Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3522) to authorize health insurance issuers to continue to offer for sale current group health insurance coverage in satisfaction of the minimum essential health insurance coverage requirement, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is nothing more than another political attack on the Affordable Care Act. In fact, I think this bill serves as House Republicans' 53rd vote to repeal or undermine the health care law.

If enacted, this bill would allow insurance companies to discriminate against small businesses if they have an older workforce, more women in their workforce, or if any of their employees or their children have preexisting health conditions. The impact is taking away from millions of workers key protections and puts insurance companies back in charge of their health care.

Even worse, I believe, it gives insurance companies the best of both worlds: millions of new customers through the ACA, but the ability to continue to cherry-pick employers with young, healthy workforces.

In fact, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the bill would have serious adverse effects on premiums, causing them to rise substantially for many small firms, and the CBO agrees. This bill causes serious harm.

Republicans are claiming that this is just another effort to help people keep the coverage they have, but let's be clear, if your insurance starts covering your child to the age of 26, you are not losing your old coverage, your coverage is simply getting better.

If your insurance starts covering preventive services like annual physicals and vaccinations and cancer screenings for free, that is not losing your old coverage, that is your coverage getting better. There is no evidence employers are dropping coverage en masse.

So Republicans are left to claim people are losing their coverage when their coverage is actually getting better. This is again the Republicans misleading the public.

Mr. Speaker, when the ACA passed, employers and health insurers had the option to grandfather their coverage. They could keep that coverage the same, and it would not have to comply with the new ACA reforms. They could even raise premiums and cost-sharing and still stay grandfathered.

For plans that did not grandfather, a host of important new consumer protections went into place before 2014. For example, plans had to limit their profits and overhead to 20 percent of the premiums they collect. If they failed to meet this standard, they must pay rebates to their customers. As a result, small businesses have saved a total of $2.5 billion on their premiums since 2011.

Mr. Speaker, in November 2013, the President announced that individuals and small businesses who are not yet ready to transition into the new, more fair, secure health coverage guaranteed by the ACA could remain in their existing plans for another year.

In March of this year, the President extended that policy, so that individuals and small businesses could keep their plans into 2016, but this bill goes much further and allows these plans to be sold to new customers.

So we are not talking about people keeping their plans. We are talking about selling old lousy plans, discriminatory plans, to new customers.

Since the ACA was passed, we have added key new benefits and protections to employer coverage, but at the same time, we have added 10 million jobs, we have helped 10 million people get health coverage, we have seen premiums rise at historically low levels, and we have extended the life of the Medicare trust fund by 13 years.

This is amazing progress, and we should not turn back. That is what the Republicans would have us do with this

other repeal of the Affordable Care Act: turn us back to the old days where the insurance companies reigned, where discriminatory practices reigned, and where preexisting conditions were a basis for not getting coverage.

I urge Members to vote ``no.'' This should not be.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), the ranking member of the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee.

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this is frustrating to me because, again, we have just another effort to repeal or undermine the Affordable Care Act when we should all be working to implement the Affordable Care Act. Just to show what a waste of time, if you will, that this debate is today, I wanted to read a statement of President Obama's policy that was issued today with regard to this legislation. It says:

The administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R.

3522 because it threatens the health care security of

hardworking middle class families. The Nation is experiencing

the lowest rate of health care price inflation in nearly 50

years, and exceptionally slow growth in other measures of

health costs, which have combined to dramatically slow the

growth of small business premiums.

With health care costs rising at low rates and choices for

small businesses improving through the Health Insurance

Marketplace, this bill would be a major step backwards.

H.R. 3522 would roll back the progress made because of the

Affordable Care Act and would allow insurers to deploy

practices such as charging businesses more when a worker has

a preexisting condition, or when it has more workers who are

women than men. The bill would allow insurers to go back to

capping the amount of care that enrollees receive, or to

excluding coverage of proven preventative care. The

administration supports policies that allow people to keep

the health plans that they have. Its transition policies

allow States and issuers to do just that. But policies that

reverse the progress made to extend quality, affordable

coverage to millions of uninsured, hardworking middle class

families are not the solution. Rather than refighting old

political battles to sabotage the health care law, the

Congress should work with the administration to improve the

law and move forward.

