Michael Burgess

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This bill will help Americans with hearing or vision disabilities, or those who have both, allow them access to 21st century technology and prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from mandating proprietary technologies, relying instead on advisory committees and industry-developed technical standards. The members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, on a bipartisan basis, supported this legislation when it moved through the committee and the House in July. I want to commend my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for working with the minority and with all of the stakeholders to get a consensus. Because of that work, the bill originally passed this House by a vote of 348-23. We are now considering the Senate version in an effort to move the bill quickly to the President. Unfortunately, the version from the other body originally included a number of significant technical errors. To fix those errors, the other body passed S. 3828 to make corrections to their work. As corrected, S. 3304, like the House bill, includes language explicitly stating that the new provisions of the law shall not be construed to require every feature and function, of every device or service, to be accessible for every disability. Furthermore, the law will create goals rather than impose technology mandates, which will allow innovation in this area to flourish. In that same spirit, it allows manufacturers and providers to rely on third-party solutions in order to achieve accessibility for people with disabilities. However, all businesses and their products are not created equal. This bill recognizes that some small businesses and fledgling entrepreneurs may not be able to bear the financial burden of these new requirements, so there is the possibility of exemptions for small businesses. The legislation also contemplates waivers for some multifunction devices that are not primarily designed for advanced communications, as well as authorizes the Federal Communications Commission to grant waivers to address concerns of the electronics community about very small devices. I, again, want to thank the majority for working together on this bill. I wish the rest of the legislation that has been considered in this Congress could have been dealt with in such a collaborative process. With that, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support the bill. I reserve the balance of my time. General Leave

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1347, the Concussion Treatment and Care Tools Act seeks to reduce the number of concussions sustained by our young people. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a concussion is a type of traumatic brain injury. The Centers for Disease Control estimates that 1.7 million people sustain a traumatic brain injury each year. Some of these are sustained by children while they are playing sports. This bill will help reduce that number. The bill would require the Centers for Disease Control to develop model guidelines that address the prevention, identification, treatment, and management of concussions in school-age children, including standards for student athletes to return to play after a concussion. The bill also would direct the secretary to convene a conference of experts to develop the model guidelines. The secretary would be allowed, but not required, to award grants to States to help implement these guidelines. I must also note that the bill would ensure that the Centers for Disease Control uses its existing budget to award these grants if they deem them necessary. It does not create a separate funding source for these grants. I urge my colleagues to support the bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 903 would allow the Department of Health and Human Services to utilize dentists and dental facilities to respond to medical emergencies. The bill amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to include dental personnel within the definition of ``emergency response providers.'' Mr. Speaker, there has been uncertainty as to whether dental providers could be considered emergency response providers. This bill also requires the Chief Medical Officer of the Department of Homeland Security to serve as the Department's primary point of contact for the dental community with respect to medical and public health matters related to natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other manmade disasters. Finally, the bill amends the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 to allow, if necessary, operational plans developed by Federal agencies with responsibilities under the National Response Plan to address preparedness and deployment of dental resources. This bill was drafted to ensure that Congress was not being prescriptive as to how the Department of Health and Human Services or the Department of Homeland Security should plan for medical emergencies. The bill provides these Departments increased flexibility to utilize additional professional expertise and capacity, if they feel it is appropriate. This is just common sense. The fact that today the Department of Homeland Security could not talk to a dental school where it is decided it would be an ideal place to stockpile materials like vaccines but could if it was a medical school is just absurd. If these facilities can aid our national defense, or if dentists want to be included in our Nation's post-disaster response, the fact that the government felt constrained to include them is a gross oversight that this bill corrects. I urge my colleagues to support the bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 1210 would enhance our Nation's efforts to combat arthritis. I am a cosponsor of the legislation. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an estimated 46 million Americans have arthritis, though the number is expected to increase as the country's population ages. The Centers for Disease Control also estimates that almost 300,000 children have arthritis. This bill will help in the fight against arthritis in the following ways: First, the bill would authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a national arthritis action plan. Second, it would allow the Department of Health and Human Services to award grants for arthritis research, surveillance, and education. Third, the bill would permit the National Institutes of Health to expand its research into children with rheumatic diseases. Finally, the bill would allow Health and Human Services to award grants to increase the number of pediatric rheumatologists. I have spoken with several rheumatologists who have discussed the importance of this legislation. Unfortunately, those in need of rheumatologists, especially pediatric rheumatologists, often have very few options. This bill is an important first step in addressing a critical workforce shortfall. I am a cosponsor of the legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H. Res. 1226, commending EyeCare America for its work over the past 25 years. The American Academy of Ophthalmology founded EyeCare America in 1985. Its vision is to lower the incidence of severe visual impairments, including blindness, through education and by facilitating access to medical eye care. Since its founding, EyeCare America has helped over 1 million people, which makes it one of the largest public service programs of its kind. In fulfilling its mission, EyeCare America has also had over 7,000 volunteers. This highlights what many of us have known for a long time--Americans care for one another and they are willing to donate their time and energy to help others. And this work has been important. Already, over 40 million Americans are nearsighted or farsighted. And as the over 65 population grows, more Americans are being diagnosed with age-related eye diseases such as macular degeneration, glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy, and cataracts. By educating Americans on the importance of early detection and treatments, and by helping refer qualifying patients to volunteer ophthalmologists, EyeCare America is doing its part to help prevent avoidable eye diseases. I would like to thank my fellow Texan, Representative Gene Green, for his work on this resolution. I congratulate EyeCare America and its 7,000 volunteers for their efforts over the last 25 years. As a fellow physician and cosponsor of this legislation, let me just say, Keep up the good work. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support H. Res. 1226. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 2408, the Scleroderma Research and Awareness Act, would expand research and education for scleroderma. There are an estimated 300,000 people in the United States who have this disease. The exact cause or causes of scleroderma are still unknown, but scientists and medical investigators in a wide variety of fields are working to make those determinations. Scleroderma, or systemic sclerosis, is a chronic connective tissue disease generally classified as one of the autoimmune rheumatic diseases. This bill will provide the Department of Health and Human Services flexibility to help us in the fight against scleroderma in the following ways: First, the bill would allow but not require the director of the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health to expand, intensify, and coordinate the activities of the institute with respect to scleroderma. Second, the amended bill would allow but not require the Health and Human Services Secretary, acting through the Centers for Disease Control, to carry out an educational campaign to increase public awareness of scleroderma. This bill underwent some very important modifications at the committee level. I think it is a better bill for that bipartisan effort. I do urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. BURGESS. