACs and 
outside groups that are crowding out the voices of everyday citizens.
  When I go around my district, when I talk to people, the average 
person feels like their voice can't be heard. When they go into the 
political town square to try to make their views known, there is a 
megaphone being held by these Super PACs and these outside groups that 
is drowning out the voice of everyday citizens, so that their opinions, 
their perspective can't be heard.
  If you go to a town meeting, usually, the way they organize it is you 
sign up and everybody gets a chance to talk for 5 minutes. The way the 
system is headed with these Super PACs, because there are no limits on 
the amount of speech they can buy, if you go down to the town hall 
meeting now, in a sense, you get there and you find out that some Super 
PAC has reserved 59 minutes out of the hour of time for talking on the 
issues, and everyday citizens only have 1 minute left.
  That is why we need some reasonable limits, because the big money is 
taking over the microphone, and they are not letting anybody else have 
their opinions heard.
  A constitutional amendment, the Democracy for All constitutional 
amendment--I want to salute my colleague, Ted Deutch of Florida for 
leading the effort on this--would put reasonable limits in place so 
that everybody can have a voice, so that everybody can participate in a 
pluralistic democratic society where all voices are heard.
  I urge that we vote ``no'' on ordering the previous question to allow 
consideration of this important constitutional amendment to give a 
voice back to everyday citizens out there in our country.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).
  Mr. YARMUTH. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the previous question and to urge 
support of the Democracy for All Amendment that we intend to offer if 
the question is defeated.
  The last thing Congress needs is more special interest candidates who 
don't answer to the American people. The Supreme Court decisions in 
Citizens United and McCutcheon have opened the floodgates of unlimited 
spending on campaigns.
  Protections against special-interest influence on our elections have 
steadily eroded, along with public confidence in government. The result 
is campaigns dominated not by ideas, thoughtful debates, or visions for 
the future, but by television ads, mostly negative and mostly funded by 
unaccountable outside groups.
  In my State of Kentucky, Mitch McConnell and his special interest 
allies have spent more than $8 million, running nearly 26,000 TV ads in 
our Commonwealth. The vast majority are from outside groups attacking 
Mr. McConnell's opponents. Many bend the truth and intentionally 
mislead Kentuckians, which is a lot easier to get away with if the 
attacker isn't accountable to voters.
  Under our current political system, these groups are allowed massive 
influence over our campaigns, much more than any average citizen or 
group of citizens could ever exert.
  It is system riddled with loopholes, lacking meaningful disclosure, 
and more awash in corporate influence than ever.

                              {time}  1315

  In Kentucky, Mr. McConnell's race is expected to cost $100 million. 
That would pay the annual salaries of about 2,000 public schoolteachers 
in our Commonwealth. While Senator McConnell and other supporters of 
the Citizens United decision call this ``freedom of speech,'' it is 
actually the freedom to deceive. To be fair, dishonest ads are coming 
from both sides by both parties. These are ads made possible by

[[Page 14405]]