If the President were presented with this bill, he would

veto it.

So, again, this is just a waste of time. We have so many other things that we need to work on in this House before we adjourn, particularly jobs and the economy. Instead, we are trying to repeal, again, the same legislation that actually has created more jobs and kept health care costs low, and it is just, again, a complete waste of time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this bill represents a direct assault on the health security of American families. The bill would allow insurance companies in their small business health plans to charge more for women's coverage, meaning workers in small businesses with more women than men have to pay more.

It would charge more for coverage for those with preexisting conditions, meaning workers in small businesses that have more people with preexisting conditions have to pay more. And these small businesses would face higher premiums and would continue to see their premiums spike year to year if an employee had an accident or got diagnosed with cancer.

Under the legislation, insurers group plans' could also impose annual limits on coverage, meaning that insurers could cease to provide any coverage after an individual's care reached a certain overall cost and impose extensive waiting periods before an employer could enroll in coverage.

Now, if the Republicans were serious about helping America's small businesses, they would be bringing up, instead, a bill to expand access to the ACA's small business health care tax credit, as actually proposed by the Obama administration.

The President has proposed allowing small businesses with up to 50 workers, rather than the current 25, to qualify for the credit, and adopting a more generous phaseout schedule.

Furthermore, instead of strengthening the small business tax credit, Republicans have actually voted to repeal the tax credit three times.

Republicans are completely misrepresenting what this bill does, calling the bill's section 2 ``If you like your group health insurance plan, you can keep it.''

Well, first of all, the bill does not require that insurers keep selling these group policies. Insurers discontinue policies every year, and there is nothing in this bill that prevents them from doing so.

But more important, the bill goes well beyond the issue of people keeping plans they have now. Instead, it allows insurers to sell group plans that do not include ACA consumer protection to new customers through 2018.

Once again, the Republicans are misrepresenting what this bill does, and they are simply trying to repeal or undermine the ACA, which has been so successful in expanding insurance coverage, keeping down costs, and eliminating discriminatory practices.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume in order to close the debate.

The frustrating thing for me and for so many of us on the Democratic side of the aisle is that we know how successful the Affordable Care Act has been, and yet the Republicans continue

to negate the positive aspects of the ACA and seek to undermine it with the repeal or with legislation like this that would seriously undermine the goals and the success of the Affordable Care Act. I just want to point out that, since the Affordable Care Act was enacted in March of 2010, 9.9 million private sector jobs have been created.

According to the latest estimates from the CBO, the overall number of Americans receiving employer-based coverage is expected to grow from 156 million in 2014 to 166 million in 2023, and the number of uninsured is expected to fall by 26 million Americans. Also, since Massachusetts enacted health care reforms that were almost identical to those in the ACA, the percentage of employers offering coverage has increased from 72 percent in 2007 to 77 percent in 2010. Since the ACA was enacted, the Nation has seen 4 years of the slowest health care spending growth since recordkeeping began in 1960. Slower growth in health care costs translates into slower growth of employers' health benefit costs, helping businesses and workers save money. Indeed, employers' hourly health benefit costs rose just 1 percent after adjusting for inflation over the year ending in June 2014, near the bottom of the historical range.

In addition to slowing down the rate of growth of health care spending, which is benefiting employers, the Affordable Care Act is also producing premium savings for America's small businesses due to its 80-20 rule. That rule requires that insurers spend at least 80 percent of premiums on medical care rather than on CEO pay, profits, and administrative costs. If an insurer fails to meet this standard, it must pay rebates to its customers. As a result of this rule, according to a recently released report, America's small businesses have saved a total of $2.5 billion on their premiums since 2011.

The bottom line, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, is that the Affordable Care Act is delivering on the promise of affordable, quality, and dependable health coverage for millions of Americans, but that doesn't stop the Republicans. We can't shake their obsession with undermining the law, and that is what they are doing again with this bill. The vote on this bill will be the 53rd GOP vote to repeal or to undermine the ACA, so I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

I am hearing quotes given about what people promised when and what is happening now, and yet under this very rule that we are considering, I fail to see how it is consistent with promises that our current Speaker has made.

