Michael Burgess

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I would just remind the gentleman, the ranking member from New Jersey, in our committee hearing earlier this year we heard from the Governor of Utah who had been setting up a state exchange prior to the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and now was left with an uncomfortable situation where it has been ruled unconstitutional by two district courts. He's waiting for whatever happens in the court system. But as he told us in committee, ``I'm walking on shifting sands. I no longer know where to go. Passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has made my life infinitely harder.'' I would now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance).

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act included $105 billion of directly appropriated mandatory funding of numerous programs and provisions included in the law. For example, section 4101(a) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act provides $50 million in mandatory spending for construction and expansion of school-based health centers every year, from the inception through 2013, for a total of $150 million. In our current financial situation, it is not only necessary but it is our responsibility that we examine all of our spending and make all necessary adjustments. H.R. 1214 is a simple bill aimed at a simple goal--to get some of the spending that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act advanced inappropriately. Section 4101(a) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act funds only the construction of school-based health centers. The $50 million in grants are for construction only and there is an express prohibition on these funds being used to provide health services. No such provision was in the bill passed by the House. You will recall H.R. 3200 was the Health Care Reform Act that the House of Representatives worked through its committees of jurisdiction, on which we held hearings, on which we had debate on the floor of the House, and which passed the House in November of last year. It had no such provision in the House Democrats'-passed bill. Since no such provision was included in the health bill, and if the Senate Democrats considered the school-based health centers important enough to receive mandatory funding, why was the mandatory funding strictly limited to the construction of the buildings? Not one cent is guaranteed to see a child, but automatic checks out of the Treasury to build these centers. I will point out that section 4101(b) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act created a new discretionary grant program for school-based health centers. But this grant program requires them to use the funding to provide health care services. However, the President's budget did not fund section 4101(b), failing to provide school-based health centers money expressly for the purpose of actually providing the service. Fundamentally, we might even have some agreement on school-based health centers. I am on record of having supported them in the past, and I believe opening health care points of access is important. I want to do more in this realm. But providing mandatory spending, forced spending to construct facilities without adequate safeguards if they will provide care is irresponsible and it certainly abdicates the pursestring nature of the House of Representatives. We are the people's House. It is our obligation to oversee the money that is spent on behalf of the people of the United States. Not one guarantee of a doctor, not one cent of payment for an immunization, not once ounce of common sense is included in the policy. I will note that this bill does not touch the discretionary program to provide care. I urge my colleagues to support restoring a little fiscal restraint and a little responsible policy to a small part of the law which will destroy the practice of medicine as we know it in the Nation and put the taxpayer on the hook for trillions of dollars in spending. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for the recognition, and it is an important debate that we're having tonight. Madam Chairwoman, I hope that people are watching the debate because this really does set the tone, set the course, set the compass for the future of our country. And this is a debate that really should not be partisan, although we certainly have heard some partisan references. I may even make one or two myself. But right now intergenerational expectations are down. And in that murky environment, we now have Paul Ryan come forward and bringing us a fact-based budget that provides a pathway for America's future. Everyone knows the rising cost of health care is a serious threat--not just to our Federal Government but to our prosperity in general. Unfortunately, the President last year, and the Democratic majority that was present in Congress last year, made the problem worse. Here's the simple truth. Instead of reforming Medicaid and Medicare and using the savings for deficit reduction, the Democrats spent every penny of savings, every single penny of savings and then a lot more on a new entitlement program. Incredibly, they accelerated the crisis, and Medicare and Medicaid are even more in peril today than they were before this all started in 2009. They found a fire, and they put it out with gasoline, and is it a surprise that it's worse? In contrast, the budget that we're debating tonight, the Ryan budget, saves Medicare and Medicaid for future generations and uses reforms to make the programs financially sustainable. Now, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the Democratic plan that we know as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act would increase spending by almost $1\1/2\ trillion, primarily by expanding Medicaid and creating new subsidies to buy health insurance. The so-called Affordable Care Act would increase coverage for the insured and uninsured, provide coverage for the uninsured, but that also is going to create greater demand for health care. But at the same time we put in constraints. We limit physician education and training. We limit testing and patents for drugs and devices. We restrict the very supply of health care. And, consequently, much of the increased demand will in fact deliver us higher prices, not more services. The Congressional Budget Office and chief actuary at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services who scored the legislation readily admit that they did not include the price effects of the increased demand