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 1995, the Eliminating Disparities in Diabetes Prevention and Access and Care Act, would authorize a study on how diabetes affects those with health disparities. Diabetes affects an estimated 24 million Americans. Approximately 57 million Americans have a pre-diabetic condition. Type 1 diabetes is a disease which results from the body's failure to produce insulin. Type 2 diabetes, which is far more common, results from the body's inability to make enough insulin or properly use insulin, or the body is peripherally resistant to insulin. According to the World Health Organization, an astonishing 6 percent of the world's population is affected with diabetes, causing six deaths every minute and 3.2 million deaths yearly. In the United States we spend well over $200 billion a year on diabetes, yet the 2006 diabetes mortality rate for Texas was 27 deaths per 100,000 persons. For my Hispanic and African American constituents, the rate was 42 and 49 per 100,000; 1.7 million Texans over 18 years old have diabetes, and it is our State's sixth leading cause of death. This bill would allow us to understand if minorities have a higher prevalence of type 2 diabetes, understand the reason for that higher rate, and begin to provide some relief for this condition. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and thank Father Kurt Gerhard of Washington, DC, for serving as the guest chaplain today for the House of Representatives. In April of this year, Father Gerhard was installed as the eighth rector of St. Patrick's Episcopal Church, which is located in northwest Washington, DC, on Whitehaven Parkway. He recently relocated from my home State of Texas, where he served as senior chaplain at St. Andrew's Episcopal School and in the clergy at Good Shepherd Episcopal Church, both located in Austin, Texas. Father Gerhard is a native of Nebraska, where he earned a degree from the University of Nebraska at Omaha. He went on to earn a Master of Divinity from the Seminary of the Southwest and a Doctor of Ministry from the Virginia Theological Seminary. On behalf of every Member of the House of Representatives of the United States Congress, I want to thank Father Gerhard for his work on behalf of our community here in Washington, DC, and for his invocation before our House here today.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I come to the floor tonight to talk about health care on this, the 6-month anniversary of the signing of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in the East Wing of the White House, March 23 of this year. It's interesting because since the passage and signing of that bill into law, support has actually decreased rather than increased. This bill came to the House in the most unusual fashion. And in fact, our Speaker, Speaker Pelosi, was quoted as saying, ``We have to pass this bill so that you can find out what's in it.'' Well, that sounds pretty odd, doesn't it? It turns out the last 6 months have been just that, pretty odd. On August 31 of this year, Secretary Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, said, quoting, ``Unfortunately, there is still a great deal of confusion about what the reform law is and what it isn't. We have a lot of reeducation to do.'' I don't know if that means they will be setting up reeducation camps for some of us, but nevertheless you have to wonder about the implications of that statement. Now, it's interesting, I sit on a small little subcommittee on the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The committee is called Oversight and Investigations. Part of our jurisdiction is the Department of Health and Human Services, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. You would think that our little subcommittee would perhaps have had some curiosity to have a hearing or two to talk about the implementation of this bill, to ask about how things are going, what's the future look like. It's been 6 months, maybe we could sit down and have a little talk. But we haven't done so. I have sent letters to the chairman asking him to call the Secretary in. I have sent letters directly to the Secretary. I even gave an assistant Secretary a letter one day at one of our hearings and asked to please deliver it to the Secretary. We need to have some interaction with the Department of Health and Human Services in our little committee because the bill is complicated. The bill is complex. The bill is going to intimately touch the lives of every man, woman, and child amongst us for the next three generations. And yet complete silence from the side of the administration, complete silence from the Democratic leadership of my committee, indeed the Democratic leadership of this House as to where is our oversight function in regards to the implementation of this bill. This bill came about in the worst of any possible way. I don't know if people recall last summer our committee did work on a House product, a bill, a health care bill. It wasn't very good. I voted against it in committee. I voted against it again here on the floor in November when the Speaker of the House brought it up. But, nevertheless, we did at least go through some semblance of regular order here on the House side. Three committees of jurisdiction marked up the bill. Amendments were to some degree allowed. The bill came then from the Speaker's office having doubled in size and came to the House floor, was debated all day one Saturday and then at the end of that Saturday evening passed by only one or two votes. But it's interesting. That was the end of the story for that health care bill, all 2,200 pages of it. It died that night shortly after it was passed. What happened next between Thanksgiving and Christmas. The story shifted over to the Senate. The Senate took up a bill, H.R. 3590. This was a bill that had previously been passed by the House of Representatives in the summer of 2009. It was not a health care bill at the time. It was a housing bill. For the record, I voted against it; but it did pass the House and was sent over to the Senate to await action on a housing issue. This bill was picked up by the majority leader in the other body, dusted off and then said, ``This will be our health care bill.'' Now think for a minute. Why in the world would the other body decide to rework a housing bill that had been passed by the House and turn it into a health care bill? Well, I may have maintained from the beginning that this bill that the President signed, this law that the President signed in March of this year, was not anything to do with health care. This was a tax bill. And the majority leader in the other body recognizes full well that tax bills must originate in the House of Representatives, so he took a House bill. It didn't have anything to do with health care. It didn't have anything to do with health care taxes. It had to do with housing. So the bill was amended, stripping out the existing language and then beginning to add in the health care language that they so dearly sought. But part of this process between Thanksgiving and Christmas was the cumbersome process of getting to 60 votes to cut off debate. Now it shouldn't really be too much of a challenge because the ratio in the other body at that time was 60 Democrats to 40 Republicans. Well, technically 58 Democrats and two independents who vote with the Democrats, so they had a pretty solid lock on that 60-vote majority to pretty much do whatever they want. But, still, it was tough. And the leader in the other body had some difficulty in getting his Members to sign on and agree to vote ``yes'' on this now health care bill, and we all remember the stories and they were uncomfortable. They were uncomfortable for me to listen to these stories as they came up. You remember at Christmastime we heard about the Cornhusker Kickback; you remember the Louisiana Purchase; you remember Gator Aid down in Florida. And these were all payoffs, if you will, to certain Members of the other body to get them to agree to vote in favor of the health care bill. And when they got to 60 votes, they brought the bill up and they passed it in the Senate. This was accomplished on Christmas Eve and it was done in a great hurry to get the Senators out of town because a very large snowstorm was bearing down on Washington, D.C. and they all wanted to get home for the holidays and not be trapped here in the city over Christmas and New Year's. And they accomplished that goal. Now it was a bad process and it was hard to watch and in many respects it was very ugly in the process and many people across the country watched that and said, This is not what we elected our legislative branch to do. This is not the kind of work product we want to see them engaged in. And as a consequence in those days after the start of the new year, people, the backlash, the pushback against what had happened in the Senate was beginning to be felt across the country, and it was felt in some unusual ways. It was felt in a special election in a small little State up in the Northeast, Massachusetts, where they were replacing Senator Kennedy; and, as a consequence, a Republican won a seat that had not been in Republican hands since anyone could remember. This so severe was the angst and anger of the American people when they saw what had happened in the Senate to the process. So now the Democrats in the other body have a real problem. Now they only have 59 votes. How in the world are they going to get to 60 votes? They decide they just simply cannot do it and the House will have to pick up and pass the Senate bill, and since it originated in the House of Representatives and the House had already passed it, albeit it was a housing bill, not a health care bill but the House had already passed this legislation, it's a tax bill that originated in the House, went over to the Senate, it's being sent back to the House with the question, will the House now agree to the Senate amendments in H.R. 3590? I didn't think there was any way. In fact the Speaker of this House said she didn't have a hundred votes for the Senate bill when it came back over. I thought she was right. I took her at her word. But then over the next 2 months they found a way to pass that bill. And late on a Sunday night, the third week in March, by one or two votes this bill was passed and immediately went down to the White House for a signature and a signing ceremony and thus you have the health care bill, the health care law, the worst of all possible