Richard Burr

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. BURR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hobson].

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1878) to extend for 4 years the period of applicability of enrollment mix requirement to certain health maintenance organizations providing services under Dayton area health plan, as amended.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Madam Speaker, as is tradition in the House, I have the honor this morning of introducing our guest Chaplain. Dr. David Burr attended Princeton Theological Seminary after serving in World War II as a frogman in our Navy. He has served Presbyterian churches in Charlottesville, VA; Norfolk, VA, and retired in a church in Winston-Salem, NC, during his 43 years in the ministry. David Burr served as the chairman of the Southern Presbyterian Church and on the board of trustees at Davidson University. Today is indeed a special one for me, because our guest Chaplain watched me take my first step, was there on my first day of school, and served as my roll model in life. David Burr is indeed my father, but he is also my best friend. I am honored today, Dad, to welcome you to the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Chairman, I also come, as the gentleman who stood up earlier on the Democrat side of the aisle, with no charts, with no maps, even with no buttons, even though I have worn one today, because in fact today the strategy has been clear. The strategy by the minority in this House is that, if we say things that are untrue enough, people will believe them. If we say to seniors that trying to fix Medicare will hurt them, they might believe that. If, in fact, we say to children do not worry about the debt, we are going to solve it at some point, that they might believe it. If in fact we say to the poor enough do not worry about federally driven programs, the States cannot do it, that they might believe it. As my colleagues know, the fact is that I have had a button on all day that said if not now, when? Well, if not now, when will we stand up for seniors and secure the future of Medicare for them and for future generations? If not now, when will we stand up for children in this country and for once say we are going to begin to do away with the debt problem that we have put on their shoulders? If not now, when? If not now, when will we say to those poor individuals in this country who need Federal assistance we are going to ask their neighbors to design programs because they know better than bureaucrats what they need? If not now, when are we going to do what the American people want us to do, and turn down this substitute, and vote for the reconciliation package that will truly balance our budget in 7 years and save the programs of this Government? Mr. Chairman, I hope and expect this legislation will foster the development of provider networks, including specialty provider networks because of my interest in assuring seniors that they will have choices relating to behavioral health care, rehabilitation care and other specialty services. The private sector has engaged in direct contracting with specialty networks in order to lower costs and improve access to quality treatment as well as expand choice for consumers. The Medicare Program should also explore the utilization of these specialty networks for the same reasons. I believe the Health Care Finance Administration has adequate demonstration authority under current law to test the feasibility and desirability of permitting specialty provider sponsored networks to serve the new Medicare market. A demonstration project would serve to determine whether seniors have access to the most cost-effective quality treatments for specialized services.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Chairman, I came to Congress because I believed that there were many things in this country that just did not work like they were designed. Medicare is one of them. For once, it is time for us to stand up to the Federal Government bureaucrats who believe that they can do no wrong. In my opinion, Medicare is a perfect example of good intentions choked by a bureaucracy unable to address the changing needs of a vital program. It is long past time that we inject the wisdom of the private sector, which has created products that work, into a health care blueprint for seniors in America. It is time to offer choice to Medicare beneficiaries which allow and encourage them to spend their health-care dollars in a way that best fits their health needs. It is time we allow our parents the ability to choose their coverage while maintaining the security of the current system for those who need it. Call me crazy, Mr. Chairman, but for decades we have delayed, ignored, and tinkered with Medicare while my parents and 36 million other Americans have seen their health care costs rise and consume 21 percent of their disposable income. Mr. Chairman, when I joined with Members of the 104th Congress in a genuine effort to reform Medicare and preserve it for the next generation, I made a deal with myself. I pledged that I would not support a plan that I could not sit down with my parents and explain. Well, I have explained it, and, Mr. Chairman, I am here today to say that we owe it to the American seniors to pass this preservation act.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to include extraneous material in the Record.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson].

Mr. BURR. In fact, in the bill itself I think the gentleman would see that what we have done is we have allowed the heads of Federal agencies to consider differences in physical, chemical, biological, and other properties, and the environmental effects of the classes. To some degree we have empowered the heads of these agencies to make the determination in the best interests of this country. I do not think the gentleman would disagree with that interest.

