Michael Burgess

Mr. BURGESS

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

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 893 provides for consideration of H.R. 954, the CO-OP Consumer Protection Act of 2016. The rule provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided among the majority and minority of the Committee on Ways and Means. As is standard with all legislation pertaining to the Tax Code, the Committee on Rules made no further amendments in order; however, the rule affords the minority the customary motion to recommit. Under the rule, we will be considering a bill to prevent a tax increase imposed on the American people by the Affordable Care Act. This will affect many Americans through no fault of their own and due to circumstances beyond their control. The bill advanced through regular order and was reported favorably out of the Committee on Ways and Means on a voice vote earlier this month. The Affordable Care Act established a program to provide taxpayer- funded loans for Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan program, better known as the CO-OP program. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services funded 24 CO-OPs in 23 States. Of those 24 CO-OPs, 1 failed before it ever enrolled a single individual, and just 6 remain open today. The 17 failed CO-OPs received over $1.8 billion in taxpayer funds and, to date, none of those CO-OPs has paid back any of those loans. In addition to wasting billions of taxpayer dollars, the CO-OPs have created instability and hardship for hundreds of thousands of individuals who relied on CO-OPs for insurance coverage. Under the Affordable Care Act, individuals must be covered by a health plan that provides minimum essential coverage or pay a tax for failure to maintain coverage. Thus, victims of failed CO-OPs were penalized, despite their efforts to be in compliance with the law. The magnitude of this problem for affected individuals is significant. They are left without coverage for health care. They face increased financial burdens and tax penalties. H.R. 954, the CO-OP Consumer Protection Act of 2016, would provide targeted relief by creating an exemption from the individual health insurance mandate for individuals who have coverage under a CO-OP that fails. H.R. 954 would be effective retroactively, starting January 1, 2014, and would also protect consumers of the remaining six CO-OPS going forward. While the administration and some of my counterparts have noted that consumers affected by a close CO-OP could have purchased new plans during a special enrollment period, this comes up short. Those victims of failed CO-OPs had to start anew in paying deductibles for a new plan well into the coverage year, and continuity of care could be significantly disrupted, based on changes to provider networks. H.R. 954 does not make these individuals whole, but it is the right thing to do. Across America, individuals do not even have the basic assurance that their insurance carrier will not simply vanish in the night. We should all be able to agree that these individuals should not also then face penalties under the individual mandate. H.R. 954 advanced through regular order and was favorably reported out of the Committee on Ways and Means. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. 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 yield myself the balance of my time. First off, just to correct the record, I was asked about the budgetary effect of this bill, and it is negative $4 million over the next 10 years. Congress did not defund the CO-OPs. The risk corridor program that was passed by this Congress in 2010, associated with the Affordable Care Act, was never fully funded in the first place. This bill under our consideration today does not bail out anyone. It does not bail out the CO-OPs. It eliminates a penalty--a penalty imposed on consumers who did everything they could to comply with the law known as the individual mandate under the Affordable Care Act. Look, if I ran the zoo, I would get rid of the individual mandate tomorrow. These individuals, under the individual mandate, covered by insurance which they were forced to purchase, and then goes bankrupt, through no fault of their own, they are going to get penalized for not having coverage. It is almost Kafkaesque in its design. State legislators have virtually no control over the CO-OPs. Control of the business model is completely centralized within the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The CO-OP model was fundamentally unsound from the start, another example of this administration's propensity to conduct dangerous experiments with our Nation's health care. Yet, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has continued to stand in the way of the flexibility that the co-ops actually need to become fiscally sustainable. Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of this important bill to provide relief for a tax increase looming over Americans who tried, tried, and tried to follow the rules of the Affordable Care Act and, yet, have been let down by this administration's failed policies. I certainly thank Mr. Smith on the Ways and Means Committee for proposing this legislation and shepherding it through the committee process.