worlds. And is it any wonder with the way this legislation was drafted over in the other body that it is full of drafting errors. There are omissions of things, like a severability clause. At least in the House- passed bill as bad as it was--and again I voted against it--but in the House-passed bill we recognized that some of the things we were doing in that bill, some of the things that Congress was doing in that bill really skirted pretty close to being unconstitutional and if the Supreme Court actually found that to be the case and struck down a provision of the bill because we had a severability clause, only that section would be struck down by the Supreme Court ruling and the rest would be allowed to stand. The Senate bill lacks a severability clause. We hear a lot of stories about what are happening with 20 or 21 attorneys general across the country pressing a lawsuit because of the question of the constitutionality under the commerce clause of the individual mandate. Well, what if this were struck down by the Supreme Court? It is possible that the entire bill would fall because it lacked a severability clause. Simply an oversight, simply a drafting oversight, but at the same time a fairly significant one. There was another oversight where physician-owned hospitals across the country that were under construction could not expand. They were allowed to continue construction but they could not expand beyond the number of beds that they had in operation as of the bill's signing. I had a hospital in my district that fell into this category, it's under construction, it's being built, the day of the bill signing it's not quite finished so zero beds are occupied. That hospital under a strict interpretation of the rules would not be allowed to expand the number of beds beyond zero. Well, that clearly was not the intent of the people who drafted the bill, but that's the way that the legislative language could be interpreted, and it took several months working with CMS to try to get clarification. I'm not sure that we have the final report on that even to this day, but the hospital has been allowed to open and it has been allowed to open at least the initial 100 beds. But this is in a very vibrant and growing community in north Texas, and do you think the population in that area is going to increase, such that a 100-bed hospital will be sufficient from now and forevermore, or will perhaps someday they have to add some additional beds to that hospital? It's surely a possibility. And under the way the bill is drafted and drawn, the expansion of those hospital beds will not be permitted. But at least we were able to get clarification on the rule to allow that hospital to open. Many people as the whole health care debate was going forward were insistent that Members of Congress take whatever health insurance we were forcing upon the rest of the country. Certainly a valid and legitimate request that the American people made of their Congress. So final passage of the Senate bill as it came over here did include the fact that all Members of Congress and their personal staff would be covered under the exchanges. They would have to purchase their insurance in the exchanges after they are set up in the year 2014. It is a little unclear what happens between now and 2014 since those exchanges do not exist, but nevertheless the language was written so that Members of Congress have to purchase their insurance in the exchanges. Staff has to purchase their insurance in the exchanges. Oh, except for a couple of exceptions. We excepted leadership staff, so the staff of the Speaker of the House is not bound by this requirement. The staff of the committee that drafted the bill over in the Senate, not bound by this commitment. Staff in the White House, not bound by this commitment. Political appointees at the Federal agencies, not bound by this commitment. It seems like this must have been an oversight. Well, I'm not so cynical as to believe this would have been done on purpose. Surely this was just an oversight and surely that's one of those things that should be corrected. Well, here we are 6 months later, the half-year anniversary of ObamaCare, if you will. The bill was signed, and what do you know? What Americans were promised didn't happen. And it's important that people understand what has happened and what didn't happen. We were told by the President early in his administration that if you like what you have, you can keep it. How many times did you hear that repeated? But the reality is nothing could be further from the truth. And we actually got a glimpse of this almost on the day the bill was signed. There were several companies that restated or had to restate their earnings because of some of the immediate effects of this bill as it was signed. Now, that was a point of some contention. Now, let me just quote a couple of paragraphs from a CNN story that was up on the Internet. The story is from CNN Money. The title of the story is ``Documents Reveal AT&T, Verizon, Others Thought About Dropping Employer-Sponsored Benefits.'' Digging into the story, ``In the days after President Obama signed the bill on March 24, a number of companies announced big write-downs due to some fiscal changes it had ushered in.'' ``The announcements greatly annoyed Representative Henry Waxman, who accused the companies of using the big numbers to exaggerate health care reform's burden on employers. Mr. Waxman, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, demanded that they turn over their confidential memos, and summoned their top executives in for hearings. ``But Chairman Waxman didn't simply request documents related to the write-down issue. He wanted every document the companies created that discussed what the bill would do to their'' expenses and to their health care costs. The result was 1,100 pages of documents from four major companies and the realization by the chairman's staff that the write-downs were--I am quoting here--`` `proper and in accordance with SEC rules.' The committee also stated that the memos took a generally sunny view of the new legislation. The documents'' . . . ``show that `the overall impact of the health care reform on large employers could be beneficial.' '' But nowhere--I am continuing to quote from the CNN Money article here. ``Nowhere in the 5-page report did the majority staff mention that not one, but all four companies, were weighing the costs and benefits of dropping their coverage.'' I am continuing to quote from the CNN Money article from March of this year. ``Indeed, companies are far more likely to cease providing coverage if they predict the bill will lift rather than flatten the cost curve.'' One company said, ``We do expect double-digit health care increases as most Americans will now have insurance and providers try to absorb the 15 percent uninsured into a practice.'' Well, we can begin to see, internally at least, in some of these organizations that they were having some serious discussions. From the final paragraphs of the article, ``if 50 percent of people covered by company plans get dumped, the Federal health care costs will rise by $160 billion dollars a year''--a year; not a 10-year window, but a year--in 2016, in addition to the $93 billion in yearly subsidies already forecast by the Congressional Budget Office. Finally, I'm continuing to quote, ``Of course, as we've seen throughout the health care reform process, it's impossible to know for certain what the unintended consequences of these actions will be.'' So here we see a fairly significant disruption on what many Americans, probably 60 to 68 percent, rely upon for their health insurance, and that is employer-sponsored insurance. Could it go away as a result of this bill? It doesn't have to. But to answer the question honestly ``could it go away?'' the answer is companies will look at that from a cost benefit analysis. And when you consider for one of those companies the $1.8 billion a year that they would save by letting their employees buy insurance from the government exchanges and simply paying the fine, certainly those companies may have to make a choice that is uncomfortable for them. But certainly if you like what you have, it's going to be difficult to keep it. Now, some additional things have come up since the signing of the bill into law in regards to what is called grandfathering. And it turns out, if a copayment increases by more than just a small amount or a deductible increases by more than just a small amount, the grandfathering clause will not be allowed, and those companies will not be allowed to keep their insurance. Once again, ``if you like what you have, you can keep it'' may become extremely problematic. What about patients on Medicare? Over the next year, nearly 1.5 million seniors on Medicare Advantage could lose their benefits, if not lose their plan altogether, because of changes that came about as a result of passing this legislation. President Obama said, ``If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.'' But what does that really mean? A Houston Chronicle article, May 17, 2010, says, ``Texas Doctors Are Opting Out of Medicare at Alarming Rate.'' `` `This new data shows that the Medicare system is beginning to implode,' said Dr. Susan Bailey, president of the Texas Medical Association. `If Congress doesn't fix Medicare soon, there'll be more and more doctors dropping out and Congress' promise to provide medical care to seniors will be broken.' '' Just for a moment let me display an ad that was run in some of the local papers up here on Capitol Hill. This was an ad produced by the AMA that does a good job of showing how expensive it becomes to fix the reductions in reimbursement to physicians under the Medicare system. Cost to fix today, $210 billion; in 3 years, it will cost $396 billion; in 5 years, $513 billion. These are indeed staggering sums. There was an opportunity to fix this when the health care bill was done. We'll talk about that more in just a moment. But this is an important point that people need to bear in mind. There's a lot of anxiety right now. People are calling their doctor's offices and finding that if they are a new Medicare patient, their doctor may not be able