Michael Burgess

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 570 currently under consideration.

Mr. BURGESS. Again, Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank Chairman Upton and Chairman Pitts and Ranking Members Waxman and Pallone for their work in passing this bill so quickly through the subcommittee and the full committee. I also want to thank Mr. Stupak for his hard work on the legislation in the last Congress. Again, I want to acknowledge the work of Candice Miller last Congress and this Congress in getting this bill passed. In an emergency, all hands on deck. Dentists are willing to support the medical and public health response to a disaster, and this legislation allows States the option to incorporate dentists into their disaster response framework. Our Nation's medical surge capacity will never be optimal until we capitalize on the personnel resources of the entire health care workforce. I urge full support of this important legislation, H.R. 570, to ensure our national disaster responses have the maximum amount of available resources. I also want to thank two of my staff members, Rebekah West and James Paluskiewicz, for their hard work in getting this bill to the floor in what appears to be record time.

Mr. BURGESS

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

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 525) to amend the Public Health Service Act to enhance and increase the number of veterinarians trained in veterinary public health.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record a letter from the American Farm Bureau Federation urging support of this legislation. I would also like to point out that this legislation enjoyed unanimous support from both the Republican and Democratic sides of the dais in the full Committee on Energy and Commerce. American Farm Bureau Federation', Washington, DC, March 8, 2011. Hon. Fred Upton, Chairman, House Energy and Commerce Committee, Washington,

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize a very special citizen of the 26th District of Texas, Olive Stephens. Mrs. Stephens has enjoyed a long life of public service with 10 years as Councilwoman and 38 years as the Mayor of Shady Shores whose population is about 2,700. At 94 years of age, Mayor Stephens says it's time to pass the torch. Olive Stephens has made a remarkable impact on the town during her reign of service. She was there to support the incorporation of Shady Shores in 1960. This prevented it's absorption from surrounding cities and since then, five separate city landmarks bear her name including a street, the city council chambers, and an elementary school. For many years, in an effort to keep from increasing taxes for citizens, fundraisers were held to help fund the fire department, road maintenance, and the general fund. Ceramics sales, fish frys, bar-b- ques, chili suppers, and yard sales are all examples of how Mayor Stephens led her citizens in ingenuity and resourcefulness. Olive was known for her tenacity and has left us with many memorable quotes, but I think one of her more recent in regard to her stepping down is a relevant one, ``Well, I've left you without any debt and money in the bank, so let's see if we can keep it that way.'' Her longevity and integrity are not in short supply as she will continue participation in the community she helped build. She is truly an inspirational community leader. I thank Mayor Stephens for her lifelong commitment to service. I am proud to represent her in Congress.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, just before we left on break, Francis Collins came and talked to a small group of us at the Health Caucus one morning. Francis Collins, of course Dr. Collins, is the director of the National Institutes of Health and the lead of the human genome project in the National Institutes of Health when the human genome was finally solved a little less than a decade ago. Advances in genomics have really been startling, and the project continues to provide much excitement. Over 1,800 genes that cause disease have been discovered. Whole genomes for cancer cells have been mapped. That is remarkable. The promise this research holds to help those suffering or likely to suffer from diseases or medical conditions is very real. I cannot overstate the significance of these advances. I have no doubt that the field of medicine will be revolutionized. The technology has certainly evolved since I was a medical student some 40 years ago. Things that I would have never thought imaginable are now clearly within the reach and grasp of today's practitioner. In fact, the young men and women who are medical students and residents today, what a world they will live in. The science is going to be absolutely fantastic. And, indeed, their ability to relieve human suffering is going to be unlike anything that has been known by any generation of physicians that has preceded them.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, what the gentlelady asserts may or may not be true. The fact is we don't know. We never authorized this agency. In a 2,700 page bill, passed in the dead of night on March 23, no authorization for this agency existed, but curiously enough, the head of this agency was actually hired a year ago last Wednesday. The administration knew what they were doing, they bowled right ahead and did it, but they didn't want Congress to know. The authorization language was left out of the bill, and then we forward funded it with direct appropriation. That is why this amendment is necessary. Pull that funding out. Keep those foot soldiers under wraps because in CMS, they are under direct control of a man who has never been confirmed by the United States Senate.

Mr. BURGESS. I yield myself the balance of my time. We are hearing a lot about $3.25 billion that was sent to Texas under the stimulus/ARRA funds in 2010-2011. This money was actually appropriated by the Texas State legislature--Texas Senate: 29 ayes, 2 nays; the House: 142 ayes, 2 nays--in a bipartisan fashion. It was not the Governor. It was the State legislature, appropriately, that dealt with this money. Texas has long prioritized public education funding. From 2000 to 2009, Texas public education spending increased $9 billion, or 82 percent. Office of the Governor, February 18, 2011. Dear Texas Congressional Delegation: The current Education Jobs statute directs me to violate the Texas Constitution by requiring me to commit a certain level of spending on public education in 2011, 2012 and 2013--prior to Texas even adopting our 2012-13 budget. No other state has to make these commitments beyond 2011. Texas submitted its application to the U.S. Department of Education on September 3, 2010, making every assurance allowed under Texas law. The application was nonetheless rejected. To date, 48 out of 50 states have received their share of Education Jobs funding. Texas has long prioritized public education funding; from 2000 to 2009 Texas public education spending increased $9 billion, or 82 percent. By passing Congressman Burgess' amendment, Congress can help right a wrong, apply equity to Texas, and quickly get $830 million flowing to Texas schools, teachers and children. Sincerely, Rick Perry, Governor.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Fort Worth, Texas (Ms. Granger).

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Canseco).

Mr. BURGESS. This amendment would allow that no funding made available in this continuing resolution is to be used to pay for the salary of any officer or employee at the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight within the Department of Health and Human Services. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act never mentions, never authorizes, never appropriates money to the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, formerly known as the Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight. So, without congressional authorization, OCIIO, or now CCIIO, proceeded to hire staff, estimated to be 200 people by the end of last year. They have rented office space in Bethesda. Tasked with implementing some of the largest and most expensive sections of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, this agency began issuing regulations, including those related to State exchanges, medical loss ratio, grandfathered plans, and the granting of waivers to businesses on meeting the requirements of the Affordable Care Act. Currently, this agency has granted 915 waivers accounting for 2.5 million Americans representing about 1 percent of Americans who have private health insurance. This agency's operation is outside any definitive boundaries, and eventually drew some criticism, forcing them to be brought back under the jurisdiction of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, effectively making CMS the most powerful health care agency in the universe with jurisdiction over Medicare, Medicaid, the State children's health plan, and now private insurance. This center has been allowed, without congressional authorization, without congressional oversight, to make the decisions that will affect all sectors of the American population. Without any due diligence or any congressional oversight, no agency or center should be able to obtain funding, carry out their own agenda, implement policy, write regulation, and remain largely unchecked. Before any further funding is allowed to be provided by this body, we need to know where the previous funds came from, how the money was spent and fully review their operations. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of comity, I will yield back any time that was yielded to me. The other side has had plenty of time to talk. We need to vote on this amendment and move on.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the remaining time?

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, seeing the gentleman from California down on the floor reminds me: When this bill passed, the Congressional Budget Office told us there would be $142 billion in savings over 10 years; but less than 30 days later, the chief actuary at CMS, Dr. Foster, came forward and said the bill was going to cost $318 billion additionally over that time. That's a $450 billion swing, and even in the United States Congress, we ought to be able to get a little closer than that. I filed a resolution of inquiry with Chairman Waxman, who was then chairman of Energy and Commerce, who said let's sort this out. What did they know, when did they know it? Was Congress given inaccurate information before we voted on this very large bill? I was never allowed to bring that forward. We could have solved that last year and settled that part of the debate last year.

Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. As was so eloquently put forward by Mr. Rehberg, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health and Human Services Appropriations just a moment ago, this is a temporary limiting amendment on the appropriations for implementation of the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act. ``Bait and switch,'' that term was used by the other side just a moment ago in their arguments. Bait and switch. Think back to where we were just a little over a year ago in this House of Representatives when the Democrats' version of a health care bill passed. Where is that bill today? Somewhere in the dustbin out in the halls outside the office the former Speaker now occupies. Bait and switch. What happened on Christmas Eve of last year of 2009? The Senate passed a bill, a bill that was never intended to become law. It was a placeholder. It was a vehicle to simply get the Senators home for Christmas Eve ahead of a snowstorm so that then everyone can come back to the Capitol in January 2010 and work on the bill that would ultimately become President Obama's health care reform. But it didn't happen. The Democrats lost an election in Massachusetts for the Senate seat, and that changed the paradigm, that changed the narrative, that changed the debate. And then what happened? The House took up the bill passed by the Senate, conveniently, a bill that had been passed by the House of Representatives the summer before as a housing bill, H.R. 3590. Look it up on Thomas at home if you doubt. 3590 passed the Senate. Why would Senator Reid--why would the other body take up a previously passed House bill and turn it into a health care bill? Because it wasn't a health care bill; it was a tax bill. It was a tax bill that, by constitutional authority, had to originate in the House of Representatives. So then the other body had the perfect vehicle: Take this housing bill, strip out the housing language, put in the health care language, pass it on Christmas Eve, and then we'll all gather back after the New Year's Eve festivities and create a conference committee and pass the President's signature health care legislation. But it didn't happen that way. And then the elimination of opponents on the Democratic side began in sequential form such that by March 23 of last year enough Democrats had changed their votes and would support the Senate-passed House bill. And the question, Will the House now agree to the Senate amendment on 3590? was answered affirmatively. But was that the end of the story? No. This was extensively litigated in the political arena last fall. And what was the judgment of the American people after the litigation in the political arena? The answer was: We don't want it. We don't want any part of it. Fix it. Do something. So Chairman Rehberg is doing exactly that today. Within the limits that he is constrained by in a continuing resolution, he is providing the vehicle, the floor by which the implementation of this very flawed process, this very flawed law can now be contained. It was important before, but 3 weeks ago it became critical. It became critical because of Judge Vinson's ruling. And why is that? And I encourage my colleagues to go to Judge Vinson's ruling. It's available on the Internet. It's not hard to read. It's about 75 pages. Judge Vinson's ruling, page 76 of 78: ``Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void.'' Pretty clear language. Now, why is it necessary to approach the funding? Because earlier in his opinion Judge Vinson observed: There is a longstanding presumption that officials of the executive branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction. Well, that should be good enough for members of the executive branch. They had the Federal agencies. But apparently that is not so, because what we see today in our committee hearings, in the headlines in the newspapers is that this administration is proceeding at light speed with implementation. The previous health care czar is now the Deputy Chief of Staff in the White House. What does that tell you about their plans for implementation? In fact, the plans for implementation were going so fast that one of the chief architects of implementation was hired 1\1/ 2\ months before the bill was signed into law, and that's testimony that we heard in our committee in Energy and Commerce this past week. I sent a letter to Secretary Sebelius this week asking her to provide for us what direction she was going to take in light of Judge Vinson's ruling. In closing, I thank the gentleman for bringing this limiting amendment to the floor today. It is critically important that this Congress act to limit the implementation of this very flawed health care law. Let's get back to the work the American people asked us to do in the election. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, February 11, 2011. Hon. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC. Dear Secretary Sebelius: I write to inquire of the Department of Health and Human Services your response to and specifically subsequent implementation decisions made by the Department in the wake of Judge Vinson's ruling in The State of Florida v. United States Department of Health and Human Services. As you are well aware, the plaintiff sought declaratory judgment that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional as well as an injunction against its enforcement. In his opinion, Judge Vinson relied on precedent in Committee on Judiciary of U.S. House of Representatives v. Miers to determine that when a court issues a declaratory judgment against federal officials, the ``declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.'' He quoted a previous United States Court of Appeals decision which further addressed his point, ``that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction. . . There is no reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply here. Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief is not necessary.'' I would like to request information on how, in light of the declaratory relief issued by Judge Vinson, the Department plans to proceed in its implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Thank you for your time and consideration on this issue and I look forward to your response. Should you have any questions, please contact me in my Washington office at (202)225-7772. Sincerely, Michael C. Burgess, M.D., Member of Congress.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, today, I sent a letter to Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, asking, in light of Judge Vinson's ruling in Florida 2 weeks ago today where a declaratory judgment was issued that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is indeed unconstitutional, that further implementation of this act not go forward. In fact, Judge Vinson stated that officials of the executive branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction. There is no reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply here. Now, I believe the judge is correct, that the administration should not proceed with implementation, and I've asked the Secretary for clarification that that is indeed her position and will be her position going forward. Of course we do have debate and a vote on the continuing resolution to fund the United States Government for the next 7 months. It is my expectation that funding for provisions of enacting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will not be funded in the continuing resolution. The American people have made it very clear, and even recently the Florida ruling confirmed that the health care law is unconstitutional, and Congress must do its job to make sure funding for this legislation is denied. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, February 11, 2011. Hon. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC. Dear Secretary Sebelius: I write to inquire of the Department of Health and Human Services your response to and specifically subsequent implementation decisions made by the Department in the wake of Judge Vinson's ruling in The State of Florida v. United States Department of Health and Human Services. As you are well aware, the plaintiff sought declaratory judgment that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional as well as an injunction against its enforcement. In his opinion, Judge Vinson relied on precedent in Committee on Judiciary of U.S. House of Representatives v. Miers to determine that when a court issues a declaratory judgment against federal officials, the ``declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.'' He quoted a previous United States Court of Appeals decision which further addressed his point, ``that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction . . . There is no reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply here. Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief is not necessary.'' I would like to request information on how, in light of the declaratory relief issued by Judge Vinson, the Department plans to proceed in its implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Thank you for your time and consideration on this issue and I look forward to your response. Should you have any questions, please contact me in my Washington office at (202) 225-7772. Sincerely, Michael C. Burgess, M.D., Member of Congress.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of our youth who demonstrate enormous capacity for service. In particular, I would like to commend the selflessness of Haley Whatley of North Richland Hills, Texas. Ms. Whatley has been selected as a Distinguished Finalist in the 16th annual Prudential Spirit of Community Awards which recognizes top youth volunteers throughout the nation. She was awarded this distinction out of 29,000 other applicants. Ms. Whatley was only 5 years old when she began a stuffed animal drive for pediatric patients at Cook Children's Medical Center. Her toy drive has distributed over 20,000 stuffed animals over the past 11 years and a charity Celebrity Waiter Dinner allowed her to raise $5,300 for the hospital's Pastoral Care Department. The Prudential Spirit of Community Awards recognizes young people who are making a positive difference in their community, and inspire other young people to follow their example. Ms. Whatley has gone above and beyond these expectations and it is my honor to recognize her and represent her in Congress.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, on November 5, 1994, former President Ronald Reagan announced that he had been diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease. ``I now begin the journey that will lead me into the sunset of my life,'' he wrote in a letter. At that time, 4 million Americans suffered with Alzheimer's. Today, over 5 million now carry that diagnosis. For members of my generation, that number will double to 10 million. President Reagan's 100th birthday would have been this past Sunday. This week, I am introducing the MIND Act. If passed, it will establish the issuance of United States Alzheimer's bonds to aid in the funding of Alzheimer's research. Proceeds of bond sales would fund the program and would be available to the Director of the National Institutes of Health solely for Alzheimer's research. The revenues generated by the sale of bonds would be funds for research in addition to, not instead of, regular appropriated funds. In his letter, President Reagan said, ``I know that for America there will always be a bright dawn ahead.'' I know he is correct. There could be no more loving gift for members of my generation and of future generations than to provide additional non-Federal funding to help people who are afflicted or who will be diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a remarkable public servant, the Honorable Brad Bradley. For more than 25 years, Judge Bradley has made innumerable professional and philanthropic contributions to the people and communities of Northeast Tarrant County. Judge Bradley has continually given of his time and service to the people of this area, especially to its youth. Judge Bradley's non- profit organization, Carroll Education Foundation, has provided over $1,000,000 in scholarships and grants to the teachers and students in Carroll ISD. Judge Bradley also founded Northeast Tarrant County's first Teen Court, allowing high school students to be tried in a court and jury of their peers, encouraging a better understanding of the judicial system. Judge Bradley's MetroPort Teen Court Bar Association also encourages teens to pursue an education in law. In addition to engaging teens' interests in the judicial system, Judge Bradley helps over 33,000 children in Northeast Tarrant County each year with his program, Summer Santa. He recognized a need for children needing assistance and has provided funds for camp scholarships, medical checkups, and clothing through Summer Santa. Judge Bradley's most recent venture, the Pro Players Foundation, benefits disadvantaged children. Today, Judge Bradley receives the Lifetime Community Service Award presented by Southlake Style Magazine in recognition of his exemplary contributions to the city of Southlake. It is my great privilege to recognize Judge Brad Bradley for the generosity and commitment he has shown to the people of Southlake and surrounding areas.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, today I want to talk about legislation that I will reintroduce that will put a pause on the Environmental Protection Agency's actions in moving forward with a waiver for an increase in the amount of ethanol in gasoline. Currently, gasoline contains a 10 percent blend wall. In October of this past year, the EPA granted a waiver for the allowable amount of ethanol to increase to 15 percent. I have questioned their decision to move forward with a waiver for E15. I was wholly dissatisfied with the response they gave in a briefing last fall. They deferred to the Department of Energy's research. Does the EPA not employ its own scientists and experts? Is it the EPA's position that it is incapable of doing its own research? Mr. Speaker, we are all aware of the problems that occurred in 2008 with food-to-fuel diversion and the resultant increase in price in commodities. I don't believe the EPA has done its due diligence. And certainly they haven't provided information that would disprove any fears about the use of E15 causing mechanical failures and fires, particularly in smaller engines. My bill will allow for a pause and allow for more assurances to be made that the increase in the blend wall for ethanol will be safe. The security of the public's well-being should be paramount in this issue.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. But, in fact, that was not true. Members of Congress are required now to be covered under the exchange. Their staffs are required to be covered under the exchange. But are there exemptions? Yes, committee staff and senior leadership staff are not required to be covered under the exchanges; neither are the White House occupants. It ought to be the same for everyone. These loopholes need to be closed. The difficulties in this bill are just too legion to mention. If it could have fixed the problem, I would have been for it; but it is a destructive and pernicious blight, and the expansion of the Federal debt truly does threaten the very fabric of our Republic.

Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, it is important that we have this vote today, and it is important that we vote to repeal this legislation. Let me be clear: I was for and supportive of reforming the health care system, but the law that was passed does not do what was necessary to be done. We heard from our constituents over and over again in the summer of 2009: don't mess up what we all have and please do something to help us with costs. We ignored them on both counts. I am troubled because of the drafting errors in this law. I am troubled because we have had not a single oversight hearing in the 10 months since this law was passed. And I am troubled because from the start the government takeover of health care has provided numerous red flags to which Congress has not responded. Secret deals: what about the five groups of health care providers, doctors, insurance companies, medical device manufacturers, drug companies, who were all invited down to the White House, along with a labor union, to kind of come up with some ideas for health care reform. They came out to the Rose Garden and said, We saved $2 trillion. I simply asked for that information in a committee hearing and was denied. $2 trillion in savings, and I am asked to believe that no one wrote anything down? This was not transparency; this was a photo op. How could we ever be expected to be legislators if we are not even knowing that the ending was written before the bill was even on the floor? The President promised the American people that there would be open hearings and meetings that would be televised on C-SPAN, but that didn't happen. Amendment after amendment was offered in committee. Some were, in fact, accepted by Chairman Waxman and the Democrats, but then the bill went to the Speaker's office. The Speaker, along with the White House, rewrote the bill. It doubled in size, it came to the floor, and it was pushed through. Why even have the committee hearings if Speaker Pelosi and the White House are going to rewrite the bill to suit their needs? Inattentive construction was all over the place in this legislation. The President kept saying, if you like what you have, you can keep it. But apparently that's only true for some people. Now, many people felt that Members of Congress actually ought to take what they were forcing the American people to take.