Michael Burgess

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that I inadvertently voted ``no'' on H.R. 4278, the Ukraine Support Act. As such, my intention was to vote ``yes.'' My ``no'' vote was made in error. The United States has always stood for democracy, the rule of law and freedom. Passing actions such as H.R. 4278 sends a clear message to the rest of the world that we will not sit idly by and let Russian aggression go unchecked. I support Ukraine's sovereignty during this turbulent time and sanction those who have sought to undermine its independence and stability. I support H.R. 4278.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, this is the Affordable Care Act. Yesterday marks the 4-year anniversary of when it was signed into law. We all knew, at least on the Republican side of this House, how this thing was troubled when it was passed 4 years ago, but what no one could have predicted was the aggressive incompetence of the administration and the agencies during the implementation. It is hurting average Americans. I get comments from people back home on my Facebook page literally every day. People tell me their stories of their health care plans being canceled, their premiums and deductibles going up, and trusted access to family doctors being lost. Rosie told me her premiums went up 62 percent last year. Heidi's husband lost his job because his company was forced to downsize because of the law. Kim told me her family's premium has gone up, resulting in over $9,000 a year now out-of-pocket, in addition to what they paid last year. One person put it best, saying: This Affordable Care Act is simply not affordable. Mr. Speaker, Americans deserve better.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Pennsylvania for yielding me the time, the chairman of the subcommittee, for making this possible to bring this bill to the floor today. I want to thank Chairman Upton of the full committee and Ranking Member Waxman of the full committee for also making this possible. It has been a lot of hard work getting us to this point. Chairman Upton talked about delays. I would just point out that there has been yet another delay, the delay of the closure of the risk pools because--let's be honest--the Affordable Care Act is not ready to take on those people who have preexisting conditions, so they felt it necessary to keep the risk pools open for an additional length of time. I want to talk to my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle. I particularly want to talk to those who have only been here one or two terms. The last time we had a bill like this on the floor of the House, Democrats were in charge. Mr. Dingell was chairman of our Energy and Commerce Committee. He brought a bill to the floor, H.R. 3961, which was an SGR repeal bill. This bill had already been rejected by the Senate, so it really had no chance of going anywhere. This bill was not paid for. The policy was awful and would have given us two SGRs, instead of one; but nevertheless, that bill came to the floor. It only garnered one Republican vote. I was that vote. I was that vote because I thought it was important that the Nation's doctors heard that we were willing to work together across party lines, if need be, to solve this problem for them. I wanted to preserve the process going forward. Ladies and gentlemen, the bill you have on the floor today, H.R. 4015, is not the destination. It is the key that gets you through the door to get to that destination. For 4\1/2\ weeks, since February 6, the policy has been out there for all to see. We have awaited anyone from the Senate side who wanted to talk to us about negotiating bipartisan pay-fors--radio silence. Look, I don't know what rule XIV is over in the Senate, but it is apparently pretty important. The majority leader in the other body has brought this bill up under rule XIV; but they were doing nothing before. For 4 weeks, this policy languished without them picking it up. Now that the House is moving--now that the House is moving a bill and will likely pass the bill today with a decent pay-for that is, in fact, bipartisan because 27 Democrats voted for this very pay-for last week on the floor of this House--in fact, it was unanimous if we were exempting firefighters or veterans from the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act. This is a bipartisan pay-for. It has passed the floor of this House in a bipartisan fashion. It is ready to go. We call upon our colleagues in the other body. Use whatever Senate procedures you need to, but get this done because the clock is ticking. The clock is ticking towards March 31. We all know what happens to the Nation's seniors on that date. We all know what happens to their doctors. Let us get this done.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I yield myself 2 minutes. I wanted to just list some of the exemptions from the individual mandate--those passed in a bipartisan manner by the House of Representatives and those instituted by executive action by the President: July 17, we delayed the individual mandate until 2015. Twenty-two Democrats voted in favor of that. March 10, 2014, delayed the individual penalty for individuals who fail to have health care coverage. Twenty-seven Democrats voted in favor. March 11, H.R. 1814, exempted individuals with certain religious beliefs. Passed by a voice vote. Not a single dissenting vote. March 11, we exempted volunteer firefighters and emergency responders from the individual mandate. The vote was 410-0. 