to see them because the doctor simply cannot afford to allow any more Medicare patients into their practice, and that is indeed a very uncomfortable position to place upon both patients and doctors. One of the most startling things we heard about this legislation as it went through and this new law after it was signed that health care reform will create 4 million jobs, 400,000 jobs almost immediately, well, this really was one of the most hollow promises made during the run-up to the passage of this legislation. Health care law has not created a single job, much less 400,000; and, in fact, the growing costs on businesses associated with the law may cause many businesses to lay off workers. Now, we talked just a little bit about large businesses, multi-State corporations that provide employer-sponsored insurance. What about the smaller business? What about franchise businesses in your community that may have several locations and employ 100, 150, 200 people? I am hearing from those individuals literally every day. They do not know what to do. They do not know where to turn. They provide jobs that might be thought of as entry-level jobs. Yes, they pay the minimum wage. Yes, their benefits are not generous and some of them do not have benefits. So, great. These workers now will have the ability to buy insurance in the exchange. But if a worker purchases insurance in the exchange, whether the employer provided the option for insurance or not, that employer is now fined $2,000. Extrapolate that to a 100- person workforce and a 150-person workforce, and it's not long before you have eliminated any possibility of profitability for those businesses. So I have people in my office all the time talking to me, asking me about this, talking to me about the problems that they are seeing on the horizon, the immediate horizon. And over and over again, I hear the same thing: I will tell you what I'm not doing right now; I'm not expanding. Any position that comes open, I'm thinking long and hard before I fill it. In fact, I think I will reduce my workforce significantly. No H.R. director in the country right now wants to be responsible for hiring that 51st employee in a business because that triggers a whole host of new requirements as brought about by the law. From the White House, the health care czar, Nancy-Ann DeParle, said the law will make health care more affordable for Americans. Is that a fact? What's really happening? This law is causing health care insurance prices to increase. The Wall Street Journal reported the reform is causing rates to increase up to 20 percent, 20 percent for some buyers. In Connecticut, rates are increasing at 18 percent for small businesses and 14 percent for the self-employed. Early retirees and others who buy their own coverage also see that same 14, 14\1/2\ percent increase, who are buying their own coverage as of the beginning next month, October 1, 2010. Further, Secretary Sebelius of the Department of Health and Human Services actually sent out a letter detailing the fact that insurance companies were misleading people and that they were to remain silent on these issues of increased prices. Now, I don't know about you, but that is disturbing. We've had the Secretary talk about reeducation, and then we've had the Secretary talk about you are not allowed to exercise your free speech rights when it comes to talking about the cause for price increases in your insurance product. The fact is nobody knows right now; and again, I would stress, we have not had oversight hearings. Our chairman has not called oversight hearings in our committee. I am troubled by the increases I hear people talking about in their insurance. When I talk to groups of doctors back home, it is no longer discussion about how am I going to be able to do the medical treatment of my patient. Most of the questions I get even from doctor groups now are: How am I going to keep up with the new taxes? How am I going to provide health insurance for my employees because of all of these new regulations, and because of the fact that the cost is going up so fast that no company can even give me a quote on what my insurance costs will be next year? Now, if insurance companies are simply pricing in what they see as a premium because they are worried about the effect of this bill in the future, maybe we should talk about that in committee. Maybe we should have some actual information about that. If insurance companies are indeed increasing prices because they are having to price in some of these new benefits that were mandated and come into effect essentially today at the 6 month anniversary of the signing of this bill, maybe we should have that discussion. The fact is, we don't know. No one knows. Insurance costs are going up. There is some suspicion that they may be inappropriate rises, but there is some suspicion that these may be elevations in costs that are occurring because of the unintended consequences of the new mandates that are put upon insurance companies. Surely this is important enough for us to ask these questions on behalf of our constituents and our families back home. And surely this is important enough that the Secretary can spare a few moments from her photo-op tour on the 6-month signing of this bill to come into our committee and discuss this with us. We had numerous hearings on how insurance companies were overcharging for their product leading up to the run-up of the passage of this bill. Maybe we ought to have a few of those companies in and say, well, Congress passed a bill that was going to hold the costs down and now the costs are going up, and we want to know why. It is a fairly simple question to ask, and I don't understand why we have yet to ask it. What about this one: When the President ran, when the President talked about health care, all during last summer he said: These negotiations will be open. They will be transparent. I will have everyone around a big table, and we will have it on C-SPAN. You will be able to watch it until you are sick of watching it. What about the promise of being the most transparent administration ever? The President said negotiations would not be performed behind closed doors, but on camera in front of the American people on C-SPAN for all to see. And what really happened? This law was written behind closed doors by committee staff. Those very same committee staff who, by the way, are exempt from the changes that were brought about in this bill. On May 9, 2009, there was a big, secret meeting in the White House, a big meeting. Who was there? Well, the AMA was there. American Health Insurance Plans, AHIP, was there. PhRMA, the big Pharmaceutical and Research Manufacturers Association was there. The Service Employees International Union was there. Why they were there I don't know, but they were represented. AdvaMed, the medical device manufacturer, was there. The American Hospital Association was there. The President emerged from that meeting that morning, that bright May morning, and said, All of the stakeholders have come in and around the table we have all agreed to savings of $2 trillion in our health care system. Wow, $2 trillion, that is pretty significant. It did raise some questions in my mind, but I am okay with that if they can extract those kinds of savings from those various interest groups. That is great. Let's see the data. No luck on that. I wrote to the White House repeatedly. I wrote during the summer, and I wrote during the fall. I asked for the information. I got nothing. In December of 2009, I filed what is called a resolution of inquiry in the House of Representatives asking the White House to produce documents, emails, written notes of meetings. A resolution of inquiry has to be heard within 15 legislative days in the committee otherwise it proceeds directly to the floor as a privileged resolution. Obviously, the chairman does not want that to happen, so my bill was brought up, interestingly enough, on the same day as the President delivered the State of the Union message this year, so that day late in January. The resolution of inquiry was brought up, and I was informed that my resolution was overly broad, and I really could not have those things. Just for a moment indulge me. I want to go back to that CNN Money article from last spring. I want to remind this body of Chairman Waxman's words when he thought the private companies were simply raising their prices because they didn't like the President's health care bill. Again, quoting from the article, Chairman Waxman, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, demanded that they turn over their confidential memos and summon their top executives. But Chairman Waxman didn't simply request documents related to the write-down issue; he wanted every document the companies created that discussed what the bill would do to their most uncontrollable expense, health care costs. Well, our request was not even as broad as Chairman Waxman's request was to legitimate American businesses. Yes, we asked for emails, communications, memos, minutes of the meetings. We got nothing. At the end of the day, Chairman Waxman, to his credit, did say of the 11 things I requested, I should receive some information on 6 of those 11. And Chairman Waxman and Ranking Member Barton did write a letter to the White House asking for the same. We got a couple of press releases and we got some reprints of White House Web sites, but really no significant documents. And I was told that there really wasn't anything written down. There really weren't notes made of these meetings. Well, wait a minute. You have six major stakeholders of cost drivers in health care down at the White House, you come out and announce $2 trillion in savings, and nobody wrote anything down? Two trillion dollars in savings, and no one scratched that number in the margin of a big yellow legal pad and made a note of it? No one emailed a colleague and said, We just saved $2 trillion, yea for us! I am asked to believe nothing was written down at these meetings and that all of the documents that I have received are all that I can expect to receive. Well, okay, then we passed the bill, and remember, we were told that it would save $142 billion over 10 