On January 5, 2011, our current Speaker, promised:

You will always have the right to a robust debate and open

process that allows you to represent your constituents, to

make your case, offer alternatives, and to be heard.

Furthermore, to my friends in the minority, I offer a

commitment: openness.

And yet how ironic is it that this very rule is the 75th closed rule of the 113th Congress?

Now, what does a closed rule mean? A closed rule means that even if Democrats or Republicans have great ideas about how to improve or amend a bill, they are not even allowed to be discussed or voted upon on the floor of the House.

A closed rule means the only say that I or my friends get as Members of Congress is to say ``yes'' or ``no.'' We don't get to improve upon the idea. We don't get to make it work better for our country. We don't get to offer changes that will reduce costs to taxpayers or improve the efficiency of the bill.

We had a commitment from this current Speaker to have an open process, and yet here we have before us the 75th closed rule. This is the diamond jubilee of closed rules that we are celebrating here on the floor of the House today with this 75th closed rule that doesn't allow my Democratic or Republican colleagues to bring forth simple, commonsense ideas to improve the bill before us and make it work for our country.

In addition to the diamond jubilee of closed rules, we also have the 53rd attempted repeal of ObamaCare, or the Affordable Care Act. Now, we get that. Our friends on the other side want to repeal the Affordable Care Act. We have heard that. This is the 53rd time we have heard that.

Whenever our colleagues on the other side are serious about rolling up their sleeves and working in a bipartisan way to improve the Affordable Care Act, to make it work better for our country, to increase competition, to reduce costs, we are happy to have that discussion.

I myself am the sponsor of several bills to change the Affordable Care Act, as are many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, but instead of having that discussion, we are having the 53rd vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act under the 75th closed rule of the current Congress. I think the American people are learning no longer to be surprised by these kinds of maneuvers. We wonder why the approval of rating Congress is at a record low of 12 percent.

There was a commitment from our Speaker to allow us to represent our constituents, to allow us to make our case, to allow us to offer alternatives. We are going to do that under the previous question. We are going to do that under the motion to recommit. But in terms of actually being able to amend this bill, the process has been closed, not only from my fellow Democrats, but from the many fine Republicans who have ideas to make this bill better and make health care more affordable.

This Congress deserves better, and I know that we can do better.

I know that under this rule, my colleague, Mr. Burgess, managed to have his amendment included. They use a self-executed amendment in the rule. That means that by passing this rule there is a special amendment that actually becomes part of the bill. We don't even have the opportunity to debate the merits of that amendment, whatever they are, but any other ideas from Democrats or Republicans are closed down for the 75th time. They are not even able to bring them forward.

My colleagues have a lot of ideas for improving the Affordable Care Act. I am the sponsor of a number of bills. Rather than bringing forth the 53rd repeal of the Affordable Care Act, let's move forward. The country is ready to go. Let's make sure that Americans that have used the health care marketplace to enroll in affordable, high-quality health care are able to continue doing so. Let's make sure we improve the Affordable Care Act rather than end it.

Instead of rolling back protections that benefit millions of Americans, let's get back to work on the issues that matter, like reducing costs in health care, like fixing our broken immigration, like raising the minimum wage and making sure that we can get our economy going with an infrastructure investment.

For instance, on immigration reform alone, this body's failure to act continues to cost taxpayers money every day. There is a bill that passed the Senate with more than a two-thirds majority. That is not easy to do over there. If that bill were simply allowed to come to a vote in the open process that the Speaker promised and allow us to vote for our constituents, I think it would pass.

We have a bipartisan bill in the House called H.R. 15. It is a version of the Senate bill. We can bring that bill forward under a rule. Let's do it. It will pass tomorrow and address our broken immigration system and save taxpayers over $200 billion over 10 years, create hundreds of thousands of jobs for Americans, secure our borders, and make sure that the rule of law in our country is restored. The longer we put that off, the worse that issue becomes and the harder it will be to address.