186 Democrats voted in favor. March 11, we exempted individuals who receive health coverage under TRICARE, VA, from being counted towards the employer mandate under the ACA. 183 Democrats voted in favor of that exemption. This is not something that is exclusive to the House of Representatives. Just last week, the administration quietly excused millions of people from the requirement to purchase health insurance or else pay the tax. Now all you need to do is fill out a form attesting that your plan was canceled and you believe that the plan options available in the marketplace in your area are more expensive than your canceled insurance policy. You believe that to be true. You don't have to prove it. You believe it to be true. It is self-attestation. So the President has already delayed the individual mandate for another 2 years' time. This is a reasonable proposal, what is out there today. Yes, doctors do need relief, but we need to pay for that. I believe the proposal before the Congress today will do just that. 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 515 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 515 provides for consideration of H.R. 3189, the Water Rights Protection Act, under a structured amendment process, making in order three amendments and providing for extra time for debate for the substitute amendment, which will be offered by Mr. Polis. The rule also provides for the consideration of H.R. 4015, the SGR Repeal and Medicare Provider Payment Modernization Act of 2014 with one amendment, offered by Chairman Camp from the Ways and Means Committee, being self-executed in order to ensure that the legislation has a valid pay-for. This is necessary so that the bill before us does not run afoul with the majority's rule on CutGo. As is customary, the rule allows the minority to offer a motion to recommit on each bill. Finally, the rule provides for the customary district work period authority. H.R. 3189, the Water Rights Protection Act, addresses a concern of a number of our Western State colleagues who have experienced the Federal Government threatening to take over the private water rights of businesses and private citizens held on public lands. The bill, sponsored by Representative Scott Tipton from Colorado, is a bipartisan effort to protect water supplies and property rights designated for recreation, agriculture, local conservation, and municipal use from Federal Government overreach. The bill protects water users and upholds State water laws by prohibiting Federal agencies from extorting water rights through their use of permits, leases, and other land management arrangements. If the floor debate on this bill is anything like the debate which members of the Rules Committee observed last night, this discussion will be spirited, as this issue deeply affects Western States, where so much of their land is controlled by the Federal Government. The second bill, H.R. 4015, the SGR repeal legislation, is an issue that I have worked on my entire congressional career. It reflects years of bipartisan, multicommittee, bicameral discussions and negotiations, bringing together Members of all ideological stripes, as well as those from the outside, to coalesce around a policy to help patients and to help their care providers get out from under the constant threat of payment cuts under the current sustainable growth rate structure for Medicare payments. Everyone agrees, Mr. Speaker, that the Medicare sustainable growth rate has got to go; but today, we are considering an actual framework to realistically accomplish that goal. This formula--the sustainable growth rate formula--was enacted as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 in an ultimately misguided means by which to restrain Federal spending in Medicare Part B. The formula consists of expenditure targets, which are established by applying a growth rate, which is designed to bring spending in line with the expenditure targets over time. Since 2002, this formula has called for a reduction to physician reimbursement rates. However, every Congress has consistently passed legislation to override this formula. This has led this body to find over $150 billion with no solution out of this annual mess. If Congress were to let the SGR go into effect, physicians would face a 24 percent reduction in reimbursement rates in just a few weeks' time. This unrealistic assumption of spending and efficiency have plagued the health care profession and our Nation's seniors. The bill before us repeals the SGR--let me repeat that because it is so important--this bill repeals the sustainable growth rate formula, avoiding potentially devastating across-the-board cuts slated for 2014 and does so at a cost far lower than what Congress has already spent or would likely spend over the next 10 years' time. The bill provides for 5 years of payment transition, essential to allow us to ensure continued beneficiary access, to allow medicine to concentrate on moving to a broad adoption of quality reporting, and allow Congress to move past the distraction of this formula to identify Medicare reforms that can further benefit beneficiaries. This bill will also allow providers the time to develop and the time to test quality measures and clinical practice improvement activities, which will be used for performance assessment during other