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BURR. Is the gentleman suggesting that we only use common sense in some cases? I hear the gentleman's concern with process, but I would question that the gentleman is more concerned with process than outcome, and, in fact, the common sense comes into play, and the majority of Americans say there should be a differentiation between the two.

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I would certainly request of the Committee on Commerce for that listing and also make the request of the other two committees.

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 12 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing], and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time.

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. BURR. As it relates to this amendment, sir, the transportation, the disposal has been looked at relative to the change for edible oils. The two committees of jurisdiction have also looked at it.

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BURR. If the gentleman will yield further, I would remind the gentleman that this amendment deals with the differentiation. There is no exemption, exclusion. It deals with the differentiation.

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich].

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 436, the Edible Oils Regulation Reform Act. This legislation will correct an unintended and burdensome problem created by certain Federal regulations, and so it is very fitting that this legislation is being considered today on the new House corrections calendar. As my colleagues are aware, there are several environmental laws that contain definitions of the term ``oil''. While the legislative history of each statute indicates that it was the intent of Congress that the term ``oil'' referred to petroleum and petroleum-related products, the definitions are fairly broad and Federal regulators have taken the view that the term must be interpreted to include all types of oil, including vegetable oils and animal fats. As my colleagues from other committees will describe in greater detail, this has meant that regulations written for the transportation and handling of petroleum have also been applied to transportation and handling of vegetable oils and animal fats. These same [[Page H 9751]] problems potentially arise when it comes to the storage and disposal of oils. The legislation before us today would solve this problem by directing Federal agencies with regulatory responsibilities to do one simple thing: to differentiate between animal fats or vegetable oils and other types of oils and greases, including petroleum, when they write regulations. This simple correction will prevent unjustified and burdensome regulations from being imposed on animal fats and vegetable oils, which clearly do not present the same environmental risks as other types of oil and greases, including petroleum. I want to point out that this legislation has been endorsed by three separate committees. It has been reported twice by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, once by the Committee on Agriculture, and once by the Committee on Commerce. It is good legislation that makes common sense, Mr. Speaker. The amendment I offer today on behalf of the Committee on Commerce makes several refinements to the bill as recorded by the Committee on Commerce and includes important provisions from other versions of the bill. The first refinement is to make clear that the requirements of the bill do not apply to the Food and Drug Administration and the Food Safety and Inspection Service. The problems identified by this legislation have not arisen under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act or statutes administered by the FDA or the FSIS. Rather, they have arisen under traditional environmental statutes, such as the Oil Pollution Act and other hazardous waste laws. When the bill came before the Committee on Commerce, a concern was expressed that it was not clear on how the requirement to differentiate between different classes of oil might affect FDA's product approvals and other regulatory activities, so the committee attempted to exempt the FDA from the scope of the bill. The amendment today makes that exemption explicit and, with the concurrence of the House Committee on Agriculture, also exempts the Food Safety and Inspection Service, which conducts business similar to the FDA's. The amendment also clarifies that the differentiation required by the bill is between animal fats or vegetable oils and other types of oil and grease, including petroleum. It is not the intent of the amendment to require the heads of Federal agencies to differentiate among different types of animal fats and vegetable oils. Finally, the amendment includes important provisions on financial responsibility under the Oil Pollution Act which were included in the versions of the bills adopted by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on Agriculture. In closing, I want to commend my colleagues, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing], and the gentlewoman from Missouri [Ms. Danner], for introducing this legislation and for working hard to move it through the process. I also want to commend Speaker Gingrich and Committee on Rules Chairman Solomon for putting in place this corrections day that allows us to make commonsense changes to Federal regulations. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. BURR. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I recognize the gentleman's concern. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] has been unavoidably detained, and we have an amendment in the nature of a substitute that has been worked out between the Committee on Commerce, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and the Committee on Agriculture. Because of the nature of the issue that we are talking about, I hope the gentleman will understand, and to bring some common sense to this one thing, I would hope that we could proceed with it.

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 436, Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act, on [[Page H 9750]] behalf of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley]. That bill will be called up under the Corrections Calendar later today.

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute on behalf of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley].