Michael Burgess

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, we are here today to correct a technical problem that exists with trying to draft to Senate rules with the House legislation. Recognizing the problem, the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. McSally) has introduced a straightforward and practical bill to fix the problem. It is a simple 2-page bill that, when the American Health Care Act becomes law, Members of Congress and congressional staff will be treated the same way as every other citizen. That is only right, and it is only proper. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Reverend Richard Kevin Barnard, who passed on March 18, 2017. Reverend Barnard has served as a minister in the Reformed Episcopal Church since July of 1989. Prior to that, he served 18 years at The Chapel of the Cross in Dallas, Texas and most recently at Christ Church Angelican Ft. Worth. Before coming to The Chapel, Reverend Barnard was Director of Communications for the International Bible Society, which was then located in East Brunswick, New Jersey. In that capacity he was a regular participant in the monthly White House Forum for Religious Organizations during the Reagan Administration and represented the Bible Society at public and private events, traveling to Central America, Europe, Africa and Asia. At my invitation on July 26, 2006, Reverend Barnard served as Chaplin of the Day for the United States House of Representatives. Reverend Barnard's gracious presence and true dedication to the work and word of Christ has been an instrumental part of my life. He encouraged his congregation to remain faithful to pursuing our walk with Christ daily.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 230 provides for a rule to consider a Congressional Review Act resolution which will undo a duplicative regulation put into place by the previous administration in the final hours of that Presidency. The rule brings before the House this resolution so that Congress may remove through the proper legislative process rules promulgated by bureaucrats who remain unaccountable to the American people. This process allows those who are accountable--the elected Representatives in Congress--to fight for our constituents' rights and liberties. House Resolution 230 provides for a closed rule for the Congressional Review Act resolution, S.J. Res. 34, the standard procedure for such resolutions, since the sole purpose of the resolution is to remove a regulation from the Federal Register. The rule allows for 1 hour of debate, equally divided between the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Further, the minority is afforded the customary motion to commit. The Federal Communications Commission issued its Open Internet Order, reclassifying broadband providers as common carriers, which brought them under the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission. The Federal Trade Commission is the primary regulator of companies' privacy and data security practices; however, the Federal Trade Commission's regulatory authority under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act does not extend to common carriers. Therefore, the reclassification of broadband internet service providers as common carriers created a legal enforcement gap. The Federal Communications Commission determined that the privacy provisions of the Communications Act would now apply to broadband internet service providers and that new and expanded privacy rules were necessary. Therefore, the Federal Communications Commission promulgated new privacy rules for common carriers on October 27, 2016. These rules were adopted a mere 10 days before the 2016 Presidential election. They were adopted on a party-line vote and over serious objections by the minority Commission members and the internet service providers. The Federal Communications Commission's rules are a departure from the privacy protections that have been applied by the Federal Trade Commission for years. The Federal Trade Commission employs an opt-out model that requires companies to provide consumers notice of the data that is collected and how it will be used. Consumers are then given the option to opt out of this data collection if they so choose. Instead of implementing well- established collection practices that are accepted industrywide, the Federal Communications Commission chose to promulgate an opt-in model for its new internet service providers. This model prohibits broadband internet service providers from using, disclosing, or providing access to customer proprietary information without the customer's affirmative opt-in consent. Such data includes browsing history, application usage, and location data, among other types of information. While this may sound like a good thing to opt in to, in reality, it unfairly skews the market in favor of providers that already have access to consumer information. For example, search engines, social media sites, and internet content providers like Netflix, Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Apple, these providers, known as edge providers, are free to collect consumer data that broadband internet service providers, under the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission, are not. The ability to provide consumer data drives the digital advertising market. The Federal Communications Commission's privacy rules arbitrarily treat internet service providers differently from the rest of the internet, amounting to government intervention in