Citizens United, and if The Washington Post Fact Checker actually had 
to present real Pinocchios for all of the dishonest ads made possible 
by Citizens United, Geppetto would be the busiest man in America.
  That is why we need to pass the Democracy for All amendment--to put a 
stop to this runaway special interest spending on campaigns and to 
return Congress to the people it was meant to serve.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland (Ms. Edwards).
  Ms. EDWARDS. I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of defeating the motion on 
ordering the previous question.
  The GOP has put forward H.R. 3522, which would undermine the 
Affordable Care Act by putting insurance companies back in charge of 
health care for everyday Americans. That is right. I mean, it is not a 
surprise, putting corporate special interests ahead of the interests of 
the American people. Instead, they are now taking the 53rd vote to 
undermine the Affordable Care Act.
  We could be enacting a commonsense constitutional amendment, as my 
colleagues have said, that would better serve the people's interests. 
The Democracy for All constitutional amendment seeks to address the 
failure of our current political system, where the megaphones of 
moneyed interests are now drowning out the voices of ordinary 
Americans.
  Since the Supreme Court's decision in 2010 of Citizens United, which 
struck down the limits on independent campaign spending by 
corporations, we have actually seen those with deep pockets threaten 
our democracy, spending unlimited, hidden amounts on our elections, and 
it gets worse with each passing election.
  Two years ago, outside groups, including more than 1,200 so-called 
Super PACs, spent $970 million on our elections. That is nearly $1 
billion in secret, dark money. It is not fair, and the American people 
know it. $123 million of anonymous cash was also spent. Overall, 
spending totaled nearly $7 billion.
  Earlier this year, another Supreme Court decision struck down 
decades-old caps on the total amount that any one individual can 
contribute to Federal candidates in a 2-year cycle. Now those 
individuals--and there are only a handful of them across the United 
States--can contribute unlimited amounts from their own pockets into 
elections. The result has only increased the role that money plays in 
American politics.
  Recent reports show that undisclosed political spending, better known 
as ``dark money,'' will, once again, reach record levels in this 
November's election.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Recently, the Center for Responsive Politics announced 
that dark money has already exceeded $50 million--seven times the 
amount that was accrued at this time in the last midterm election.
  Justice Breyer wrote in this last Supreme Court decision: ``Where 
enough money calls the tune, the general public will not be heard.''
  We are not being heard, and that is exactly the position that we find 
ourselves in today because, as the Republican House votes to repeal or 
undermine the Affordable Care Act for the 53rd time since its 
enactment, they have given us a choice. The Republicans want us to 
choose corporate insurance special interests, or we can choose the 
interests of the American people by passing a constitutional amendment 
that would restore democracy, government, and our elections back to the 
people of the United States.
  It is time that we pass this constitutional amendment, Mr. Speaker. I 
urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and to let us begin 
to address the interests of the American people.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  I just want to address the issue of the insurance companies.
  They have never enjoyed the type of unprecedented power that they 
have today until the passage of the Affordable Care Act. The insurance 
companies--executives from the insurance companies--meet regularly down 
at the White House with the Secretary of Health and Human Services. We 
are not privy to those discussions. We have no earthly idea what goes 
on in those meetings, but we do know that insurance companies are 
enjoying unprecedented profits right now since the passage of the 
Affordable Care Act. Their profits have increased. Their stock prices 
have increased.
  Why is that? It is because of the individual mandate that was 
included in the Affordable Care Act.
  No longer do insurance companies need to be interested in the 
longitudinal relationships with their insureds. You have got to buy 
what they are selling. Don't even get me started on their own narrow 
networks, which can restrict patients' abilities to see a doctor or to 
go to a hospital, to see who they want, to buy the medications that 
they need or to be reimbursed for the medications that they need. A lot 
of that has gone out the window. Talk about people with preexisting 
conditions. Most of us buy on price. Since we buy the lowest-cost price 
on the Bronze plan, we find ourselves now confined by narrow networks.
  Who is really now prejudiced against a person with a preexisting 
condition under the current arrangement?
  This bill today does not undo the Affordable Care Act, but it 
provides one more little measure of sanity for patients who wanted to 
keep their insurance policies before this regime took over.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  Mr. COHEN. I appreciate the time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a tremendously important topic because this 
Congress, unfortunately, and our government are affected so much by 
political contributions. Because of Baker v. Carr, ``one man, one 
vote'' exists, but that one vote is not equal to the voice of 
corporations or individuals with unlimited amounts of money. The fact 
is those people, those corporations, have gotten more of a voice than 
any one person's vote.
  Most Members of Congress spend a great deal of time raising money 
when they should be studying issues, listening to debate, participating 
in debate, listening to constituents. The amount of money that is in 
this system and determines who comes into this body is beyond anything 
the Framers of the Constitution ever imagined. The amendment that we 
offer would allow the Congress to put limits on the amount of money 
that can come into the system. It promotes the idea of everybody being 
equal, of ``one man, one vote'' and our representing people equally. It 
simply gives Congress the power to set limits.
  I don't know why anybody in this Congress would object to giving 
Congress the power to set limits on corporate spending involving 
campaigns, which takes away the fundamental aspect of democracy that 
each person is considered to have a voice and one's perspectives 
presented on this floor in equal opportunity with those who are the 
most wealthy. There is nothing that affects this House in a more 
adverse way than money. This amendment can help this House be more 
representative of the great democracy that we represent and intend to 
represent and make it the democracy that it is supposed to be. It 
simply gives Congress that power.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman from Tennessee an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. COHEN. I would urge this amendment to be considered and to be 
voted on in order to uphold the idea that each individual and his 
position is sacred and equal, that money is taken out of the system in 
the best possible