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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 858 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 have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 858 provides for consideration of H.R. 3590, the Halt Tax Increases on the Middle Class and Seniors Act and the Restoring Access to Medication Act. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided among the majority and minority of the Committee on Ways and Means. As is standard with all legislation pertaining to the Tax Code, the Committee on Rules has made no further amendments in order. However, the rule affords the minority the customary motion to recommit. Under the rule, we will be considering a bill to prevent one of the most significant tax increases imposed on the American people by the Affordable Care Act. The bill advanced through regular order and was favorably reported out of the Committee on Ways and Means. H.R. 3590, the Halt Tax Increases on the Middle Class and Seniors Act, amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the increase in the income threshold used in determining the deduction for medical care. This increase was created by the Affordable Care Act and is another example of how the law is hurtful to average Americans. Our Nation's seniors should not bear the burden of paying for the Affordable Care Act. H.R. 3590 is commonsense policy that will provide relief to American families while promoting consumer-driven health care. Under current law, Americans aged 65 or older can deduct out-of-pocket medical expenses to the extent that such expenses exceed 7.5 percent of an individual's adjusted gross income. However, as part of the Affordable Care Act, this 7.5 percent threshold will increase to 10 percent January 1, 2017, for those age 65. H.R. 3590 would restore the pre-Affordable Care Act threshold of 7.5 percent for all Americans and is a meaningful step toward easing the burden of rising medical expenses in communities across the country. This will provide broad-based tax relief to middle- and low-income families as they continue to struggle in difficult economic times. The administration raised the AGI threshold from 7.5 to 10 percent in order to help pay for the Affordable Care Act's price tag. The result of this policy is an almost $33 billion tax increase over the next decade that will be shouldered by the middle class and senior citizens. According to Americans for Tax Reform, over 10 million families used this tax provision in 2012 with an average of $8,500 in medical expenses claimed, and more than half the families that used that provision made less than $50,000 a year. This legislation permanently lowers the adjusted gross income threshold from 10 percent to 7.5 percent for all taxpayers, regardless of their age. We are reminded daily of the shortcomings of the Affordable Care Act: the double-digit health insurance premium increases; less consumer choice as insurers abandon the exchanges; and increasingly narrow networks across the country. Due to the rising burden for families of out-of-pocket costs, the average deductible for an employer-sponsored health plan surged nearly 9 percent in 2015 to now more than $1,000. Beginning in 2017, the President's health law will increase the tax burden on our seniors, and this is a cost many will struggle to bear. This increase will have a disproportionate impact on seniors who are more likely to take advantage of this deduction. According to the National Center for Policy Analysis, the average senior spends over $4,888 a year on medical expenses, twice as much as the average non-elderly adult. Typically, seniors no longer have an increase in income, instead relying on their savings. Congress must take steps to strengthen our citizens' ability to save their hard- earned dollars, not constrain it. What is most egregious about the timing of the tax increase hidden within the thousands of pages of the Affordable Care Act is the cynical nature of its placement. When the Affordable Care Act passed in the middle of the night and people famously said they had to pass the bill in order for people to find out what was in it, they used the maneuver to pay for the high cost of the bill by making the so-called benefits of the legislation take place immediately and having the costs of the legislation, the egregious tax increases that everyone knew would be unpopular, not take effect until 7 years after the passage of the bill. But that day is now upon us. It is calendar year 2017. Those 7 years allowed for three election cycles to take place. Democrats in the House and Senate, and certainly the Democrat in the White House, knew that they could not withstand an election after the American people discovered all of the new taxes hidden in the Affordable Care Act, so they wrote the bill in a way that ensured that they could get through their reelections--especially the Presidential election in 2012--without having to defend significant tax increases. For Democrats in the House, it didn't work, and the American people rose up, and after the 2010 election, Republicans resumed the majority of the House less than a year after the Affordable Care Act's passage; but the President and Democratic Senators were able to avoid having to defend the tax increases that they supported since those increases had not gone into effect. Well, now the full cost, the full cost of these tax increases is about to bear down on American families, and when families across the country see how much more of their income is going to be taken out of their paychecks and given to bureaucrats in Washington, the anger will be as palpable this year as it was in 2010. As we have learned, a Washington-centered approach to delivering high-quality affordable health care cannot work. While we are committed to large-scale reform of the healthcare system, there are people who cannot wait, and that is why we are taking action now. H.R. 3590 is just one example of the work that our Conference is doing to promote Member-driven solutions in order to improve health care for our citizens and ensure that they have greater access to quality care at a truly affordable price. H.R. 3590 will add on to this progress and make certain that we protect Americans from the mounting costs of the Affordable Care Act and preserve one of the few tools that they have at their disposal to contain high medical expenses. H.R. 3590 will help the middle class and help seniors by preserving one tool to help soften the blow of rising healthcare costs. At this point in time, our citizens cannot withstand another chunk of their savings going into the Federal coffers in order to pay for a failed experiment that the administration has gone to astronomical lengths to prop up. In today's climate of ever-increasing healthcare costs, we must do whatever we can to provide relief to taxpayers and put in place reforms to promote a return to consumer-driven health care. This important legislation can help reverse the trend of Washington- directed, one-size-fits-all healthcare policy. This bill is concrete proof of the actions that can be taken to return power to individuals. I encourage our colleagues to stand up for the middle class and senior citizens and support H.R. 3590. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, there is perhaps a fundamental, philosophic difference between the gentleman and myself. Taxes that are taken from people are just that: it is money that is taken from people under penalty of law. These are not expenditures of the government that we are talking about. We are talking about taking people's money from them, sometimes forcibly. And in this case, in order to fund what? Well, I don't know how many people here remember when the Affordable Care Act passed late that night in March of 2010. I don't know how many people were paying attention to section 9013 of the law, for which they either voted ``yea'' or ``nay.'' But let me just remind people what section 9013 said. Mr. Speaker, this is one of the underlying problems that the Affordable Care Act has had since the git-go. You ask yourself: Why is a law that is giving people stuff so marginally unpopular? And why has that unpopularity persisted over all of this time? Well, one of the reasons for that is the coercive nature of the Affordable Care Act. I mean, the fact that there is an individual mandate: You have to buy it, or we are going to penalize you through the Tax Code. But one of the other reasons was the very duplicitous way in which this bill was passed: We are going to give you stuff today, and then we are going to figure out kind of how to pay for it later. But just listen to the language of section 9013 that was voted on in this House late in the night in March of 2010: ``(a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 213 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking `7.5 percent' and inserting `10 percent'.'' Okay. Well and good. We follow that. That is what we have been discussing. The next section: ``(b) Temporary Waiver of Increase for Certain Seniors.--Section 213 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection''--okay. And now here comes the new subsection: `` `(f) Special Rule for 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016.--In the case of any taxable year beginning after December 31, 2012, and ending before January 1, 2017, subsection (a) shall be applied with respect to a taxpayer by substituting `7.5 percent' for `10 percent' if such taxpayer or such taxpayer's spouse has attained age 65 before the close of such taxable year.'.'' Mr. Speaker, if there was ever a case of hide the ball, if there was ever a case of let's not be honest with people about what we are actually passing, this bill was it. So today we are going to consider a bill from the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. McSally) to protect seniors from this tax increase that is on automatic pilot. The skids are greased, and it is going to hit people January 1, 2017, if the Congress doesn't do something. Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of an important bill to undo one of the most harmful tax increases on the middle class created by the Affordable Care Act. I want to thank Ms. McSally for this legislation.

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 ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record on the bill.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of several bipartisan bills that have resulted from the focus on the industries creating the jobs of tomorrow within the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade. In particular, we examined the Federal Trade Commission's oversight of and impact on innovation. We considered several bills to streamline the Federal Trade Commission's authority in emerging areas. These bills build on the Federal Trade Commission's work in overseeing the most cutting edge industries as well as threats to consumer protection presented, in part, by technological advances. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Trade Commission has a good model for policing unfair and deceptive practices in economic sectors driven by emerging technology. We highlighted this in our Disrupters Series of hearings, focusing on new and game-changing technologies. The Federal Trade Commission operates under a flexible framework, and this session we sought to make improvements. Before I get into the bills we consider today, I want to highlight H.R. 5510, the Federal Trade Commission Process and Transparency Reform Act, which would strengthen the Federal Trade Commission's model by ensuring it has the right tools, the right restraints, and, of course, transparency. This legislation is the sum of several measures from a number of members of the subcommittee who each contributed some targeted reforms to ensure that the Federal Trade Commission continues to strike the right balance between mitigating consumer harm and fostering innovative products and services. The Federal Trade Commission was last reauthorized in 1996, and the last time substantial changes were made to its broad authorities was 1994. A lot has changed in the tech-driven sectors under the Federal Trade Commission's purview since then, and H.R. 5510 would make small reforms to ensure that Federal law keeps up with the rest of the world. Two of the four bills from my subcommittee we will consider today clarify the Federal Trade Commission's ability to stop certain practices that have taken advantage of consumers over the Internet. One of our bills, the BOTS Act, H.R. 5104, is a targeted measure to ensure that consumers have fair access to tickets at reasonable prices. The Internet has created great opportunities for fans to engage with their favorite teams, their favorite performers, and their favorite artists; but ticket bots have detracted from these relationships and, in fact, thwarted the efforts to obtain event tickets at their intended prices. The BOTS Act is necessary to ensure that consumers reap the full benefits of having online access to event tickets. I thank Congresswoman Blackburn for her leadership in authoring this bill and pushing it forward through our subcommittee. Another bill, H.R. 5111, would ensure that online consumer reviews are no longer subject to gag orders. Some bad actors have penalized consumers for giving their products or services a bad review. This is holding back progress and accountability; and our legislation, the Consumer Review Fairness Act, would help put a stop to it. Congressman Lance is the author of this legislation, and I thank him for his work in making certain that this becomes law. We also have before us H. Res. 847, a measure that recognizes the potential of the Internet of things. A national strategy is needed for the Internet of things. In order to reap the potentially enormous benefits of connected devices, we must ensure that the bureaucracy stays out of the way of innovation, stays out of the way of progress in the marketplace, but that the government is also using the technology to reduce costs to taxpayers. Similarly, we are putting forward a resolution authored by Mr. Kinzinger of Illinois and Mr. Cardenas, H. Res. 835. This measure recognizes the growing importance of advanced financial technology, what they call fintech. Fintech has driven forward the development of blockchain technologies, which are poised to revolutionize several economic sectors. Blockchain technology may help solve problems related to transaction costs and is especially well suited to address security concerns in cyberspace. In addition to the four bills from subcommittee, we will also be considering three bills from other subcommittees within Energy and Commerce. The Amateur Radio Parity Act would require the Federal Communications Commission to adopt rules that allow amateur radio operators to use their equipment in deed-restricted communities. The Advanced Nuclear Technology Development Act would provide certainty for scientists and industry that advance nuclear technologies that can be reviewed, licensed, and commercially deployed, helping the United States remain the world leader in nuclear technology development. Finally, the Sports Medicine Licensure Clarity Act would ensure doctors traveling with athletic teams across State borders are properly covered by malpractice insurance. Again, I want to thank all Members of the subcommittee and the full committee who sponsored these measures and the stakeholders who helped us perfect them. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the author of this legislation.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5104) to prohibit, as an unfair and deceptive act or practice in commerce, the sale or use of certain software to circumvent control measures used by Internet ticket sellers to ensure equitable consumer access to tickets for any given event, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I urge our colleagues to support this important legislation. I thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee for bringing it forward. I thank the members of the subcommittee for helping us get it to the floor, and I urge adoption of the bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I advise the minority that we have no additional speakers. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include any extraneous material on the bill in the Record.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5111) to prohibit the use of certain clauses in form contracts that restrict the ability of a consumer to communicate regarding the goods or services offered in interstate commerce that were the subject of the contract, and for other purposes, as amended.

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 insert extraneous materials into the Record on the resolution.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this resolution reaffirms Congress' commitment to innovation. I support H. Res. 835. I want to thank again Mr. Kinzinger and Mr. Cardenas for their leadership. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4979) to foster civilian research and development of advanced nuclear energy technologies and enhance the licensing and commercial deployment of such technologies, as amended.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 921, the Sports Medicine Licensure Clarity Act of 2016, introduced by my colleague on the Health Subcommittee, Brett Guthrie. Team physicians and other licensed sports medicine professionals often travel with their athletes to away games and other sporting events outside of their home State. When providing care to an injured player during the game or in the locker room afterwards, they are often doing so at great personal and professional risk. If they are sued, their home State license could be in jeopardy, and their malpractice insurance may not provide coverage. This commonsense bill would provide clarity first by stating that their liability insurance shall cover them outside their home State for limited services within the scope of their practice, subject to any related premium adjustments. Second, to the extent that the healthcare professional is licensed under the requirements of their home State to provide certain services to an athlete or team, they shall be treated as satisfying corresponding licensure requirements of a secondary State in these narrowly defined instances. H.R. 921 has almost 200 bipartisan cosponsors and is supported by a wide range of professional medical associations as well as amateur and professional sports associations. I urge my colleagues to join me in support. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC, September 9, 2016. Hon. Fred Upton, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Upton: I write with respect to H.R. 921, the ``Sports Medicine Licensure Clarity Act,'' which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary. As a result of your having consulted with us on provisions within H.R. 921 that fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary, I agree to discharge our committee from further consideration of this bill so that it may proceed expeditiously to the House floor for consideration. The Judiciary Committee takes this action with our mutual understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 921 at this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over subject matter contained in this or similar legislation and that our committee will be appropriately consulted and involved as this bill or similar legislation moves forward so that we may address any remaining issues in our jurisdiction. Our committee also reserves the right to seek appointment of an appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate conference involving this or similar legislation and asks that you support any such request. I would appreciate a response to this letter confirming this understanding with respect to H.R. 921 and would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in the Congressional Record during floor consideration of H.R. 921. Sincerely, Bob Goodlatte, Chairman.