the free market. The Federal Communications Commission stated that the rules would provide more transparency, the rules would provide more choice, the rules would provide more protection; however, these expanded provisions may also result in more frequent breach notifications, leading to a weaker focus on security by consumers who do suffer from notification fatigue. While the Federal Communications Commission's privacy rules were meant to protect consumers, they actually can inhibit security and market competition while creating confusion by subjecting parts of the internet ecosystem to different rules and different jurisdictions. To correct this policy, on March 23, 2017, the Senate passed S.J. Res. 34, a Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval to nullify the privacy rulemaking promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission. Prior to the reclassification of broadband internet service providers as common carriers under the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade Commission regulated companies' privacy practices while preserving the Federal Communications Commission's authority to enforce privacy obligations of broadband service providers on a case-by-case basis. This Congressional Review Act will restore the status quo that existed prior to the Federal Communications Commission's Open Internet Order and bring the privacy practices of all parts of the internet back into balance. Not only will this level the playing field for an increasingly anticompetitive market, but it will ensure parity in the protection of consumer data. The new Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Ajit Pai, has called to halt the Federal Communications Commission's privacy rules. He stated: ``All actors in the online space should be subject to the same rules. . . . The Federal Government shouldn't favor one set of companies over another.'' This is precisely the type of limited government that we should be striving for after years of overreaching by the previous administration and its regulations. The Congressional Review Act protects consumers, and it restores the free market competitiveness that actually allows our economy to thrive. The Congressional Review Act is an important tool in maintaining accountability at the Federal level. Its necessity has never been more apparent than over the past 2 months, where this Congress has needed to step in and remove burdensome, unbalanced regulations put in place by the prior administration and their team just as they were walking out the door. House Republicans today will stand up for the rights of our constituents against the out-of-control Federal bureaucracy. I urge my colleagues to support today's rule and the underlying Congressional Review Act resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 230 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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. General Leave

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, to bring us back to the business at hand, which is the rule allowing the vote on the Congressional Review Act later today, I want to quote now from the web page of the Federal Trade Commission, under the title of Protecting Consumer Privacy. Reading from their website: The Federal Trade Commission has been the chief Federal agency on privacy policy and enforcement since the 1970s when it began enforcing one of the first Federal privacy laws--the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Since then, rapid changes in technology have raised new privacy challenges, but the Federal Trade Commission's overall approach has been consistent. The agency uses law enforcement, policy initiatives, and consumer and business education to protect consumers' personal information and ensure that they have the confidence to take advantage of the many benefits of an ever- changing marketplace. This is from the ftc.gov website. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the web page of the Federal Trade Commission. Federal Trade Commission Protecting Consumer Privacy The FTC has been the chief federal agency on privacy policy and enforcement since the 1970s, when it began enforcing one of the first federal privacy laws--the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Since then, rapid changes in technology have raised new privacy challenges, but the FTC's overall approach has been consistent: The agency uses law enforcement, policy initiatives, and consumer and business education to protect consumers' personal information and ensure that they have the confidence to take advantage of the many benefits of the ever-changing marketplace. FTC's Privacy Report: Balancing Privacy and Innovation; The Do Not Track Option: Giving Consumers a Choice; Making Sure Companies Keep Their Privacy Promises to Consumers; Protecting Consumers' Financial Privacy; The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA): What Parents Should Know.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the men and women of the Federal Trade Commission for all the work they have done over the years in protecting our privacy. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, just to put some things in context, I wanted to share some information from a blog called redstate.com, posted by Seton Motley, on March 27, 2017, talking about the difference between the size and scope of edge providers versus the ISPs, the internet service providers. The parent company of one of the largest edge providers is valued at over $500 billion. He points out in his blog post, by way of comparison, the nation of Singapore's gross domestic product, the entire output for every man, woman, and child in a very productive country is $508 billion. Basically, the same. So the edge provider stands on equal financial footing of the world's 40th richest country. By way of contrast, the Nation's largest internet service provider has a net worth of $148 billion. So the edge provider is more than three and a half times larger than the Nation's largest ISP.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 30 seconds. I think we can begin to see the scope of the problem and why unbalancing this playing field is inherently a bad idea. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I apparently do not have any additional speakers.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time. I include in the Record an op-ed from The Wall Street Journal from March 1, 2017, by Jeff Flake, a member of the other body. The title of the op-ed is ``Settling a Bureaucratic Turf War in Online Privacy Rules.'' [From The Wall Street Journal, Mar. 1, 2017] Settling a Bureaucratic Turf War in Online Privacy Rules (By Jeff Flake) When you shop online from your tablet or browse the internet on your smartphones, you expect your personal data to be secure. Technology companies invest billions of dollars on data security to protect consumer privacy. Privacy is also a cornerstone of consumer protection, with federal enforcement agencies striking an appropriate balance between innovation and security in their regulations. But just as a flawed line of code can render a new firewall program useless, the new privacy rules that were rushed through in the waning days of the Obama administration risk crashing our longstanding privacy-protection regime. For two decades, the Federal Trade Commission has been America's sole online privacy regulator. Under the FTC's watch, our internet and data economy has been the envy of the world. The agency's evidence-based approach calibrates privacy and data-security requirements to the sensitivity of information collected, used or shared online, and applies protections in a consistent and evenhanded way across business sectors. Consumer behavior demonstrates the success of the FTC's regulatory approach: Each day people spend more time engaging in online activities. But in 2015, in a bid to expand its own power, the Federal Communications Commission short-circuited the effectiveness of the FTC's approach by reclassifying internet service providers as common carriers, subject to Title II of the Communications Act. In taking that unprecedented action, the FCC unilaterally stripped the FTC of its traditional jurisdiction over ISPs. The FTC can no longer police the privacy practices of providers, leaving us with a two-track system under which the FCC applies its own set of rules for ISPs while the FTC monitors the rest of the internet ecosystem. Even after the 2015 power grab, the FCC could have simply adopted as its own the FTC's successful sensitivity-based model of privacy regulation. Instead--after last year's election--the FCC finalized privacy regulations that deviate extensively from the FTC framework in several key respects. The FCC rules subject all web browsing and app usage data to the same restrictive requirements as sensitive personal information. That means that information generated from looking up the latest Cardinals score or checking the weather in Scottsdale is treated the same as personal health and financial data. The new rules also restrict an ISP's ability to inform customers about innovative and cost-saving product offerings. So much for consumer choice. The FCC's overreach is a dangerous deviation from successful regulation and common-sense industry practices. But don't just take my word for it. The FTC concluded that the FCC's decision to treat ISPs differently from the rest of the internet ecosystem was ``not optimal--agency-speak for ``a really bad idea.'' Outside of the FTC's well-founded concerns, the new rules are also a departure from bipartisan agreement on the need for consistent online privacy rules. President Obama noted in 2012 that ``companies should present choices about data sharing, collection, use, and disclosure that are appropriate for the scale, scope, and sensitivity of personal data in question at the time of collection.'' In other words, privacy rules should be based on the data itself. But that's not how the FCC sees it. The commission's rules suffocate industry and harm consumers by creating two completely different sets of requirements for different parts of the internet. To protect consumers from these harmful new regulations, I will soon introduce a resolution under the Congressional Review Act to repeal the FCC's flawed privacy rules. While the resolution would eliminate those rules, it would not change the current statutory classification of broadband service or bring ISPs back under FTC jurisdiction. Instead, the resolution would scrap the FCC's newly imposed privacy rules in the hope that it would follow the FTC's successful sensitivity-based framework. This CRA resolution does nothing to change the privacy protections consumers currently enjoy. I hope Congress and the FCC will continue working together to address issues of concern down the road. However, it is imperative for rule- making entities to stay in their jurisdictional lanes. We need to reject these harmful midnight privacy regulations that serve only to empower bureaucrats and hurt consumers.