for services. In fact, the chief actuary at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, his report wasn't even released until 3\1/2\ weeks after you passed the bill a little over a year ago and signed it into law. Thus, the official budget estimates understate the true cost of the amount of spending that was contained within this health care law. Secondly, the available budget estimates ignore the negative impact of higher taxes on economic growth. An almost 4 percent surtax on interest, dividends, and capital gains for those earning over $250,000 a year will reduce business investment and employment. Thus, the new tax will reduce economic growth and generate less revenue than expected. This problem cannot be fixed by simply raising taxes on the American people. Thirdly, the budget estimates assume a 29 percent across the board reduction in Medicare physician payments in 2012 and beyond, as well as continual reductions in other Medicare provider payments, but both the CBO and the Medicare actuary have called the reductions unrealistic. In fact, Chief Actuary Foster said if you believe this, then I have got good news for you about the future of Medicare. But we all know that the reality does not match the expectations. Then here is the other problem, the Independent Payment Advisory Board. And I have got a great deal of sympathy with my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle. When you passed the Affordable Care Act the first time, you did not include the Independent Payment Advisory Board because you saw through that. You saw that as a trick, a trap. Yet when you got the bill from the Senate that you in turn felt you had to pass, it contained the Independent Payment Advisory Board. What does the Independent Payment Advisory Board do? Well, it gets 15 people, goodness knows who they are, goodness knows who selects them, and they are going to deliver to Congress a menu of cuts. We either get to vote them up or down. Sure enough, we get to participate in that. But if we vote them down, we have got to come forward with an identical dollar figure on cuts. And if we are unable to do that, and when has that ever happened in this body, if we are unable do that, the Secretary of Health and Human Services the following April 15, that is tomorrow, gets to implement those cuts anyway.

Mr. BURGESS. Then what happened yesterday? The President, in talking about his vision for the budget--by the way, his second vision for the budget this year--doubled down on the Independent Payment Advisory Board and said it's such a good idea we're going to do even more. You know Elias Zerhouni, the former head of the National Institutes of Health, talked about a day medicine is going to become much more personalized, personalized, predictive, therefore more preventive and requiring more participation by patients. Wouldn't it be great, following Chairman Ryan's vision, that we personalized Medicare to match that personalized medicine that our children and our grandchildren are going to enjoy in the future? Instead, we are going to end up with more of the same, which is a benevolent, albeit benevolent central planner, moving those data points around on a spreadsheet. Why not put the power back in the hands of the American people? That's what the Ryan budget plan does. We ought to support his effort and be grateful for its presence.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I do rise in support of H.R. 1217. The bill, as we have already heard, repeals the public health slush fund that was included in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which was passed just a little over a year ago. This fund, called the Prevention and Public Health Fund, is almost $18 billion, which accounts for the next 8 fiscal years, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services gets to spend this money on any program that he or she deems worthy. What the money will be used for and how it will be used are, essentially, unknowns. Neither this Congress nor subsequent Congresses have any earthly idea. It is yet, once again, an abdication of our authority here in the United States Congress. It is an abdication of power in deference to the executive branch. If that's what people think we were sent here to do, to simply carve off greater and greater pieces of our authority and hand it over to the White House, then I hope I'm wrong in that; but over and over again, with the health care bill, with the financial reg bill, it seems like that is the mantra here. It does put way too much discretion in the hands of the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. We've got a predicted shortfall in the Nation's health care provider workforce. Some of this money is going to go for scholarships, but it sets up a big problem. Under the Public Health Fund, some of those same students could receive a scholarship for 1 year, only to find that the Secretary has bigger and better things to spend it on next year. Maybe there's a new bike path that needs a sign, and that student would find their education unfunded because all of the discretion rests with the Secretary. Now, just a moment ago, the ranking member of the full committee stood up and said that it seems like all the Republicans want to do is defund and remove the Affordable Care Act. Well, I appreciate his noticing, because, Mr. Chairman, that is what the election of November 2, 2010, was all about. We were elected to come here and do that work for the American people. And the duplication contained within the slush fund, the ranking member talked about smoking cessation. That's a good idea. I believe in that. I lost two parents due to tobacco-related illness. But wait a minute. What about the duplication? When the ranking member was chairman last year, last Congress, he created the Center for Tobacco Products at the Food and Drug Administration. We funded that lavishly with a brand-new tax, and now we're going to come back and fund it yet again with this public health slush fund? The ranking member asked about what programs we wanted to cut. Really, it's a question of do we want to be accountable to the American people who elected us here to do this job. They sent us here to ensure their money was spent responsibly and that every penny would be accounted for and justified before being spent. With the current state of the economy, Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure how the American people feel about the Secretary choosing to spend money on signs to direct people to bike paths. I know how they would feel about it in my district.