years. President Obama himself came to the floor of this House and said he had a plan that would result in a net savings to the American people. And what really happened? We passed the bill. The House passed the bill. Again, I must stress that I voted against it, but the House passed the bill in March. And a month later we get an amended report from the chief actuary's office at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services which said, Oh, by the way, the cost of this bill is $318 billion more than what you were told it was going to be. Well, that concerned me. Getting this actuarial report from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services raised a question in my mind: Did the Department of Health and Human Services know their report would reveal higher costs? Was this information that was in fact available when the House voted on this bill? Or were we so misled, was this House so misled by its leadership, that it voted on a bill knowing full well that we did not have adequate cost data in order to make this type of determination. Remember, we are talking about restructuring almost one-fifth of the American economy in this legislation. Is it possible that the leadership of this House--the Speaker and the majority leader--would have brought to the floor, in front of Members of their side and our side, a bill for consideration when they didn't even know the cost this was going to place on the American people? So I asked for information. I asked for information from the Secretary of Health and Human Services. I asked for information from the chief actuary. I did not get a response. So, in July of this year, I filed another resolution of inquiry, this time dealing with the actuarial report from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. After filing the resolution of inquiry, I finally got a response. On August 3, Secretary Sebelius wrote to me. It reads: ``Thank you for your letter regarding recent reports by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' chief actuary. For your review, I have enclosed an August 2 memorandum from CMS Chief Actuary Richard Foster to CMS Administrator Donald Berwick about the timing and process for the Office of the Actuary's preparation of financial coverage and national health expenditure estimates for the Affordable Care Act. I wanted to send it to you immediately as it addresses many of the questions and concerns raised in your letter.'' Well, again, I did not get this response until after I had filed the resolution of inquiry. Dr. Foster's memorandum, indeed, says that he received the reconciliation bill for the health reform legislation when it was publicly issued on March 18, which was 3 days before the House vote took place on March 21. Because of the complexity of the legislation, it was not possible to estimate the bill's financial and other impacts before the House or the Senate voted. We began to work on the estimates right away, but were not able to finalize them until the afternoon of April 22. Well, obviously, it would have been helpful to have received this information when I had first requested it. It would have been helpful to have received this information before filing the resolution of inquiry, but it doesn't answer the broader question. Okay. I accept the chief actuary's version of the events. He has got no reason to tell me anything other than what is factual and truthful; but if what he says is factual and truthful, the legislation was publicly issued on March 18. Three days later, the House took a vote on March 21, and he didn't know what the cost was until April 18. Did the Speaker of the House know that it was going to be another month before she would actually have the cost data? Is it okay for this body to vote on a piece of legislation that, again, is one-fifth of the American economy and that is going to affect every man, woman and child amongst us for the next three generations? Is it okay to do that with a price tag that is simply a question mark? It's unknown. It's coming next month. What's the rush? Why don't we have that information before we vote? I still have not received the information that I've requested. Again, the documentation, the emails, the meeting notes, they do raise questions because it was so hard to get this information. I'm not a suspicious person by nature; but when no information is forthcoming, it raises questions in my mind. Is there something here that someone is trying to hide? What did they know, and when did they know it? You know the scenarios. You've heard them before. Why was it so difficult to get this information from Secretary Sebelius and the Department of Health and Human Services? Why did it take an act of Congress--literally, an act of Congress--to get a simple response to a fairly straightforward request? Then most disturbing and most importantly, why would the House leadership, why would the Democratic leadership of this House, bring before this body late on a Sunday night a bill, again, that is going to affect every man, woman and child amongst us for the next three generations, without knowing what the cost of that legislation would be? It's shocking when you stop and think about it. Again, I reference Chairman Waxman. He asked for every jot and tittle of information from legitimate private companies in this country that were doing their required SEC filings. He wanted to know everything about how they came to their decisions, and I can't have the simplest of documents from the Department of Health and Human Services and from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services? What is wrong with my having that information? Now, the resolution of inquiry came up for a vote today in my committee. It was reported without recommendation on, basically, a party-line vote. There were a couple of Democrats who voted with me on that. Reporting a resolution of inquiry out without recommendation means that it's essentially killed. That's the end of it. It's not coming to the floor for a privileged resolution. There is no action that must be taken by the Department of Health and Human Services or by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. At some point in the future, I hope the committee will have the wherewithal to ask the Secretary and to ask the actuary, Donald Berwick, in to talk about the troubling time around the passage of this bill when this House voted on altering one-fifth of the economy of this country with incomplete data, with insufficient data, to actually make a determination. Again, remember, one of the selling points of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that was brought to us time and again was: we save money; over the next 10 years, we're going to save $142 billion. False. Wrong. Not true. In fact, over the next 10 years, not only is there not a savings, but there is a net deficit; there is a net addition to the deficit of $318 billion. Would anybody have voted differently? I don't know the answer to that. I was a ``no'' when it started. I was a ``no'' when it ended. If it had cost another $318 billion, I would have been a ``no'' because there wasn't a stronger negative vote for me to cast. How about someone who was wavering--someone who voted ``yes'' and who thought, I'm really not sure if I should vote ``yes,'' but everyone tells me it's going to save money, and I want to save money, so I'll vote ``yes''? Would that person have voted differently? I don't know. I don't know, Mr. Speaker. It would be interesting, as people go home during the month of October to petition their constituents for reelection, if perhaps that question might be asked: Would you have voted the way that you did if you knew that this bill, in fact, cost an additional $318 billion? This health reform legislation remains secretive, hidden, behind closed doors. It is probably one of the most secretive things that this Congress has ever done in its history. We were told that this reform would make it easier for small businesses to provide health insurance for their workers. One thing I heard over and over again all summer long from small businesses across my district is that complying with the new 1099 provision will be time- consuming and costly. It's expected to cost an additional $74 an hour to complete. And if not done correctly, guess what? That's a monetary fine. Due to the strict compliance, only a small fraction of businesses will be able to apply for any tax credits that are contained within the bill. Yes, there is an expiration date on those tax credits. The 1099s have been particularly onerous. In fact, there have been bills introduced by both sides. Both sides have said maybe we ought to do away with the 1099. Republicans had a motion to recommit that contained a repeal of the 1099. Some Democrats have offered similar legislation. I say that's fine. I'd like to see the entire bill repealed, but you know what? If it has to be piece by piece, that would be a good piece to start with, wouldn't it? Let's repeal that. Let's stop putting that additional burden on our small businesses. Today is the sixth-month anniversary. There are some new changes that are coming about as a result of the health care law. Today, young adults can remain on family health plans until they turn 26. No one disputes that that's a good thing. In fact, that was taken from a piece of Republican legislation, from a bill that was offered by the gentleman from Missouri, from a Republican Member of Congress, to allow youngsters to stay on their parents' plans until--I think his level was age 25. We could have argued. We could have debated about: Is 25 or 26 the right number there? The fact of the matter is that could have happened a year and a half ago. It is happening today. Arguably, it's a good thing, but at the same time, was it necessary to turn the entire health care system in this country on its head in order to accomplish that goal? Immunizations for kids: it's not the first time that has been brought up, and it's not the last time. Arguably, it's a good position, but let's face it: we could have done that without disrupting the whole health care system in this country. We probably could have done that without it costing $1 trillion. Why didn't