Mr. BURGESS. I want to read from a couple of the lines from this op- ed. The Senator states here: ``Privacy is also a cornerstone of consumer protection, with Federal enforcement agencies striking an appropriate balance between innovation and security in their regulations. But just as a flawed line of code can render a new firewall program useless, the new privacy rules that were rushed through in the waning days of the Obama administration risk crashing our longstanding privacy-protection regime.'' Continuing to quote here: ``For two decades, the Federal Trade Commission has been America's sole online privacy regulator. Under the FTC's watch, our internet and data economy has been the envy of the world. The agency's evidence-based approach calibrates privacy and data-security requirements to the sensitivity of information collected, used or shared online, and applies protections in a consistent and evenhanded way across business sectors. Consumer behavior demonstrates the success of the FTC's regulatory approach: Each day people spend more time engaging in online activities.'' Now, continuing to quote here: ``The FCC's overreach is a dangerous deviation from successful regulation and commonsense industry practices. But don't take my word for it. The FTC concluded that the FCC's decision to treat ISPs differently from the rest of the internet ecosystem was `not optimal'--agencyspeak for `a really bad idea.' '' One final quote from Senator Flake's op-ed: ``This CRA resolution does nothing to change the privacy protections consumers currently enjoy. I hope Congress and the FCC will continue working together to address issues of concern down the road. However, it is imperative for rulemaking entities to stay in their jurisdictional lanes. We need to reject these harmful midnight privacy regulations that serve only to empower bureaucrats and hurt consumers.'' Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of a critical Congressional Review Act resolution to repeal a duplicative Federal regulation dropped on the doorstep of the American people in the last hours of the previous administration. The rule the House will be voting on today to repeal would create uncertainty and chaos surrounding the protection of people's privacy online. I want to thank Mrs. Blackburn of Tennessee, the chairwoman of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communication and Technology, for her work on this critical issue. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and vote ``yes'' on the underlying resolution.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, we all know why we are here--the problems that exist within the Affordable Care Act. It is simply not working for the American people--limited choice, costs going up, and millions without access to care. Unfortunately, these are not just talking points, but real issues affecting real Americans. The Affordable Care Act has damaged the individual market. It has driven insurers away from offering coverage. Now, we are seeing one- third of all United States counties with only one insurer. And among the plans that have chosen to remain in the markets, there have been widespread, double-digit premium increases. The individual markets are a death spiral and are failing to live up to the promises made 7 years ago--that Americans would be able to receive affordable health care. As we knew then, and we know now, this was an empty promise that has left an estimated 19.2 million Americans without coverage. What is worse, these individuals are forced to pay the individual mandate penalty or seek a hardship exemption because of the costs to purchase and use health insurance. Nine months ago, Mr. Speaker, we began our Better Way plan to save the Nation's healthcare system and to bring relief to the American people. This plan, which served as the blueprint for the American Health Care Act, laid out the policies to stabilize the collapsing insurance markets and to repeal the more burdensome Affordable Care Act taxes and mandates that have hindered innovation and limited access to care. So let's take a look at what the American Health Care Act does. First and foremost, it provides immediate relief to the State insurance markets. As Republicans, we know that one-size-fits-all works for no one and certainly did not work for the individual markets. The States should have the flexibility to support their insurance markets and ensure that plans can continue to provide options for coverage. To do this, we relaxed two of the egregious market regulations that were imposed under the Affordable Care Act: the mandate that premiums cannot vary for younger and older Americans by more than a 3-to-1 ratio, and the mandate creating fixed actuarial values for plans. The mandate limiting a plan's ability to set premiums by age has driven up the cost for coverage for younger and healthier Americans and has pushed away those seeking coverage by the millions. Of the 19.2 million Americans who have sidestepped the individual mandate, it estimated that as many as 45 percent of these individuals are under the age of 35. Without these younger Americans seeking coverage, the markets have further plunged into death spirals, as insurers hike up premiums year after year. To change this, we are relaxing the ratio to 5-to-1. It will lower premium costs and provide necessary opportunities to stabilize the markets. Additionally, we are repealing the actuarial values mandate to provide insurers with additional flexibility to offer more coverage options. To further supplement these efforts, we are establishing the Patient and State Stability Fund. This fund provides States with $100 billion over 10 years to promote innovative solutions to lower cost and increase access to health care for unique patient populations in each State. The goal is simple: to provide States with maximum flexibility as to how they address the cost of care for their citizens. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that a combination of the Stability Fund and other proposed changes to the market would reduce premiums by 10 percent by calendar year 2026. We all want patients to have access to high-quality, affordably priced coverage. The Patient and State Stability Fund can help to lower costs. In Medicaid, in addition to supporting the insurance market, the American Health Care Act provides needed reforms to the Medicaid program. Without changes, the Medicaid expansion alone is expected to cost $1 trillion over the next decade. Medicaid desperately needs reform so that States can continue to provide coverage to children, people with disabilities, and other vulnerable groups. To address these concerns, the American Health Care Act first phases out the Medicaid expansion, the expansion that has crippled State budgets and limited States' ability to ensure that resources will continue to be available for those vulnerable populations. Additionally, our bill helps further bend the Medicaid cost curve by shifting programs toward per capita allotments. The per capita allotments, an idea that originated during the Clinton administration, will set limits on the annual cost for growth for per capita expenditures for which the States will receive matching funds from the Federal Government. The American Health Care Act increases the amount of flexibility that States have in managing their Medicaid programs. The bill scales back the Affordable Care Act mandates that have limited a State's ability to tailor their plans to the needs of their beneficiaries. States can and should be trusted to manage the needs of their beneficiaries, and this bill allows States to do that. Additionally, the bill before us today furthers the goal of providing the States with greater flexibility in managing their Medicaid programs by providing States with the option to implement two additional opportunities: work requirement and block grants for Medicaid. This time around we chose to engage our State counterparts in the discussion and listen--listen--to their input as we designed this bill. At the top of their list were the desire to see the work requirement built in and the opportunity to work with Medicaid as a block grant. We don't tell them what to do. They are given the permission to do what they feel is best for their citizens. Republicans trust the States and trust the Governors and the elected leaders in those States. Finally, the American Health Care Act provides additional resources to bolster State safety net providers. The bill provides increases in the community health center funding, offers enhanced funding to support safety net providers in States that did not expand Medicaid, and ends the cuts to the disproportionate share hospital payments. We are committed, Mr. Speaker, to ensuring that our local providers can continue to deliver lifesaving care. The American Health Care Act turns this commitment into action. For millions of Americans in rural and medically underserved areas, these actions will provide needed relief that was undercut by the Affordable Care Act. Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, it has been an interesting process. We had a 27\1/2\-hour markup in the Energy and Commerce Committee. We have had over 15 or 16 hours in the Rules Committee. This bill has been almost talked to death. I want to just acknowledge that I appreciate the input of the administration. I appreciate the fact that the directive to us last night was to put our pencils down and turn our papers in. It is time, Mr. Speaker. This is a good bill. The rule deserves our support. The underlying bill deserves our support.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the topic of the Special Order.

Mr. BURGESS. I thank the Speaker for the recognition. Mr. Speaker, October of last year, October of 2016, Bill Clinton, speaking in front of a group of people in Michigan, said: So you have got this crazy system. There are all these people out there who are busting it sometimes 60 hours a week, and they wind up with their premiums doubled and their coverage cut in half. It is the craziest thing in the world. Mr. Speaker, I don't often agree with former President Bill Clinton, but that quote pretty much sums up why we are here doing what we are doing this week with trying to fix the problems inherent in the Affordable Care Act. Now, sometimes people turning in and watching these hours must wonder how can it be we are talking about the same thing where one side says it is good and one side says it is not. Mr. Speaker, it may help to set some of the historical context. I would like to do that tonight. I would like to talk about