[[Page 14406]]

ways, and that corporations don't continue to have the extraordinary 
influence they have had on this body.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. POLIS. 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. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 
3522.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to H.R. 3522, the 
Employee Health Care Protection Act.
  While the title of this legislation and those supporting it claim 
that it will protect employees, in fact, it will prevent millions of 
Americans from accessing the consumer protections and important reforms 
included in the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
  H.R. 3522 would permit any health insurance issuer offering coverage 
in the group market in 2013 to continue to offer that coverage through 
2018. These insurance policies would not have to comply with the 
consumer protections that went into effect in 2014.
  This bill is different--and much worse--than the Administration's 
grandfathering policy. It means that insurance companies would be able 
to cherry pick, offering low rates for inadequate bare-bones policies 
for some groups but discriminate against, charge higher prices, or 
offer weaker coverage for others.
  The bill would put insurance companies back in the driver's seat. If 
this became law, insurers will be able to continue to discriminate 
against small businesses if they have an older workforce, more women in 
their workforce, or if any of their employees or their children has 
pre-existing health conditions. And small businesses will face higher 
premiums and continue to see their premiums spike year to year if an 
employee has an accident, develops a chronic health condition, or has a 
complicated pregnancy.
  Since the Affordable Care Act became law, businesses have added 
nearly 10 million jobs and in just the past few months, more than 10 
million people who were previously uninsured have gained health 
insurance coverage. Premiums have risen at historically low levels, and 
the life of the Medicare trust fund has been extended by 13 years.
  We have come far in the effort to stop the worst abuses of the 
insurance industry and provide Americans with true coverage that 
protects them from bankruptcy, annual and life-time limits, 
discrimination, and from being dropped from their plans when they need 
them the most. Rolling back critical reforms and returning to a broken 
system is not the answer. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and 
work together to improve the law for all Americans.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire if the gentleman has 
any remaining speakers. We are prepared to close.
  Mr. BURGESS. No, I have no additional speakers. I am prepared to 
close.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Instead of focusing on rolling back protections for the benefits of 
millions of Americans for the 53rd time, this House should get back to 
the work of focusing on real problems, like the need to overhaul our 
broken immigration system and replace it with one that works for our 
country. Instead of solving immigration problems that are facing our 
Nation, the House continues to vote on bills that take our country 
backwards.
  Before we left for recess 5 weeks ago, the House voted to deny 
DREAMers the ability to stay here, and they subjected them to 
deportation proceedings. This body's continued failure to act on 
comprehensive immigration reform means that the President must act 
instead. For more than a year, I have come to the House floor to decry 
the fact that the House Republicans have failed to move any immigration 
reform bills to the floor this entire Congress--or any bills to secure 
our border, any bills to provide provisional work permits, any bills to 
require workplace authentication. Not a single one has been brought to 
the floor of the House.
  I am deeply disappointed that the President has put off taking action 
on this bill until after the November elections, but the President will 
have no alternative if this Congress continues to fail to act. Sadly, 
over the next 2 months, the current administration will continue to 
deport tens of thousands of hardworking mothers, fathers, sisters, and 
brothers because of the lack of courage of this body to act and because 
the President continues to refuse to act with the authority that is 
already granted to him by the nature of his office.
  I am hopeful that the President's failure to act right now means he 
will go big and bold tomorrow, but the truth is the President can't do 
it all alone. He needs Congress. If we are serious about securing the 
border, it will take an appropriation--it will take resources--from 
this body to secure the border. I am confident the President will do 
whatever he can with the money and resources he has to do it, but if 
this body is serious, we need to require the President to secure the 
border and make sure the President has the resources to do that. I am 
hopeful the President will use his powers to reform our antiquated visa 
program, which restricts an employer's ability to hire key talent and 
only provides an additional incentive for companies to move overseas so 
that they can hire the people they need.
  These are issues that the President can and should address now, not 
just when it is politically convenient. Unite families, make America 
more competitive, and challenge Congress to get immigration reform 
done.
  Of course, any relief the President provides would be just a 
temporary fix. Only this body can find a permanent solution by 
rewriting our immigration laws to restore the rule of law with regard 
to the 11 million people who are here illegally, to reform our visa and 
green card systems going forward, to secure our borders, to ensure 
workplace enforcement, and to make sure that we can facilitate legal 
commerce between Mexico and the United States.
  But once again, rather than addressing the issue that came up the 
most of any issue in my 10 town halls--immigration reform--we are faced 
with the 53rd repeal of the Affordable Care Act and the 75th closed 
rule--the diamond jubilee of closed rules--that doesn't allow Democrats 
or Republicans to offer a single amendment to this bill. Amendments 
that are germane, that improve the Affordable Care Act, that have 
bipartisan consensus support are not even allowed to be brought forward 
and are not even discussed for 10 minutes on the floor of this House of 
Representatives.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record, along with the extraneous material, 
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' 
and defeat the previous question. Vote ``no'' on the underlying bills.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  In 2006, the Democrat manifesto, ``A New Direction for America,'' 
states:

       Bills should come to the floor under a procedure that 
     allows open, full and fair debate, consisting of a full 
     amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer 
     its alternatives, including a substitute.

  The fact remains that, when the Democrats took control of the House, 
they did precisely the opposite.
  Throughout the 111th Congress, which was the final 2 years of 
Representative Pelosi's time as Speaker and which was the first 2 years 
of the Obama administration, the House never considered a single bill 
under an open rule. That is the definition of a closed process. Under 
Republican control, the House has returned to the consideration of 
appropriations bills under an open process with 22 open rules.

                              {time}  1330

  This year, the House has considered 404 amendments, 189 of which were 
offered by the Democrats. When you compare the record of the Republican 
majority and the most recent Democratic majority, any fair analysis 
will show that the Republicans are running a more open, transparent 
House of Representatives.
  One word on the previous question: defeat of the previous question 
would not allow any of these proposals that

[[Page 14407]]

we have heard about today to be considered because they would not be 
germane to the rule, so I do urge my colleagues to support the previous 
question.
  Today's rule provides for the consideration of a critical bill to 
protect millions of Americans who are facing the loss of their 
employer-sponsored health insurance and that they were promised--a 
promise is a promise--they were promised they could keep.
  I certainly thank my colleague from Louisiana, Dr. Cassidy, for his 
thoughtful piece of legislation and his work in this effort.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

      An Amendment to H. Res. 717 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the joint 
     resolution (H.J. Res. 119) proposing an amendment to the 
     Constitution of the United States relating to contributions 
     and expenditures intended to affect elections. The first 
     reading of the joint resolution shall be dispensed with. All 
     points of order against consideration of the joint resolution 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the joint 
     resolution and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the joint 
     resolution shall be considered for amendment under the five-
     minute rule. All points of order against provisions in the 
     joint resolution are waived. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the joint resolution for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the joint resolution to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint 
     resolution and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and 
     reports that it has come to no resolution on the joint 
     resolution, then on the next legislative day the House shall, 
     immediately after the third daily order of business under 
     clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole 
     for further consideration of the joint resolution.
       Sec. 3. Immediately upon disposition of H. J. Res. 119, the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     4679) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify 
     the rules relating to inverted corporations. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. All points of order against 
     provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of 
     the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution 
     on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House 
     shall, immediately after the third daily order of business 
     under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the 
     Whole for further consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.J. Res. 119 or H.R. 4679.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. BURGESS. With that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________