Again, while this bill is an anniversary of sorts--the diamond jubilee of closed bills and the 53rd attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act--it doesn't offer anything new to the American people, and it doesn't allow Democrats or Republicans who have thoughtful ideas for improving the Affordable Care Act to bring them forward at all to be discussed on their merits or voted on here in this body.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

I am happy to yield an additional 45 seconds to the gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up two pieces of legislation. The first is the Stop Corporate Inversions Act of 2014, and the second is a constitutional amendment to address the issues surrounding Citizens United.

To discuss our proposal, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch).

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch) certainly convinced me. I hope he convinced you as well that, rather than repealing the Affordable Care Act for the 53rd time, let's take this body back from the special interests and return it to the people of this country. And his motion will do that if we defeat the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, to discuss the other proposal if we defeat the previous question, I am proud to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

I yield the gentleman from Tennessee an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire if the gentleman has any remaining speakers. We are prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Instead of focusing on rolling back protections for the benefits of millions of Americans for the 53rd time, this House should get back to the work of focusing on real problems, like the need to overhaul our broken immigration system and replace it with one that works for our country. Instead of solving immigration problems that are facing our Nation, the House continues to vote on bills that take our country backwards.

Before we left for recess 5 weeks ago, the House voted to deny DREAMers the ability to stay here, and they subjected them to deportation proceedings. This body's continued failure to act on comprehensive immigration reform means that the President must act instead. For more than a year, I have come to the House floor to decry the fact that the House Republicans have failed to move any immigration reform bills to the floor this entire Congress--or any bills to secure our border, any bills to provide provisional work permits, any bills to require workplace authentication. Not a single one has been brought to the floor of the House.

I am deeply disappointed that the President has put off taking action on this bill until after the November elections, but the President will have no alternative if this Congress continues to fail to act. Sadly, over the next 2 months, the current administration will continue to deport tens of thousands of hardworking mothers, fathers, sisters, and brothers because of the lack of courage of this body to act and because the President continues to refuse to act with the authority that is already granted to him by the nature of his office.

I am hopeful that the President's failure to act right now means he will go big and bold tomorrow, but the truth is the President can't do it all alone. He needs Congress. If we are serious about securing the border, it will take an appropriation--it will take resources--from this body to secure the border. I am confident the President will do whatever he can with the money and resources he has to do it, but if this body is serious, we need to require the President to secure the border and make sure the President has the resources to do that. I am hopeful the President will use his powers to reform our antiquated visa program, which restricts an employer's ability to hire key talent and only provides an additional incentive for companies to move overseas so that they can hire the people they need.

These are issues that the President can and should address now, not just when it is politically convenient. Unite families, make America more competitive, and challenge Congress to get immigration reform done.

Of course, any relief the President provides would be just a temporary fix. Only this body can find a permanent solution by rewriting our immigration laws to restore the rule of law with regard to the 11 million people who are here illegally, to reform our visa and green card systems going forward, to secure our borders, to ensure workplace enforcement, and to make sure that we can facilitate legal commerce between Mexico and the United States.

But once again, rather than addressing the issue that came up the most of any issue in my 10 town halls--immigration reform--we are faced with the 53rd repeal of the Affordable Care Act and the 75th closed rule--the diamond jubilee of closed rules--that doesn't allow Democrats or Republicans to offer a single amendment to this bill. Amendments that are germane, that improve the Affordable Care Act, that have bipartisan consensus support are not even allowed to be brought forward and are not even discussed for 10 minutes on the floor of this House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with the extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question. Vote ``no'' on the underlying bills.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 717 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 717 provides for consideration of H.R. 3522, the Employer Health Care Protection Act. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate controlled by the Committee on Energy and Commerce, equally divided between the majority and minority. One clarifying amendment has been included to clarify that group health plans for the upcoming year can be covered under 2013 plans. The minority is afforded the customary opportunity to offer one motion to recommit, should they so choose. This is a fair rule to allow us to give some relief to Americans who want to keep their health insurance plan but are being told that, because of the Affordable Care Act, they may not.

Mr. Speaker, it seems that the President has quickly forgotten some of the promises he made to the American people about this law. In a June 2009 speech before the American Medical Association, President Obama, addressing the house of delegates, said:

We will keep this promise to the American people. If you

like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor,

period. If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to

keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away,

no matter what.

In March of 2010, the President said:

Your employer, it's estimated, will see premiums fall by as

much as 3,000 percent, which means they could give you a

raise.

It is obvious that both statements were not only nonoperational, they were completely false. Individuals and businesses have experienced or will face in the future the loss of current health insurance if it does not comply with Affordable Care Act coverage requirements. The Affordable Care Act is, quite simply, a job killer. Employers are reducing hours and limiting pay increases just to keep up with the demands of the law.

Just a few weeks ago, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York reported that over half of employers are changing insurance in response to the Affordable Care Act. These changes aren't being done for the benefit of the employees. All across the country, employees have lost doctors, seen premiums rise, seen hours cut, or had their coverage dropped. This will continue as long as the Affordable Care Act continues with the benefit mandates, burdensome taxes, and unreasonable regulation. In fact, employees are paying more in out-of-pocket costs than ever before. Premiums have skyrocketed under the Affordable Care Act, but access to doctors has narrowed.

Today, H.R. 3522 offers a solution to this problem. This bill would allow employer-sponsored plans that were available at any point in 2013 to continue to be offered. This bill would also help protect both employers offering these plans and their employees enrolled in them from the Affordable Care Act's costly taxes and penalties.

The President recognizes that there are serious flaws in his signature health care law, a law that he championed and, in fact, was written at the White House. Since the law was passed, the President has signed seven bills into law that repealed parts of the Affordable Care Act, bills that passed both the House and the Senate, went to the President for his signature, and he signed them.

In addition to these statutory changes, there have been attempts to fix this broken law through a series of unilateral executive orders and regulations. Can we really expect the same administration that wrote this disastrous law to now fix it?

Last year, the President unilaterally decided to delay the employer mandate. Even the administration doesn't believe that businesses and their employees can handle the burdens imposed by the Affordable Care Act.

H.R. 3522 is offering the American people a legal solution to get out from under the crushing demands of the health care law. The law would grandfather in employer plans that existed before the law went into effect. With the passage of this bill before us today, no employee would have to lose their coverage or have their out-of-pocket costs soar because of the Affordable Care Act.

It is clear that H.R. 3522 offers the only feasible lifeline to millions of employees who want to keep their health care plan. It is Congress' job to protect the American people. I urge men and women on both sides of the dais to pass this law so that Americans will have the opportunity to keep their plans and their doctors and reduce their out- of-pocket costs.

To be clear, this bill before us today, if signed into law, will not fix the Affordable Care Act. No piece of legislation, short of a full- fledged repeal, could ever achieve that. The bill we are voting on today serves to stop the hemorrhaging that is occurring as a consequence of this ill-conceived government takeover of the American health care industry. As a physician, I know that sometimes it is important to just stop the hemorrhage if you are going to save the patient. That is what the House of Representatives will do today. I hope all colleagues from both sides of the dais will support this.

I encourage everyone to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill and stand with millions of Americans who are losing their employer health care coverage and access to their doctors, despite what has been promised to them repeatedly by this disastrous law.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting recitation.

I wanted to draw my colleagues' attention to Bloomberg View and an article by Megan McArdle from September 9 of 2014, just a couple of paragraphs in the article that prices--talking about reissue rates-- that prices are not being based on claims data. She points out, and I am quoting here: ``Companies began setting these rates just a few months ago after open enrollment closed, and because so many people bought in the last few weeks, they had no meaningful idea of what their expenses would be, that is, the insurance companies.''

And, further quoting: ``The companies that are coming in are looking to gain market share, not make a profit.''

Continuing to quote: ``The other reason we cannot learn much from these data right now is that for the next year, insurers are operating under the expectation of large subsidies from the Obama administration via the various reinsurance provisions in ObamaCare. These provisions expire in 2016.''

Continuing to quote: ``Right now, it is just not very risky to write a policy that loses money because your losses are capped. Starting in 2017, all that changes. Insurers are going to need to price policies with the expectation of making money and the fear of losing it.''

Mr. Speaker, what Megan McArdle is saying is, right now you don't really know much about the renewal rates on insurance policies because there is distortion in the market because of the reinsurance provisions in the Affordable Care Act.

But I will share this with you. I bought insurance in the Texas Federal fallback exchange. I bought a bronze plan on Blue Cross/Blue Shield. It is the most expensive insurance I have ever had in my life. Trying to plan and trying to budget for next year, I can't because here we sit, September 10, and I do not know what the renewal rates are going to be. And in all likelihood I will not know until around election day, with very little time to plan.

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

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

I just want to address the issue of the insurance companies.

They have never enjoyed the type of unprecedented power that they have today until the passage of the Affordable Care Act. The insurance companies--executives from the insurance companies--meet regularly down at the White House with the Secretary of Health and Human Services. We are not privy to those discussions. We have no earthly idea what goes on in those meetings, but we do know that insurance companies are enjoying unprecedented profits right now since the passage of the Affordable Care Act. Their profits have increased. Their stock prices have increased.

Why is that? It is because of the individual mandate that was included in the Affordable Care Act.

No longer do insurance companies need to be interested in the longitudinal relationships with their insureds. You have got to buy what they are selling. Don't even get me started on their own narrow networks, which can restrict patients' abilities to see a doctor or to go to a hospital, to see who they want, to buy the medications that they need or to be reimbursed for the medications that they need. A lot of that has gone out the window. Talk about people with preexisting conditions. Most of us buy on price. Since we buy the lowest-cost price on the Bronze plan, we find ourselves now confined by narrow networks.

Who is really now prejudiced against a person with a preexisting condition under the current arrangement?

This bill today does not undo the Affordable Care Act, but it provides one more little measure of sanity for patients who wanted to keep their insurance policies before this regime took over.

I reserve the balance of my time.

No, I have no additional speakers. I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

In 2006, the Democrat manifesto, ``A New Direction for America,'' states:

Bills should come to the floor under a procedure that

allows open, full and fair debate, consisting of a full

amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer

its alternatives, including a substitute.

The fact remains that, when the Democrats took control of the House, they did precisely the opposite.

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

This year, the House has considered 404 amendments, 189 of which were offered by the Democrats. When you compare the record of the Republican majority and the most recent Democratic majority, any fair analysis will show that the Republicans are running a more open, transparent House of Representatives.

One word on the previous question: defeat of the previous question would not allow any of these proposals that we have heard about today to be considered because they would not be germane to the rule, so I do urge my colleagues to support the previous question.

Today's rule provides for the consideration of a critical bill to protect millions of Americans who are facing the loss of their employer-sponsored health insurance and that they were promised--a promise is a promise--they were promised they could keep.

I certainly thank my colleague from Louisiana, Dr. Cassidy, for his thoughtful piece of legislation and his work in this effort.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 717, I call up the bill (H.R. 3522) to authorize health insurance issuers to continue to offer for sale current group health insurance coverage in satisfaction of the minimum essential health insurance coverage requirement, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 3522.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3522, the Employee Health Care Protection Act of 2014, sponsored by my good friend and colleague and important member of the Health Subcommittee, Dr. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana.

This bill is a necessary tool for America's workers that will allow for health insurance coverage in the small group market during the 2013 calendar

year to be continued to be offered through calendar year 2018. In other words, if you like your group health insurance plan, you can keep it.

It has been over 4 years since the Affordable Care Act was enacted, and we are still hearing from constituents, small business owners, and employees who are continuing to struggle with the adverse effects of this law.

Here is what Roger from Columbia, Pennsylvania, wrote to me last year:

I am the third generation family owner of a business. We

have 32 employees and have been providing health insurance

for our employees and their families for over 25 years. This

week, we received a renewal notice from our current provider,

which is a 40 to 50 percent higher premium than our current

contract, with less overall benefit coverage. If we choose to

renew early, before the ACA takes effect, our premiums will

increase 11.4 percent. Our President told us that the ACA

would decrease health insurance costs.

My constituents--businesses, as well as individuals--have bitterly conveyed to me the myriad of concerns they face.

Eastern Lancaster County School District announced it would ``outsource'' about 100 of its support staff workers to private companies to avoid possible penalties under ObamaCare.

In Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, the community college decided to cut hours for 400 adjunct faculty and other employees, so it wouldn't have to pay $6 million in ObamaCare-related fees.