the beginnings of what we now know as the Affordable Care Act. Some people refer to it as ObamaCare. This is a bill that was signed into law 7 years ago this month, but it didn't just spring forth. There was a lot of work involved in bringing it forward and getting it heard and getting it voted on on the floor of this House. I was part of the Energy and Commerce Committee that summer, as I still am today. The Energy and Commerce Committee did hear what was then H.R. 3100, several hours of markup in the committee, several days of markup. Other committees marked it up, and H.R. 3100 was a 1,000-page bill that left our committee. I didn't vote for the bill. I didn't think it was a good idea, but it did have Republican amendments at the end of that process. That bill then went to the Speaker's Office--not to the Budget Committee, but to the Speaker's Office. Speaker Pelosi put it together, and when it emerged, it was a 2,000-page bill that really didn't have much to do with the bill that was marked up in the committee. But, nevertheless, the bill came to the floor of this House; and in November of 2009, after a significant amount of debate, a significant amount of anxiety expressed on the Republican side and even some on the Democratic side, the bill was passed by a very slim majority. The bill went over to the Senate, and that was the end of that bill. What happened next was there were--it was not exactly a bill--several drafts of several ideas that people had over on the Senate side; and the Senate took up a bill that the House had previously passed, H.R. 3590 was the number of that bill, and the Senate debated and passed that bill on Christmas Eve of 2009. You may remember there was a snowstorm that was descending upon Washington, kind of a familiar story, a snowstorm that was coming to town. The Senators wanted to get home before the snowstorm hit, and they passed H.R. 3590. Remember, back in those days, the Democrats had a 60-vote majority in the Senate. They were able to cut off debate and pass the bill on a party-line vote with 60 Democratic Senators voting in favor of that bill. Then something strange happened. The Democrats actually lost a Senate seat in a special election in the State of Massachusetts that they weren't expecting to lose. As a consequence of losing that Senate seat, now, instead of a 60-vote majority, they had a 59-vote majority, so they actually could not cut off debate. It was not a filibuster-proof majority. Harry Reid told Nancy Pelosi, who was then the Speaker of the House: Well, I have done everything I can do. You are just going to have to pass our bill as it is. I can't make any changes to it. Speaker Pelosi wisely said--I am paraphrasing here because I don't remember the exact quote--but I think she said: I haven't got 100 votes for that thing over here in the House. I think she was right. But they worked on it, and President Obama worked on it, and 3 months later, in March of 2010, indeed, they did bring that vote up in the House, passed exactly what had passed in the Senate. As a consequence, since the Senate bill was actually an amendment to a House bill that didn't have anything to do with health care in the first place, but since it was only an amendment to a House bill that had passed the House, so many as are in favor agree with the amendment to the Senate bill, the number being 218, that bill went down to the President for a signing ceremony that very same week. Thus was born the Affordable Care Act. Now, what has led us to the point where former President Bill Clinton would say that it is a crazy system? Well, there is a lot of discussion back and forth. Certainly, Republicans took the majority shortly after that bill was signed into law. I would submit that because that bill was signed into law, Republicans regained the majority in the House of Representatives in 2011 and since that time have had a number of votes either trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act or improve the Affordable Care Act. A number of those votes have, indeed, been bipartisan votes, that is, Democrats have voted with Republicans. I think the total count is there have been 47 Democratic votes to either repeal, replace, reform, or repair the Affordable Care Act. It really has been a bipartisan effort these past 7 years. We are where we are today because of the problems that exist in the bill. Despite the talk that we heard in the last hour, people are suffering under this. There is a gentleman back home in my district. I think he is a plumber by profession. He has previously been diagnosed with bladder cancer. He says, under his Affordable Care Act policy, he gets to go see his primary care doctor once a year. His primary care doctor says, Well, you need to go to a urologist to have your cystoscopy, but his deductible is so high, he doesn't do it. He has got access to insurance, but he doesn't really have access to the kind of care that he needs that could be lifesaving and could prevent him from having a much greater problem down the road. We can all bring our individual stories out, but the fact of the matter is, access to coverage is not the same thing as access to care. During the course of the campaign this last fall--and I remember this very specifically because November 1 was the day that the new rates came out--the open enrollment period for the Affordable Care Act opened up on November 1, and people got a glimpse of what their marketplace rates were. As a consequence of those marketplace rates, people started to pay attention. There was still another week to go before election day, and people started to pay a significant amount of attention to what the rates were. It isn't just the rates. It is the access. One-third of U.S. counties have only one insurer willing to sell in marketplace in those counties. I think the number is either five or seven States that have entire States with only one insurance company. That is not really choice. That is not really access. That, in fact, is a monopoly. 