we do that a year ago? Why didn't we do that a year and a half ago? Some other things, preventive care, cholesterol screenings. But I would stress, as great as these benefits are and as important as it is for kids to have coverage until age 26, nothing happens in a vacuum. This doesn't happen for free somewhere. Someone somewhere is going to have to pay for it. Will that pay-for be some of the dollars that we saw in the higher premiums that insurance companies are charging now? Again, we don't know. It would be a great question to ask. It would be a great question to ask; bring your books in, let's talk about this. You raised your rates; was part of it because you have to cover kids up until age 26? Some companies that I've talked to have explained to me that that is an additional cost that they are now taking on. Some others have told me that perhaps we will just stop covering children altogether so we don't get faced with that. But nevertheless, we ought to have those oversight hearings. We ought to have people who deal with this every day in to talk to us about how this is going. Maybe there are some ways we can improve it. Maybe there are some ways we can keep it from costing so much. We don't know because we don't ask. All of the things that kick in today that are arguably good things, any one of those could have been done without disrupting the entire health care system and without costing $1 trillion. Many were ideas that were introduced by Republicans over the last several years. Existing legislation was out there, could have been picked up and passed at any time, but the fact of the matter is it was not. The bottom line is the bill does disrupt the health care system for everyone in this country, and it does cost, as we know now, well north of $1 trillion. That is going to be problematic for some time to come. One of the other things about the implementation of this law is the deadlines that were missed, and it is important to pay attention to those deadlines. These were bits and pieces of legislative language that were included in the bill, presumably for a reason, presumably for a good reason, and for whatever reason the Department of Health and Human Services has decided that they don't matter, so we're not going to do them right now. Required by April 22, shortly after the bill was signed: requiring the Department of Health and Human Services to publish a list of its new authorities, an action described as complying with an important transparency-in-government provision. Well, what actually happened on that date was the Department of Health and Human Services just simply reproduced the table of contents from the bill; hardly, hardly complying with the spirit or the intent of that language in the bill. The law required, by May 7, 2010, proposing methodology and criteria for designating what qualifies as ``medically underserved populations'' and ``health profession shortage areas.'' Again, maybe the determination was made by Health and Human Services that this was not important. Someone thought it was important enough to include it in the bill. We should at least be given an explanation as to why that deadline was allowed to expire without action. Required by May 7, 2010: establishing a government task force to develop a strategy to improve government health care programs in Alaska. Again, this was important to someone and included in the bill for some reason. Perhaps we are owed an explanation as to why that deadline has lapsed and when we might expect to see compliance with that. Here is an ironic one. Required by May 22, 2010, to comply with what's called the Early Act: establishing an advisory committee to assist in creating and conducting an advertising campaign to educate young women about breast cancer and breast health, including early detection. Again, this language was important to a Member of this body, important enough to have it added to the bill. I believe this language was, in fact, important to a Democratic Member of this body. Why was it not thought important enough to meet that deadline? And if the Secretary is going to have difficulty meeting that deadline, perhaps she owed an explanation to Congress about why that deadline was allowed to lapse and when we might be expecting to see compliance with that deadline. Required by June 1, 2010: that the National Association of Insurance Commissioners was supposed to provide technical guidance to the Secretary to what is known as the Medical Loss Ratio, the MLR. That didn't happen. The deadline was much too tight. Now, this was interesting because lots of places in the bill it says ``the Secretary shall,'' which means there's going to be rulemaking over at the Department of Health and Human Services and a new rule is going to be introduced by the Department of Health and Human Services. But this one, the rulemaking was kind of outsourced, if you will, to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, certainly a fine group who have a lot of expertise and a lot of knowledge in this area. It turned out that they said they were unable to comply with this deadline and, as a consequence, were given an extension on that until the end of July. I don't think we're quite there yet, though we are getting close. And the Secretary is reviewing the documents that were provided to her by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, but if she is having difficulty deciding on the validity of the documents that they provided her, whether or not what has been recommended is the correct course, perhaps we could have a hearing in committee and have that evidence presented, have those documents presented to the committee so we might understand something about it. I do want to just briefly mention that there will be, Madam Speaker, a hearing--not in the hearing room. This will be a forum on the Medical Loss Ratio conducted by the Congressional Health Care Caucus, healthcaucus.org. This will be Tuesday of next week at 1 p.m. eastern time. At healthcaucus.org, you will have the ability to watch a Webcast or a simulcast of this forum. And the forum will be preserved in the archive section of the Web site, so people who are interested in learning about the Medical Loss Ratio, here will be an opportunity to do so. Unfortunately, we're not going to have that in our committee, but I thought this was important enough to bring to people's attention, and so we will be having that discussion next Tuesday on the Health Caucus Web site. There certainly was some imprecision about how this bill was crafted, some imprecision coming out of the Department of Health and Human Services. According to The New York Times, the new high-risk pool program is so underfunded that it will cover fewer than 10 percent of those who are denied health insurance because of preexisting medical conditions. Remember, that was just one of the selling points of this legislation. The President stood right here in the well of this House in September of last year and said never again will you be denied insurance because of a preexisting condition. It turns out that's not exactly true. This law provided $5 billion to help people with coverage for preexisting conditions. It turns out, when the money is spent, the money is spent, and until the exchanges are set up in 2014, no additional help will be forthcoming. A good idea, an idea that was actually talked about by Senator John McCain during his Presidential campaign in 2008. The fact of the matter is the Congressional Budget Office estimated that it would cost $20 billion to do that. Former Member Nathan Deal and I introduced legislation to cover just this situation, H.R. 4019 and H.R. 4020, that would provide for preexisting coverage. Those bills are still available. They could have been passed instead of turning the entire health care system on its head, instead of spending north of $1 trillion. For $25 billion-- because we added an additional $5 billion because we weren't sure that $20 billion would cover the number of people who needed to be covered. For $25 billion, we could have had one of the main features that has been promoted as to why this health care bill, why this health care law was necessary. Deadline after deadline has been missed, but in spite of that, the administration has found time and the resources to send brochures to seniors on Medicare highlighting the benefits that they will receive and, in fact, even hiring a spokesperson in the form of Sheriff Andy Griffith to talk about the new health care bill, the new health care law. Just going back for a moment to the chart that was produced by the American Medical Association about what's called the sustainable growth rate formula, the health care reform debate and time was the perfect opportunity to address this. Let's be honest; there were significant cuts in Medicare to pay for these new entitlements. The American Medical Association was supportive of this legislation as it came through. I would just simply offer the observation, since this sustainable growth rate formula is so onerous and preventing patients from having access to doctors, wouldn't it have been nice to at least have a down payment on solving this problem with the sustainable growth rate formula when this bill was discussed, when this bill was passed? December 1 of this year physicians across the country face a 23 percent reduction in Medicare reimbursement. An additional 6.1 percent has been proposed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Doctors face an almost 30 percent reduction in Medicare reimbursements starting January 1 of next year. It's even worse than it sounds. Many private insurance companies in this country peg their reimbursement rates to Medicare. So if Medicare is reducing 30 percent, guess what happens to some of the private insurance companies? They reduce 30 percent their reimbursement rates also. This is an extremely onerous burden that we've placed on our country's physicians, physicians that we've asked to take care of some of our most sickest and most vulnerable patients, those with multiple medical conditions, those covered under Medicare. Medical liability reform. We had the opportunity to do it. We didn't do it. It needs to happen. We're asking