Mr. BURGESS. In this law that was signed in the East Room of the White House just a little over a year ago, section 4002 takes from Congress the oversight of spending, and it becomes a blank check for the Secretary to do with as she wishes without any other input from Congress. By doing that, it takes that authority away from the American people, because we are the closest contact the American people have with their Federal Government. And by taking us out of the equation, guess what, Madam Secretary? You've got a blank check. It's all yours.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, today the Congressional Health Caucus was joined by Governor Haley Barbour from Mississippi as part of our ``Thought Leaders Series.'' His leadership in health care in his home State is an example of how States can take a more prominent role and, in doing so, bend the cost curve in the correct direction. In the last fiscal year, Medicaid, which is a joint Federal and State program, cost our country more than $400 billion, and the price is only expected to increase in the years to come. Governor Barbour has been a leader in transforming Medicaid in his home State. He has made commonsense decisions to reduce rising drug costs to ensure that people who are enrolled in the program are, indeed, eligible for the program. Coordinated care and increased compliance all have led to improved outcomes. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will only compound the financial problems that States are facing. In 2014, States will see their Medicaid enrollments grow substantially when all people below 138 percent of the Federal poverty level will be covered. It is essential that we examine this and other parts of the Affordable Care Act to ensure that our States are not pushed into an even deeper budgetary crisis.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chair, I rise today to discuss my unwavering support for legislation this body considered on this week, and passed by large margin yesterday on this floor. Unfortunately I was detained during the final passage vote for H.R. 910, and was unable to record my support for this legislation. I wish to do so now. For the last two years, Lisa Jackson's Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, has waged a war on the state of Texas that is destroying jobs and hampering economic growth. Texas was one of the last states hit by the recession in 2008, in large part due to its robust energy industry, with thousands of jobs connected to oil and gas exploration and production. Since taking office in 2009, President Obama has made it clear that he will do everything he can to interfere with any state using its own initiative to grow the economy and create jobs. In Mr. Obama's America, only the federal government can create jobs. We know this to be a failed experiment, yet he is still intent on doing all he can to continue to hamper the efforts of Texans to create jobs and grow the economy. From the ``flex-permitting'' plan that Texas' Council on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has had implemented for over two decades, to greenhouse gas permitting, which will destroy industry all over the state and the country, the EPA is holding up permits and stifling growth at every turn. For these reasons, and many others, I wholeheartedly support H.R. 910. I was a cosponsor of this legislation from the very beginning. Twice during its consideration in the House Energy & Commerce Committee, I voiced my support, and was pleased to vote to pass it out of committee and have it considered on the House floor. I regret circumstances detained me from the vote on final passage yesterday evening. I hope, however, there is no doubt that, had I been able to be present during the vote, I would have voted in the affirmative, and continue to support his legislation without reservation.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. BURGESS. Just finally, I do want to underscore that greenhouse gases do not have a health impact. But in the odd event that someone were sprayed in the face with a greenhouse gas such as methane, the emergency powers exist under section 303 of the Clean Air Act to respond to the imminent and substantial endangerment of public health.