phases of this bill. During the 5-year stability period, physicians will receive annual increases of \1/2\ of 1 percent. I know, I can hear it already. That is not very much. Correct, it is not; but it is more in aggregate than what has been provided over the last several years. More importantly, it provides that stability so physician offices can plan and plan ahead on how to take care of their patients. The quality measures implemented in what is called the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System will be evidence-based and developed through a transparent process that will seek input from provider groups, from patient groups, and from other stakeholders. Quality reporting will involve a provider's being judged against its practice rather than a one-size-fits-all, generic standard of care that does not take into account the unique practices of various specialty providers. Providers will also self-determine their measures. We consolidate three reporting programs into the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System, easing the administrative burden on doctors while retaining the congressionally established goals of quality, resource use, and meaningful use. The new reimbursement structure ensures continued access to high- quality care while providing physicians with certainty and security in their reimbursements. Physicians will be aware of the benchmarks they are competing against, and unlike current law, all penalties assessed from those not meeting the benchmarks will go to those who are. This keeps the dollars in the Medicare system, and that, ultimately, drives the quality, which benefits Medicare patients. Standards against which providers will be measured will be developed by professional organizations in conjunction with existing programs and will incorporate ongoing feedback to doctors, thus further ensuring that optimal care is ultimately provided to the patient. Realtime feedback will be gained through registries and performance data, and doctors are encouraged to participate in the process through data reporting. For eligible professionals who choose to opt out of the fee-for-service program, alternative payment models will be available. These alternative models may include patient-centered medical homes, whether they are primary or specialty models, and bundles or episodes of care. By encouraging alternative payment models, care coordination, and disease management, our proposed solution will inspire innovation. Qualifying practices that move a significant number of their patients into one of these alternative payment methods will see a 5 percent quality bonus. The bill will also take affirmative steps to improve the accuracy of relative values and misvalued services. But even though we are taking these important steps toward ensuring quality care, the bill specifically states that these quality measures are not creating a Federal right of action or a legal standard of care or a duty of care owed by the health care provider to the patient. Mr. Speaker, we have had a lot of discussion. I know my friends on the other side of the dais may disagree with having to pay for new spending, but this is an important reform that Republicans put in place when they reclaimed the majority after the 2010 elections. If you want to increase mandatory spending, you should reduce mandatory spending elsewhere. This is a simple concept, and I know that my constituents and many Americans agree with this. The Democrats' substitute highlights the difference between the parties on this issue. Democrats have embraced a budget gimmick to offset their bill, a gimmick that even the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has said is not scorable. There is no way that it will pay for anything, because the score is zero. Republicans want to reform Medicare and the payment system in a responsible way and do so in a way that is paid for. If my colleagues on the other side can find a legitimate offset, I am happy to review it. In fact, this is exactly what we are asking of the United States Senate. You don't like our offset. Offer one of your own, and let's work together to pass these much-needed reforms. This bill is consistent in its themes throughout. We provide payment stability, reduce and streamline the administrative burden, increase predictability in doctors' interactions with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, build transparency into systems, encourage innovation and the delivery of services, and keep providers in the driver's seat. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bills. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to some of this, just to put things in context on a timeline. H.R. 4015 was introduced on February 6, 2014. The bill has been available to all Members and the public for more than a month. The bill is cosponsored by the bipartisan chairs and ranking members of the Committees on Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and the Senate Finance Committee. We are recommending no changes to the underlying substance of H.R. 4015, which has been negotiated on a bipartisan basis. I do believe that providing offsets for new spending is an appropriate course of action. Therefore, the Camp amendment saves almost $170 billion over the next 10 years, and this rule ensures that we aren't making future generations foot the bill. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton).