doctors to be our partners in this brave new world of health care. The least we could have done was provided them a little bit of respite from some of the burdens they face with medical liability and oh, by the way, we might be able to reduce the cost of defensive medicine, which is one of the cost drivers that's driving up the cost of health care. From an oversight perspective I've called for hearings to examine the implementation of this massive bill. My subcommittee has the jurisdiction to call in the secretary of HHS, the administrator at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Chairman Waxman has refused to do so. I don't know what will happen next year. Perhaps we will have an opportunity to actually question some of those individuals. In fact, the stimulus bill that this body passed in February of 2009 contains some money for helping physicians in hospitals purchase information technology that everyone recognizes as important for going forward in implementing any type of health care change in this country. But the reality is that the rule that was produced in January of this year regarding meaningful use was so difficult that most hospitals and most doctors will not be able to live with that. We tried to alter that. We tried to get CMS to understand some of the difficulties that people would have in the real world dealing with this. Some relief has been achieved, but we're still a long way from an actual solution there. This law, this bill, when it was passed on the floor of this House late on a Sunday night in March of this year, 55 percent of the public opposed this bill. Fifty-five percent of the public supported repealing the bill on March 25, 2 days after its enactment. Six months later, what has happened to that figure? It has increased. Over 60 percent of the American people believe that this bill ought to be repealed. The Department of Health and Human Services has spent millions on television commercials featuring people like Andy Griffith and brochures sent to Medicare beneficiaries. The audacity of the administration to disregard the opinion of the majority of Americans is unacceptable. Remember, we are government by the consent of the governed. The governed did not consent to this. The governed did not want this. The governed are now rejecting this legislation. There was a better way. There are dozens of bills that would lower costs and increase access. Many of them have been covered on the health caucus Web site that I referenced a moment ago. The fact of the matter is, this Congress, whether we like it or not, is faced with this massive health care law. In my opinion it should be repealed. The law is so massive, the structure, the reordering of structure is so onerous on our medical system that it's almost as if it were designed to fail. It's like building a bridge to the Moon. You will collapse of your own weight before you get only a fraction of the way there. It's hard to know whether the difficulties encountered in this bill, this law, are the result of incompetence or malevolence, but it doesn't matter which. The time to repeal this bill is now. I urge the leadership of this House to recognize the mistake. Don't wait for another Congress. Let's do this today.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I proudly rise today to recognize Sue Thompson and her dedication to the city of Highland Village, Texas. On September 3, 2010, Sue is retiring after 22 years of distinguished service. Sue first came to the city of Highland Village as the Service Action Center Coordinator for the Code Enforcement Department in September of 1988. Since that time, Sue has been quite the Renaissance woman and has served Highland Village in five other positions: administrative assistant for the Service Action Center; Community Development Coordinator; Community Services Coordinator; Community Services Manager; and Community Development Manager. In 1996, Sue established the Highland Village Business Association, HVBA, which has served to promote local businesses in the community and enhance the connectivity and support of its members. Sue has capably spearheaded the HVBA's most special event each November, the annual ``Salute Our Veterans'' Luncheon, where each veteran in attendance is recognized. My office has been proud to participate in this important event to honor local veterans since its inception in 2003. Sue has been involved in many other community activities as well, including the Highland Village Women's Club, Highland Village Lion's Club, and the Texas Chapter of the American Planning Association. Madam Speaker, it is with great honor that I rise today to recognize an outstanding public servant to both her community and the Nation, Mrs. Sue Thompson. Sue has been an extremely dedicated staff member of the city of Highland Village and demonstrated whole-hearted commitment to the community, and it is my honor to represent such a valued community member in the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, well, here we are 20 months into the 111th Congress and in the homestretch of our legislative year--and what have we seen? We saw a $1 trillion takeover of America's health care system. That means higher costs for virtually every American and no guarantee of any improvement in quality; a $1 trillion stimulus bill that did not keep unemployment numbers from going through the roof; a financial bill that did nothing to address the main cause of the Nation's economic downturn--Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--but made it easier for big banks to be bailed out by the Federal Government. As for cap and trade, in the President's own words: This is going to make energy prices ``necessarily skyrocket.'' Then, on January 1, 2011, there will be the biggest tax increase in the history of the United States. Madam Speaker, I support repealing the health care reform bill using unspent stimulus funds to pay down the deficit and in reforming Fannie and Freddie so that taxpayers won't have to continue to bail them out. I oppose cap and trade, and I believe all of the tax cuts for American families and businesses should be extended so that the current tax rates remain. The Democrats' policies have clearly failed. Republicans have alternatives. It's time for this House to listen.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I proudly rise today in recognition of Trophy Club, Texas and their 25th anniversary of township. The vision of Trophy Club originated in 1972, when the legendary golfer, Ben Hogan, was contacted by John W. McMackin with the suggestion that he design a golf course. Subsequently, the first Municipal Utility District was created and 2,500 acres of land was obtained through negotiations with several land owners, including two critical tracts of land owned by Dallas businessman Nelson Bunker Hunt. The visionaries desired to build a community centered on the ideals of, and participation in, the sport of golf. By 1977, the development included a community swimming pool, tennis courts, 18-hole golf course, club house, utilities and a few paved streets. In 1985, the Town of Trophy Club was established with 3,700 residents, and elected its first mayor, Jim Carter. Since then, Trophy Club has grown to a population of over 8,000 residents with several schools, including the recently opened Byron Nelson High School. The additional parks, shopping, restaurants and investment in a new Splash Park and Fire Station have served to make Trophy Club one of the most desirable Texas communities to call home. Madam Speaker, it is with great honor that I rise today to recognize an outstanding community, Trophy Club, Texas. It is my honor to represent Trophy Club and its residents in the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Robert Paul Neff of Grapevine, Texas. Robert passed away September 10, 2010 and leaves behind a strong legacy of public service. Robert served as manager of the Criminal Justice Programs, CJP, at the North Central Texas Council of Governments, NCTCOG, starting in 1999. The CJP facilitates community-planning groups, provides technical assistance to develop successful grant programs and assists local units of government in solutions to common challenges within a 16-county region. Since 2001, he served the Texas Association of Regional Councils Criminal Justice Planners Association as its secretary, chair, and communications liaison to local, regional, State, and Federal agencies. He was also a member of the Advisory Council and Board of Directors of the National Criminal Justice Association and the American Society for Industrial Security, serving as its president of the West Michigan Chapter in 1984. Prior to coming to North Texas, Robert was a law enforcement officer in Kalamazoo, Michigan for almost 22 years, retiring as a detective assigned to auto theft, street gangs, outlaw motorcycle gangs, and militia groups. He received a master of Social Work degree in Correctional Administration from Western Michigan University, where he also was an adjunct professor in the Criminal Justice Program in the Department of Sociology. Robert has been described as ``street savvy'' and applied this knowledge to the criminal justice grant program, helping secure millions of dollars for funding for programs used by local governments and nonprofit organizations. He had the respect of his peers throughout Texas, and was sought by many for his advice. A believer in service to local governments and the criminal justice community, Robert brought critical thinking, innovation and grant funding experience to enhance the level of public safety expertise and protection to North Texans. Robert also invested in his community through the First United Methodist Church of Grapevine, Texas. He was respected by all who met him, and will be greatly missed. Robert was also active in pulmonary fibrosis organization and outreach. Madam Speaker, it is with sadness that I rise today to remember Robert Neff. It is my privilege to have this opportunity to honor his life and legacy.