2017 was a year marked by a sharp rise in premium increases across the country. Seven States saw premium increases of more than 50 percent. Texas was about 25 percent. Some States went up over 100 percent. The individual mandate, which was part and parcel of the Affordable Care Act, the most coercive Federal legislation passed since the income tax passed 100 years ago--the individual mandate is the reason that the Affordable Care Act has never achieved widespread popularity. But even with the individual mandate--that is, we are going to send the Internal Revenue Service out and make them make you buy health insurance--over 19 million taxpayers elected to pay the mandate penalty or claim a hardship exemption. There were 6.5 million individuals who paid the penalty and over 12.5 million people claimed a hardship exemption, according to the Internal Revenue Service's own files. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reported that 10.5 million individuals enrolled in an exchange plan through the first half of 2016. More than twice that number chose to either exempt themselves through a hardship waiver or just simply pay the fine and walk away from the obligation to purchase insurance. I am firmly of the belief that the individual mandate has no place in a free society. The one central thesis of the Affordable Care Act that I long to see repealed is the repeal of the individual mandate. While we are at it, we might as well take care of the employer mandate. By the way, President Obama delayed the employer mandate for 2 full years, not by a House passed bill, but by administrative fiat. He simply decided, prior to the Fourth of July in 2013: You know what? The employer mandate is going to cause trouble in the next congressional election, so I will just suspend it. In a blog post put up by Valerie Jarrett on the evening of July 2, 2013, the employer mandate was simply suspended for a couple of years because it was felt to be too onerous and because of the effect that they feared it would have on the midterm elections in 2014. Time after time, the Obama administration took it upon themselves to delay or turn back a portion of their own law, and there were multiple times where there were votes taken on this floor. I think of the 1099, the paperwork that was going to be required in the business-to-business transactions; the 1099 forms that were required under ObamaCare that were repealed by this House in a bipartisan fashion because it did pass in the Senate, and the Senate was controlled by Democrats at the time. Also, the CLASS Act, a particularly onerous part of the community living access ostensibly to provide some help with long-term care, except it really didn't. It was in an actuarial death spiral even before it was enacted. It was one of those things in the Affordable Care Act where you paid for 10 years of taxes and got 6 years of benefits. When they got finished collecting the taxes, it was decided they better do away with the benefit because, in fact, there was no benefit there at all. Time after time, in a bipartisan fashion, this House has taken action to restrict or remodel or repair or repeal portions of the Affordable Care Act. We are now coming up on a time where significant change is going to occur in the issuance of health care in this country. The change is going to be tough. We always knew it would be, but it is the right change. The Energy and Commerce Committee, the Ways and Means Committee, and the Budget Committee have put together legislation that we will be hearing up in the Rules Committee later this week; the American Health Care Act, which will come to the floor before the end of this week. Let me just make a prediction: it will pass the floor of this House. I see that I am joined by a colleague this evening. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter) to talk on this issue or any issue that may come to his mind.

Mr. BURGESS. Well, as the gentleman knows, he and I spent--what was it--27\1/2\ hours in a committee markup 2 weeks ago getting us to this point. So the gentleman from Texas thanks the gentleman from Georgia for his part and his participation. That was a very long markup, but he stayed attentive and asked good questions and offered good insights all the way to the end. We were very fortunate to have him on the committee. I have been on the committee a few more years, but it was certainly one of the nights on that committee that I will long remember. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. BURGESS. Will the gentleman maintain his position for just a moment so perhaps we can engage in a brief colloquy?