From Auntie Anne's franchises, I have been told they have put their growth plans on hold, hiring has been pushed off, and they may no longer be able to afford to provide employee insurance coverage. In 2012, they experienced a 19 percent increase in insurance premiums and a 30 percent increase in 2013.

Here is what Tom and Rosemarie had to say from Lititz, Pennsylvania:

I have been crunching numbers to prepare for ObamaCare, and this is what I face: close my doors December 31, 2014 . . . or . . . pay $40,000 a year to insure my employees or ``pay'' a fine of $2,000 per employee per year over the first 30, at the price of $166 per month per employee over the first 30. So now, the 10 that have insurance, as well as my husband and I, will no longer be insured because the penalty is more affordable than to cover . . . this is ridiculous. I am outraged.

Mr. Speaker, we can do better than this. We can enact patient- centered free market reforms, where private insurers engage in robust competition and create the same kind of market-based inducements to reduce prices and improve services that occurs in most other parts of the American economy.

We can start by enacting H.R. 3522. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. American workers who like their health care plan should be able to keep it, just like President Obama and the supporters of the Affordable Care Act promised.

I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Ways and Means,

Washington, DC, September 10, 2014.

Hon. Fred Upton, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Upton: I am writing concerning H.R. 3522, the

``Employee Health Care Protection Act,'' which is scheduled

for floor consideration today.

As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means has

jurisdiction over the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Section

5000A of the Internal Revenue Code requires individuals to

maintain minimum essential coverage or pay a penalty. Section

2(b) of H.R. 3522, both as reported out of your Committee and

Rules Committee Print 113-56, modifies which health care

plans would meet the requirement of minimum essential

coverage. However, in order to expedite this legislation for

floor consideration, the Committee will forgo action on this

bill. This is being done with the understanding that it does

not in any way prejudice the Committee with respect to the

appointment of conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives

on this or similar legislation.

I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming

this understanding with respect to H.R. 3522, and would ask

that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be

included in the Congressional Record during floor

consideration.

Sincerely,

Dave Camp,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the vice chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Bill Cassidy, a valued member of the Health Subcommittee and prime sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, another valued member of the Health Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) another member of the Health Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Ellmers), another member of the Health Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire on the time remaining for both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, congressional Democrats constantly say that the ACA is not a perfect bill, and that they want to make changes. If they are sincere about that statement, they should join us in supporting H.R. 3522, a bill that received bipartisan support at Energy and Commerce to protect American workers who will lose their plan under the Affordable Care Act.

Thirty-nine Democrats joined us last year and voted for a similar bill to let Americans keep their plan in the individual market. We should work together to provide that very same protection to the tens of millions of American workers who depend on employer-sponsored health coverage.

Last fall, millions of Americans all across the country had their health plans canceled, despite repeated promises from the President and his allies in Congress that if you liked your health care plan, you would be able to keep it. And so, in the fall of 2013, health plan cancelations were concentrated in the individual market.

Sadly, millions of Americans with employer-sponsored coverage, group plans, will also face plan cancelations because of the Affordable Care Act. And some experts have testified before the Energy and Commerce Committee that approximately 50 million young American workers with fully insured coverage face plan cancelations or disruptions because of ACA requirements and regulations.

Forbes warned last year, and I will quote: ``Starting in October 2014, many employees of small businesses will start getting the same notices that are now being mailed to individuals, informing that their existing health plans are also being canceled.''

Well, Mr. Speaker, Americans rightly feel misled by the President, by congressional Democrats. Their false assurance that Americans could keep their health care plan was recognized as the 2013 ``Lie of the Year.''

So, we have this legislation before us this year to apply to the group plans. As long as they were in existence in 2013, they could be available today. And I urge Members to support the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The President not only made a promise that, if you liked your doctor you could keep your doctor, he said, if you liked your health care plan, you could keep your health care plan no matter what--period. He also promised reductions in premiums of $2,500 per family.

Americans are not seeing the $2,500 reduction in premiums that the President promised under the ACA. Instead, Americans are seeing higher premiums and deductibles under the President's health care law. Some of the premium increases are outrageous, and the deductibles--I don't know how a family could save the $10,000 to $15,000 for their deductibles that some of them are telling us they are going to have. In fact, the administration's own actuaries have confirmed that premiums are going up under the ACA. Earlier this year, actuaries from CMS estimated that 65 percent of small businesses will see premium increases under the Affordable Care Act. Middle class Americans working for these 11 million small businesses will see higher premiums, meaning less take- home pay for working Americans.