Mr. BURGESS. At this point, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Marie Rossmann on being named the Texas State Assistant Principal of the Year. Dr. Rossmann has worked diligently to promote the high educational standards of the 26th District of Texas. She has been an educator for two decades, and has maintained her passion and optimism. Most recently, Dr. Rossmann spearheaded the Yellow Project. With the Yellow Project, Dr. Rossmann seeks to ``assist teachers with specific interventions which enable students to become more successful in the classroom.'' This effort is unique in that it encourages teachers to take the entire child into account when coming up with a way to address his or her particular needs. It is so easy to think about the education system as one giant entity, but Dr. Rossmann reminds us that it is in fact a system composing many individual students. It is this determination and insight that made Dr. Marie Rossmann an obvious choice for the Texas State Assistant Principal of the Year. I am encouraged to know there are people like Dr. Rossmann who are making an impact on our children's lives. Please join me in recognizing this world class educator on her wonderful work.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Flower Mound High School Choir. In 1999 the high school opened with the hope of becoming ``A World Class School Educating Tomorrow's Leaders.'' Since then, Newsweek Magazine named it one of the ``Top 1000 Best Public High Schools'' in the U.S., based on AP scores. Of the school's many accomplishments, none resonate quite like the Flower Mound High School Choir. The Flower Mound High School Choir regularly enjoys success at University Interscholastic League competitions as well as private competitions. Over time they have earned a slew of ``Sweepstakes'' awards as well as ``Best of Class'' and ``Grand Champion'' awards from all over the country. Students have also had the honor of performing throughout Europe, both at the Vatican and the Salzburg Cathedral. And just last week they were here in Washington D.C. to perform at the WWII Memorial. In their song choice, they sought to honor our nation's veterans. It is heartening to know that this burgeoning generation continues to hold our veterans in such high regard. I want to thank the Flower Mound High School Choir for coming to our nation's capitol to honor our veterans.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, last night, the President took to the airwaves and talked to the Nation about the international efforts that America is leading in Libya. This comes almost 2 weeks after the President gave his approval for the United States to be involved in the action in Libya. The President discussed the United States' interest in the conflict, the limited involvement of the United States military, and the role of other countries. What the President failed to deliver was a clear articulation on what is America's role in this conflict. Putting our men and women in harm's way while not knowing the specifics of how and why is not just unacceptable, it is dangerous. Mr. President, you need to be more forthcoming. The American people need more information. The American people certainly deserve answers. The explanation last night was disappointing, and we find ourselves even more frustrated as specific information was not provided. What is the exit strategy? What is the endgame? What are our goals? How are we going to ensure that the next government of Libya is not even more hostile than the current regime? The President does need to follow through with his actions. We need to have the resolve to see this through. The President waited too long to address the Nation. Certainly, the Congress needed to be involved. And certainly the American people needed to be involved.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, we're coming up on the 1-year anniversary of the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. President Obama, during the 2008 Presidential campaign, repeatedly promised that this would be an open and transparent process. He acknowledged the people's right to know. In fact, he said over and over again, ``not negotiating behind closed doors but bringing all parties together so that the American people can see what the choices are.'' ``So that the American people can see what the choices are.'' But instead of doing that, in May of 2009, a secret meeting of six special interest groups down at the White House. In September of that year, I began sending letters. In January of 2010, I filed a resolution of inquiry so we could see what went on in those meetings and what the deal was. But, unfortunately, we were shut down. This year, now under new leadership of our Speaker and Chairman Upton of the Energy and Commerce Committee, once again we're asking the White House to voluntarily provide us that information. And what did they respond? They said it would be too ``vast and expensive.'' So they acknowledged the information is there; they just don't want to go get it. Is this the type of transparency that the President campaigned on? I think not. It's time for the White House to make those documents available to those of us in the House who have been asking for them for almost 2 years' time. Transparency is, indeed, a two-way street.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the memory of Dr. Arvin Short, who passed away on March 3. For decades, Dr. Short provided a public service to the North Texas community through his work in General Surgery. Arvin Dale Short was born on September 21, 1942 in Weatherford, Oklahoma. Dr. Short graduated from the University of Oklahoma Medical School in 1969, after completing his undergraduate work at Southwestern State College. After completing his internship and residency in General Surgery at the University of Texas Medical School in San Antonio, he earned his certification from the American Board of Surgery in 1975. Dr. Short was recruited to practice surgery in Denton by my father, the late H.M. Burgess, and the two men formed a lifelong bond. No matter what the circumstance, Dr. Short was always available with an encouraging word or fresh perspective. Since 2004, he has served as the Medical Director of the Wound Center at Texas Health