Mr. BURGESS. Of course, the gentleman was not here in 2009-2010 when this thing came down the pike, but you may remember the townhall meetings from that summer, that August of 2009, and they were pretty intense. We hear a lot about townhall meetings today, but I promise you they were every bit, if not more so, intense during August of 2009. When I look back on that, Mr. Carter, what I remember is really two things that people were asking. Yes, it wasn't nearly as long as what the Affordable Care Act ended up being, but still a thousand-page bill, people have to dig through it, have to understand it. And the two things that I took away from those townhall meetings back in the district were people were telling us, number one: Don't mess up what we have got. We have something, and it may be imperfect, but by golly, it is working for us and our families right now, so don't hurt that. The other thing they would ask is: If you are going to do anything at all, could you please help us with cost, because we are concerned about the cost of these products and we are concerned what the trajectory may be for the costs going up over time? I will just ask the gentleman from Georgia--since he was a citizen at that time, how does the gentleman from Georgia think we did with those two requests that were coming to us from our constituents? I use the term ``we'' advisedly. Obviously, I voted against that bill. But as things turned out with the Affordable Care Act, how did that turn out for the American healthcare consumer?

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for participating this evening. It means a lot to me individually that he was willing to come up and stay up late with us tonight yet one more night dealing with the Affordable Care Act. But the gentleman is quite direct. The journey of a thousand miles starts with the first step. It is a three-part program. This was the first part, the first phase that will happen on Thursday night. This deals with some of the more egregious aspects of the Affordable Care Act, those things that can be tackled through Senate rules of reconciliation that only require 51 Senators to get passed. So that is one part of this. Another part is the administrative part. And our former colleague from Georgia, Tom Price, a physician, who is now Secretary Tom Price for the Department of Health and Human Services, he has an administrative part that is actually already underway. We don't have to wait for that to happen. It is already occurring. Then there is the third part, the so-called regular order part, the part that will require 60 votes on the Senate side, the part that is, by its very nature, going to be bipartisan. We have reported two rules out of the Committee on Rules tonight, one on the McCarran-Ferguson changes that I think the gentleman is well aware of. There are already additional bills that will be coming to the floor of the House that are separate and apart from this reconciliation bill, which is just the first step in repealing the Affordable Care Act. I do want to point out that Secretary Price sent a letter to the Governors last week or a week and a half ago now talking about some of the waivers that he is bringing forward right now, the 1332 waivers, which are waivers for parts of the Affordable Care Act. Quoting from his letter here: ``Under Section 1332 of the ACA, states can apply for State Innovation Waivers and pursue innovative strategies to adapt many of the law's requirements to suit the state's specific needs.'' So many details to receive approval, what a State has to do, but he really stresses in this letter and in one of the last paragraphs: ``We encourage states interested in applying for Section 1332 waivers to reach out to the Departments promptly for assistance in formulating an approach that meets the requirements of Section 1332.'' I know the gentleman hasn't served here that long, but I will just tell you, that is a sea change of difference from the Federal agency which time after time told our Governors: No. Stop. Go back to go. Do not collect $200. You can't do that. Now we have a Secretary at the agency who is reaching out to the Governors: Governor, we want to help you make this work for you. We are going to provide the flexibility that you need. One of the things that I think is perhaps most promising is the hybrid, high-risk pool, State-operated reinsurance programs that have been proven in several States already. States that were in a so-called death spiral because of guaranteed issue community rating, the premiums were going up, people were dropping their coverage. And now these States have expanding coverage even without the things that we are providing in the American Health Care Act that we are going to be doing later this week. But already by providing that flexibility at the agency level, States are able to provide some relief for their citizens. Then, finally, the part three of this. There are going to be some must-pass healthcare bills that will be coming up through our committee. We will have an opportunity to work on those things. We are going to work on the Food and Drug Administration user fee agreement reauthorization. So we will have that, which can happen as a bipartisan exercise in our committee. I will just stress, the Committee on Energy and Commerce has a history of doing things in a bipartisan fashion. One of the reasons why I enjoy serving on that committee is it is a thoughtful committee and it does do things in a bipartisan fashion. Generally, that is one of the strengths of the committee as it brings legislation to the floor. This is an important first step. It is a necessary first step. This is the key that gets us through the door of actually making a meaningful impact on cost and coverage in these United States. It has been 7 long years, but I am anxious and eager to get started on the next part of the process. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for joining me here this evening. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.