The American people want real health care reform, but the ACA is making things worse. The President's health care law has led to canceled health care plans, fewer choices, higher premiums, and higher deductibles for middle class families. Ultimately, the law needs to be replaced with better solutions that lower costs and provide better health care choices.

However, let's be clear about what H.R. 3522 actually does. The bill does not repeal the ACA. We have heard the mantra of how many 50-some votes there have been to repeal. Instead, this bill simply lets American workers keep their health care plans, and it expands coverage options.

Congressional Democrats constantly say that they want to change the parts of the ACA that don't work. If they are sincere about that pledge, they should join us in supporting H.R. 3522. This is a bipartisan bill to protect American workers who will lose their plans under the health care law. As I said last year when we had a similar bill for the individual market cancelations, 39 Democrats joined us and voted for that bill to let Americans keep their plans in the individual market.

Congress should work together to provide the same protection to the millions of American workers with group coverage, and that is what the Employee Health Care Protection Act does. Families, not Washington, should decide if they want to keep their health care plans.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, so I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support H.R. 3522.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. It is bad for consumers. It is bad for small businesses. The only beneficiaries of this bill are the health insurance companies that want to sell bad policies, charge higher premiums for women, for children with preexisting conditions, and who want to put limits on health care coverage when people need it the most.

I want to take a minute to go back to the time before the Affordable Care Act and remind my colleagues why we passed that health care reform in the first place.

Before the ACA, consumers were seeing health insurance premiums rise by double-digits each year. Not anymore.

This morning, the Kaiser Family Foundation released a new report on small employer premiums. The report found that since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, premium increases for small business coverage have slowed considerably. This past year, premiums barely budged.

Before the ACA, there was no requirement for how much of your premium dollars go to an insurance company, how much of that had to actually go for your health care. Your premiums could be used to pay for exorbitant executive salaries, lavish conferences, and other expenditures that had nothing to do with the health coverage for the insured.

Now, consumers are saving billions of dollars from this new requirement that insurers actually spend premium dollars to provide health care.

Before the ACA, parents could find that they had no coverage at all for a child's preexisting conditions, even something as common as asthma. Today, all parents are guaranteed the peace of mind that their insurance will cover their children's medical needs.

Before the ACA, an individual struggling with cancer could find that the insurance plan would impose annual coverage limits and simply stop paying for care. Today, this is no longer the case.

Before the ACA, small businesses had few choices and no leverage with insurance companies. The ACA put consumers and small businesses back in charge, and it did so in a way that is cutting health cost growth and providing coverage to millions of previously uninsured Americans.

So what do we have on the other side of the aisle from the Republicans? Sour grapes.

We took a Republican idea, implemented by their very own Presidential candidate in Massachusetts, and we took that idea and made it work for the whole country, made it work for families, made it work better than even the most optimistic supporters had expected.

And Republicans are mad. So rather than work to implement the law, they have been working to thwart it. Sour grapes.

This bill is just another example of that mentality. It would not help small businesses. To the contrary. Small businesses that wish to grandfather and keep their old coverage already have that opportunity.

This bill would let insurance companies sell non-ACA-compliant policies to any business, policies that do not protect against benefit limits, rate hikes, discrimination against women or against children with preexisting conditions.

The bill would allow insurance companies to cherry-pick, offering low rates for inadequate, bare bones policies for some groups and then discriminate against, charging higher prices or offering weaker coverage for others.

Mr. Speaker, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities yesterday released a new analysis of the bill and what it would mean. The analysis concluded that it would ``likely cause premiums to rise substantially for many small businesses and undercut health reform's small group market reforms and consumer protections.''

So I am opposed to this bill. It is not about helping businesses. It is not about helping families. This bill puts insurance companies back in charge, and it returns the insurance market to the days when they could discriminate with impunity. I am not for that, and I hope my colleagues are not for that. I urge a ``no'' vote.