Resources Presbyterian Hospital, where he also served on the Board of Directors from 2003 to 2007. Dr. Short has an established career which included serving as Chief of Staff and Chief of Surgery at Lewisville Memorial Hospital, Flow Memorial Hospital and Denton Community Hospital. Committed to his field, he was affiliated with the J.B. Aust Surgical Society, the Texas Medical Society and served as a Fellow of the American College of Surgeons, as well as President of the Denton County Medical Society. Dr. Short's legacy extends beyond his contributions as a surgeon. His support of the arts went beyond his interests in reading, music, and history. Arvin Short was also an accomplished writer, poet and playwright. His works include the published novel, ``Reckoning'', the award winning play, ``The Call Room,'' and numerous other short stories, novels and poems. A philanthropist, Dr. Short served on the Board of Directors of the Denton Community Theatre and received the Greater Denton Arts Council Community Arts Recognition Award in 1991. Through all his service as surgeon, artist, and philanthropist, Dr. Short was known first as a family man. His real love being his wife Carol, his sons, his daughter-in-law and granddaughter. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to join his family, friends and colleagues in honoring the life of Dr. Arvin Short. His legacy as family man, surgeon and artist is one that will endure for years to come. I am honored to have known him and represented him in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 525, the Veterinary Public Health Amendments Act of 2011, would take important steps to increase the number of public health veterinarians. Food animal veterinarians have a vital role in our Nation's public health, and experts have informed us that there is, in fact, a shortage. This shortage could negatively affect our Nation's public health, including the safety of our Nation's food. We expect that this legislation will help greatly in solving that problem. H.R. 525 would enable individuals seeking veterinary public health degrees to be eligible for existing public health workforce loan repayment programs. This legislation would also allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services to award existing training grants to increase the veterinary public health workforce. I would like to thank all of the Members who have worked on this issue, including my physician colleague on the committee, Dr. Phil Gingrey of Georgia. I would also like to thank Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin for authoring the bill. I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. 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. 525 currently under consideration.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Again, I urge support for the legislation and for the passage of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 570) to amend the Public Health Service Act to enhance the roles of dentists and allied dental personnel in the Nation's disaster response framework, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, currently Federal statute deters through omission the incorporation of dental professionals and schools into emergency response plans. H.R. 570 would remedy this omission by incorporating dentistry by name into the Federal disaster response framework. This legislation is endorsed by the American Dental Association and the Academy of General Dentistry, and it passed the House last year on a voice vote. It recently passed the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the Health Subcommittee, and the full committee, on a voice vote, and 19 members of the Energy and Commerce Committee are currently cosponsors. In the aftermath of a natural disaster, terrorist attack, or public health emergency, traditional medical delivery systems can become overwhelmed. In these situations it is vital that States work with all qualified and licensed providers to ensure a volunteer workforce to assist in the mitigation of that tragedy. Dentists receive sound general medical background during their professional education and are equipped to take patient medical histories, administer injections, and triage patients. This legislation calls for no new Federal money and poses no new restrictions on moneys now being spent. It simply allows States, at their option, to incorporate dentists and dental facilities into their planning. I believe this bill will allow us to strategically utilize all available resources and have the ability to deploy the maximum amount of aid in times of disaster. I urge support of this bill. I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns) for introducing the legislation with me. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I want to take just a moment to thank Candice Miller from Michigan, who was involved in this legislation throughout its course last year and has been very instrumental this year. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, we are coming up, in 2 short weeks' time, on the 1-year anniversary of the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, affectionately known as ObamaCare. Mr. Speaker, what has that year wrought? Many of us will remember the Speaker of the House a year ago, Speaker Pelosi, saying, We have to pass this bill so we can understand what's in it. Well, it's been a year. Do we understand what's in it? The answer is we do, and people don't like what they see. What about the oft repeated claim ``If you like what you have, you can keep it''? It turns out that is incorrect. What about the waivers that have been issued since October? Now well over a thousand waivers have been issued by HHS. Why have those waivers been issued? They have been issued because this policy doesn't work. And worse than not working, it costs a ton of money. Mr. Pitts just mentioned that in February the deficit in this country was $223 billion for 1 month, the shortest month of the year. This is as good as it is going to get. What happens when you have those subsidies in the exchanges that subsidize middle class purchase of health insurance in this country for the first time? That's a high pressure tap into the Federal Treasury. It's really wrong and it has to stop.