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the amount of time that remains.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, again I remind the body that this language, this compromise, this bipartisan, bicameral compromise has been available for all to see since February 6. During that time, what response have we gotten from the United States Senate as the responsible way to pay for this legislation? Crickets. Zero. Nothing. We are offering this bill today with the pay-for that has been embraced by both sides in a bipartisan fashion, as I have demonstrated to you already. This would not be necessary if the Senate had provided us feedback on what their approach to a method of paying for this legislation would be, but they did not. We know the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, the Finance Committee in the other body, the chairwoman has now gone to a different occupation, so there is a new chairperson in the other body on the Finance Committee, but that shouldn't have been an obstacle. There was a way forward to provide the discussion, a preconference conference, if you will, because we had all agreed on the policy. This was not a mystery. This was not something that one body had done in secret. This had all been done out in the open for the past 2 years. So that pathway was available. But for whatever reason, the other body said no deal. We don't want to deal with the House. We want to jam the House at the last minute and get them to accept something. Or better yet, let's just do another patch and get us past our Election Day. That is a very cynical approach. Mr. Speaker, today before us on the floor we are taking a responsible approach. And guess what. Because we have taken this approach, the Senate is now talking once again about their way forward, which, ultimately, I think is a good thing. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. As the gentleman from Colorado knows, I am capable of filling whatever volume of time remains on my own, but, no, I don't see other speakers seeking recognition. I would inquire of the gentleman from Colorado his status of additional speakers.

Mr. BURGESS. I am prepared to close.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, I do want to direct Members' attention to yesterday's Wall Street Journal, the article entitled ``ObamaCare's Secret Mandate Exemption,'' which goes into some detail about the self-attestation for the so-called hardship exemption, which the administration included as part of an unrelated rule last week. As a consequence, there is an exemption from the individual mandate for the next 2 years for anyone who simply wants to go and say: I am sorry; this is too tough for me to do. Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of two important bills, one dealing with critical water rights and the other addressing the serious problem in the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate. I certainly want to thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton) on H.R. 3189, as well as thank the chairmen and the ranking members of the House Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means, as well as the Senate Finance Committee, for coming together for our Nation's doctors and seniors. As I close, I would like to note that each committee's work is represented in H.R. 4015. H.R. 4015's base policy has the backing of the House and Senate negotiators and all three committees of jurisdiction. The original cosponsors of the bill include the chairmen and the ranking members of the full committees of jurisdiction, as well as their health subcommittees. The bill has gained support from the GOP Doctors Caucus, as well as many physicians on the other side of the aisle. We have over 100 bipartisan cosponsors. The bill's policy has been embraced by organized medicine, with well over 700 State and national groups in support of the bill. From primary care to specialists to surgeons to organized nursing and everyone in-between, we have support for this policy. We will not be able to accomplish this goal without substantive and immediate bipartisan dialogue seeking agreement on reforms to offset the costs associated with the policies in H.R. 4015. While the delay of the mandate has received bipartisan support, I understand the problems that arise and the opposition that arises. These reforms must receive the necessary majority support, not only of the House and Senate, but also be agreed to by the White House. However, no one Chamber can negotiate on such an important task in a vacuum. This action by the House is a means of clearly demonstrating that the legislative policies contained within H.R. 4015 and S. 2000 not only have the support of the committees of jurisdiction and organized medicine, but can gain the necessary support to pass the House. Mr. Speaker, this is clearly not the end of this conversation. It is another step--another step of many that have been taken in demonstrating to both sides of the Capitol that the committees of jurisdiction have produced significant policy that can serve as the solution to the sustainable growth rate formula that most of us have sought throughout our congressional careers. Mr. Speaker, I do want to take a moment to thank some of the staff members who have done so much work. I really wanted to start with Dr. John O'Shea, who no longer is on the staff, but now works at the Brookings Institute. Dr. O'Shea, a physician from New York, was hired by committee staff for the express purpose of helping develop the policy for repealing the sustainable growth rate. In addition, James Decker on my staff assists me with rules issues. J.P. Paluskiewicz, known affectionately by his friends as J.P., has put in extraordinary hours on this project, as have Sarah Johnson and Adrianna Simonelli on my personal staff. On the committee staff, Clay Alspach and Robert Horne have additionally put in hours well above and beyond what ordinarily would be required of committee staff in order to see this project come to fruition. I certainly want to thank Chairman Upton for making this a priority during his chairmanship of the Committee on Energy and Commerce; and I thank all of the staff--staff on Ways and Means and staff on Senate Finance--who have worked on this issue and will continue to work on this issue until it is solved. Every success we have had at every point in this process was further than we have ever come before, and that involved a lot of working weekends; but ultimately, if we use this action to springboard to full bicameral engagement on the package that can go to the White House and get signed by the President, indeed, I think all involved would agree that it would be worth it. I look forward to passage. I look forward to continuing the process with this Chamber and the other Chamber to embrace the underlying policy and ultimately identify the offsets that can get this badly needed policy into law. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and both underlying bills. [From the Hill, March 13, 2014] ObamaCare's Secret Mandate Exemption ObamaCare's implementers continue to roam the battlefield and shoot their own wounded, and the latest casualty is the core of the Affordable Care Act--the individual mandate. To wit, last week the Administration quietly excused millions of people from the requirement to purchase health insurance or else pay a tax penalty. This latest political reconstruction has received zero media notice, and the Health and Human Services Department didn't think the details were worth discussing in a conference call, press materials or fact sheet. Instead, the mandate suspension was buried in an unrelated rule that was meant to preserve some health plans that don't comply with ObamaCare benefit and redistribution mandates. Our sources only noticed the change this week. That seven-page technical bulletin includes a paragraph and footnote that casually mention that a rule in a separate December 2013 bulletin would be extended for two more years, until 2016. Lo and behold, it turns out this second rule, which was supposed to last for only a year, allows Americans whose coverage was cancelled to opt out of the mandate altogether. In 2013, HHS decided that ObamaCare's wave of policy terminations qualified as a ``hardship'' that entitled people to a special type of coverage designed for people under age 30 or a mandate exemption. HHS originally defined and reserved hardship exemptions for the truly down and out such as battered women, the evicted and bankrupts. But amid the post-rollout political backlash, last week the agency created a new category: Now all you need to do is fill out a form attesting that your plan was cancelled and that you ``believe that the plan options available in the [ObamaCare] Marketplace in your area are more expensive than your cancelled health insurance policy'' or ``you consider other available policies unaffordable.'' This lax standard--no formula or hard test beyond a person's belief--at least ostensibly requires proof such as an insurer termination notice. But people can also qualify for hardships for the unspecified nonreason that ``you experienced another hardship in obtaining health insurance,'' which only requires ``documentation if possible.'' And yet another waiver is available to those who say they are merely unable to afford coverage, regardless of their prior insurance. In a word, these shifting legal benchmarks offer an exemption to everyone who conceivably wants one. Keep in mind that the White House argued at the Supreme Court that the individual mandate to buy insurance was indispensable to the law's success, and President Obama continues to say he'd veto the bipartisan bills that would delay or repeal it. So why are ObamaCare liberals silently gutting their own creation now? The answers are the implementation fiasco and politics. HHS revealed Tuesday that only 940,000 people signed up for an ObamaCare plan in February, bringing the total to about 4.2 million, well below the original 5.7 million projection. The predicted ``surge'' of young beneficiaries isn't materializing even as the end-of-March deadline approaches, and enrollment decelerated in February. Meanwhile, a McKinsey & Company survey reports that a mere 27% of people joining the exchanges were previously uninsured through February. The survey also found that about half of people who shopped for a plan but did not enroll said premiums were too expensive, even though 80% of this group qualify for subsidies. Some substantial share of the people ObamaCare is supposed to help say it is a bad financial value. You might even call it a hardship. HHS is also trying to pre-empt the inevitable political blowback from the nasty 2015 tax surprise of fining the uninsured for being uninsured, which could help reopen ObamaCare if voters elect a Republican Senate this November. Keeping its mandate waiver secret for now is an attempt get past November and in the meantime sign up as many people as possible for government-subsidized health care. Our sources in the insurance industry are worried the regulatory loophole sets a mandate non-enforcement precedent, and they're probably right. The longer it is not enforced, the less likely any President will enforce it. The larger point is that there have been so many unilateral executive waivers and delays that ObamaCare must be unrecognizable to its drafters, to the extent they ever knew what the law contained.

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

Mr BURGESS

Mr BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, last weekend 239 passengers on a Malaysian airplane were lost. As of this morning, I don't think we yet know their fate. According to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, one of those residents used to call Keller, Texas, home. I want to share with the body what his family had put out as a public statement: Philip Wood was a man of God, a man of honor and integrity. His word was gold. Incredibly generous, creative, and intelligent, Phil cared about people, his family, and above all, Christ. Though our hearts are hurting, we know so many families around the world are affected, just as much as us, by this terrible tragedy. We ask for your prayers, not only for ourselves but for all involved during this difficult time. As a family, we are sticking together through Christ to get through this. Thank you for your understanding. Words I think we can all take to heart while we ponder the fate of those individuals lost on that plane.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Denton County, Texas and members of the Denton County leadership delegation who are visiting here in Washington, DC this week. These local officials and business leaders understand that what goes on here in Washington affects their local communities back home. So this trip, which they make every two years, is a very important one. During their time here, the group is meeting with members of the leadership here in Congress, as well as Senators and Representatives from Texas and across the country. Additionally, they have had a chance to tour the Marine Corps Barracks and meet with members of the U.S. Chamber of Congress and business associations of Denton County, along with several Denton County local officials, to the Nation's Capital. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following names of the Denton County delegation: Diane Callahan, Chuck Carpenter, James Cline, Martha Davis, Patrick Davis, Andrew Eads, Neil Ferguson, Lori Fickling, Thomas ``TJ'' Gilmore, Ray Hernandez, Kelly Heslep, David Hodges, Kathy Hodges. Cindi Howard, William Meek, Julie Meyer, Mark Payne, Nate Prevost, Kimberly Reasoner, Lori Salisbury, Todd Salisbury, Greg Tierney, Drean Ueckert, Lori Walker, Mike Walker, Brian Weale.

Mr. BURGESS

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

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 497 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Talk about doing the will of the people. There was an election in Texas yesterday. There was a question on the ballot--to support or oppose the President's takeover of the health care industry in this country. Ninety-two percent of the people were recorded as being in opposition to the President's takeover of health care. So, in fact, in the district I represent, that is a significant amount. Today's rule provides for the consideration of two bills to provide relief for hardworking Americans who are faced with the administration's expensive and restrictive mandates both in the health insurance and energy sectors. I want to thank my colleagues Lynn Jenkins from Kansas, the Republican Conference vice chair, as well as the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power, Mr. Whitfield from Kentucky, for their thoughtful pieces of legislation. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bills.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, seeing no other speakers on my side, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. It sounds as if the gentleman is going to vote for the bill under consideration today because, after all, it is an opportunity to give long-suffering Americans an opportunity to be out of the penalty part of the Affordable Care Act. Let's be honest, I mean this thing is one of the most coercive pieces of legislation that has ever been passed by the United States Congress. I might just remind people here in the House of Representatives that this law, which was H.R. 3590, was actually not subject to any hearings or any markups in the United States House of Representatives. Maybe it was when H.R. 3590 first passed the House when it was a housing bill in July of 2009. But remember, what became the health care bill was a housing bill that was amended. The amendment read over in the Senate: ``strike all after the enacting clause and insert.'' And what was inserted was language written by special interests over in the Cloakroom of the Senate Finance Committee, was passed by the Senate on Christmas Eve, and then thrown back over here to the House. Since the House had passed H.R. 3590 as a housing bill, not as a tax bill like the Affordable Care Act was but as a housing bill, the question before the House then became: Will the House now concur in the amendments to H.R. 3590? It took 3 months for the Speaker to cobble together the 217 votes that she needed to pass this thing, but H.R. 3590 was never heard as a health care bill in my committee, the Committee on Energy and Commerce. It was never heard in the Ways and Means Committee. It was never heard in the Education and Labor Committee. That was H.R. 3200. H.R. 3200 is long gone--no one has seen it for years--but H.R. 3590 is what is embodied in the President's health care law. So, really, to say that everyone had a chance to participate in this and to debate it, that is, in fact, hypocritical. What is really hypocritical is that H.R. 3590, when it came back to the House, was presented to this House under a closed rule. That is a fact, and that is a fact that should be recognized by the minority. This bill was the product of a closed rule. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, here is the Affordable Care Act. The President says it is the law of the land. How does it describe the effective date for the individual mandate? Under section 1501, subparagraph D, effective date: The amendments made by this section shall apply to the taxable years ending after December 31, 2013. Pretty unambiguous, pretty easy to understand. It doesn't seem to have a lot of flexibility or wiggle room written into it. How does the language read that describes the effective date for the employer mandate? Well, that reads under section 1513, subparagraph D, effective date: The amendments made by this section shall apply to the months beginning after December 31, 2013. It doesn't sound as if there is a lot of flexibility; yet the President, on his own, found the flexibility only within the executive branch to say that effective date is no longer valid. We are simply saying for Mr. and Mrs. American--for the average American, we should be able to delay the effective date of the penalty because this law has been a disaster from start to finish. Stories about the Web site are now legion. We should give the same relief to the average American that the President gave to his friends in Big Business. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Again, Mr. Speaker, I would just emphasize there have been changes by administrative action, some 19 that President Obama has done all on his own, without any influence from Congress. Now, if the gentleman were truly interested about an offset for repealing the medical device tax, perhaps he might look more favorably on the bill before us today, H.R. 4118. The Congressional Budget Office scores a significant savings by passing H.R. 4118. Perhaps there are some other things that could be done with that money as well; but nevertheless, the President has, on his own, delayed employee reporting, delayed subsidies through the Federal exchange. He closed the high-risk pool. He has doubled the allowable deductibles. He has required self- attestation and eliminated the reporting requirements under the law that he signed in March of 2010. He last fall said: Okay. I give up. Insurance can offer plans that we just told you were illegal, that they were crummy insurance, and now, we are going to allow them to be offered again. All of these were actions taken by the executive under a closed process. With no input or oversight by the people's House--by the United States House of Representatives. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes for a response. Mr. Speaker, there have been 36 changes to the Affordable Care Act since it was signed into law. It has been a little over 3 years since the bill was signed into law. Thirty-six changes means one a month. How does the breakdown of those 36 changes occur? According to the Galen Institute published this morning, 15 times, Congress has passed and the President signed legislation changing the Affordable Care Act. Twice, the Supreme Court modified the Affordable Care Act, but 19 times, President Obama made a change unilaterally. We are here today debating a delay on the penalties under the individual mandate, but it might interest the Congress to know that the President himself delayed the individual mandate. The administration changed the deadline for the individual mandate by declaring that customers who had purchased insurance by March 31 will avoid the tax penalty. Previously and by law, they were required to purchase that insurance by Valentine's Day, February 14, so there has already been a 6-week delay. We are simply trying to place in code what the President is doing unilaterally. You want to talk about a closed process where people don't have an opportunity to participate? That is governing by executive fiat. That is what we are trying to stop today. I reserve the balance of my time.