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize and congratulate Dr. Nancy Dickey, who was selected to be a 2010 inductee into the Texas Women's Hall of Fame. I consider Dr. Dickey a great friend, dating back to our time together at the University of Texas Medical School in Houston, and very deserving of this honor, which recognizes the state's most accomplished women. Dr. Dickey has long been a leader in Texas medicine, as well as nationwide, holding the distinction of being the only female president of the American Medical Association. As an AMA member and former alternate delegate, I greatly value her leadership. In addition to the AMA, Dr. Dickey is active in the Texas Academy of Family Physicians, the Texas Medical Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the National Patient Safety Foundation. She was appointed to chair the Texas Health Policy Council, chosen for membership in the Society for Executive Leadership in Academic Medicine, and selected to be a member of the Institute of Medicine, a component of the National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Dickey's record of service in Texas medicine is long and distinguished. She is the founding program director of the Family Medicine Residency of the Brazos Valley, and created the Rural and Community Health Institute to address issues of patient safety and quality of care in rural Texas hospitals. In response to Texas' nursing shortage, Dr. Dickey oversaw the creation of a College of Nursing in Bryan/College Station, and chairs the Texas A&M System Council on Nursing, a statewide consortium of nursing programs designed to address the shortage. In 2001, Dr. Dickey was listed as one of America's ``Best Doctors.'' Dr. Dickey is president of the Texas A&M Health Science Center and vice chancellor for health affairs for the Texas A&M System. Previously, she served as dean of the Texas A&M Health Science Center College of Medicine, where she still serves as professor of family and community medicine. During her tenure as president of Texas A&M Health Science Center-- the University System's first female president--she has chaired the state's formula funding advisory committee, and advocated increased funding for health-related educational programs. As a result of her leadership, she helped establish the Irma Lerma Rangel College of Pharmacy in Kingsville, the first professional school in South Texas. Madam Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to honor my good friend, Dr. Nancy Dickey, the newest member of the Texas Women's Hall of Fame. Her service to the state of Texas will be highlighted in a permanent exhibit honoring the inductees, which is housed inside Hubbard Hall on the campus of Texas Woman's University in Denton, Texas. Dr. Dickey has positively impacted countless lives in Texas and around the country, and paved the way for women to continue to make invaluable contributions to medicine.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize six outstanding high schools located within the 26th Congressional District of Texas that were chosen by Newsweek to be placed on ``America's Best High School List 2010.'' ``America's Best High School List'' is compiled annually utilizing statistical data about the academia that public, magnet, and specialty high schools implement within their classrooms. Ranking of each school is based upon the rigorous courses that school staffs challenge their students with, such as advanced placement college-level courses and tests. Only six percent of public schools in the United States made the list this year. Madam Speaker, I would like to submit for the Record the names of the high schools within my district that achieved this honor: Keller High School (Keller ISD), Keller, TX; Wakeland High School (Frisco ISD), Frisco, TX; Flower Mound High School (Lewisville ISD), Flower Mound, TX; LD Bell High School (Hurst-Euless-Bedford ISD), Hurst, TX; Marcus High School (Lewisville ISD), Flower Mound, TX; and The Colony High School (Lewisville ISD), The Colony, TX. Madam Speaker, it is truly an honor to rise today and commend these exemplary high schools. I am proud to represent all of the hard working teachers, administrators, staff and students of these fine educational institutions in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. I was just going to make the point--The Wall Street Journal editorial today talks about the five applicants for every job that is available. And you know, we had in our committee today in Energy and Commerce, we had yet another hearing on the oil spill down in the Gulf of Mexico. And once again, it came up about the issue of the Secretary of Interior proposing a moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Well, here we kind of reverse the situation. Here we can kill five jobs for the price of one. For every job that we destroy on the drilling rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, five jobs that are also directly related to that activity in the gulf, five jobs are lost. So the moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico in a very real way is going to affect families all up and down the gulf, families that have already been hurt by this spill, already been hurt by the fact that the Federal Government did not exercise its due diligence and oversight in leasing that well to BP in the first place. BP, a foreign oil company that has one of the worst records as far as safety to be able to drill a well like this, with all kinds of passes and waivers on all of the NEPA regulations, wasn't required to put out a spill plan before they did this drilling. Well, now the poor people in the gulf, they've lost their shrimping, they've lost their fishing, they've lost their tourism, and now they're going to lose what's left of their economy because of the imposition of this moratorium. At a time when we should be tasked with creating jobs, a time when we should be getting out of the way of the private sector and let the productive sector of the American society do what it does best, and that's grow and prosper and create jobs. Instead, we're putting additional impediments up there that are going to make it even more difficult for an area of the United States that's been hard hit by hurricanes, and now hard hit by this gulf oil spill. And we are all grateful that the spill appears to be contained at the present time, but we all know this is not over. The cleanup is not over. The well is not yet shut in. They're facing some tough problems down there. And then we add to the problem by a moratorium that's ill-advised. The President's own panel said there is no reason to do this. And yet the Secretary of the Interior just pushes ahead, and would not even provide us today with any of the data that was used, any of the risk data that was used to say that there must be a moratorium, or any of the economic data that was available to him, and presumably to the President, about what the effects of this moratorium would be. So here we are in the face of the worst recession, we got an area of the country that's really hurting, and let's see if we can't hurt 'em a little worse. It just makes no sense. I yield back to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. BURGESS. Well, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Of course, the gentleman is correct. You know, I believe in the American economy. I believe in the ability of the American people to recover this economy. I don't think that the United States House of Representatives, the Senate and the White House combined can keep this economy down forever, but they can give it a good shot at keeping it down longer than it needs to be; and, we all know, because of the prolonged effect of joblessness, the economy is having a tougher time recovering. The gentleman said it so well as to the reason small- and medium- sized businesses are reluctant to add jobs right now, and I know you see the same thing in your district that I'm seeing in my district. Some things look like they're picking up a little bit--parking lots are a little fuller--but when you talk to the small business people and ask them, Are you doing a little bit better this year? they answer, Yeah, maybe a little bit. Do you think you might add a job soon? Might you be able to take someone else into your business? Well, I might, but I don't know what you're going to do to me in this health care bill. I still haven't figured it out. I have no idea what this financial regulatory scheme that you've passed is going to do to me. I sure can't afford the tax increases that you're going to be delivering at the end of this year. So, no, I don't think I can add a job and that, if you further do something with energy prices, I know that the future is just too uncertain, so I'll just stand pat right now. I'm doing okay, but I'm not going to be adding any jobs. Well, that may be one or two jobs at a single business at a strip mall shopping center; but extrapolated across the larger economy, those are the jobs that should be fueling our recovery, and the activities here in Washington, DC, are what are having the dampening effect on that. Now, today's Wall Street Journal had kind of an interesting lead editorial on the editorial page, appropriately titled, ``Stimulating Unemployment.'' It's kind of a novel approach as to how you might attack a problem of the economy. According to the Wall Street Journal today, they talked about how Presidents typically invite Americans to appear at Rose Garden press conferences to trumpet a policy success; but yesterday, we saw what may have been a first. President Obama introduced three Americans--an autoworker, a fitness center employee and a woman in real estate--who have been out of work for so long that they underscore the failure of his entire economic program. Going on, they say, But Mr. Obama was nonetheless obliged to concede that 18 months after his $862 billion stimulus there are still five job seekers for every job opening and that 2.5 million Americans will soon run out of unemployment benefits. Only last week, Vice President Joe Biden was hailing the stimulus for saving or creating 3 million jobs. This week, the White House says we need even more stimulus in the form of jobless checks to make up for the jobs his original stimulus spending did not create. Here is an interesting issue. Of course, we hear over and over and over again how it's the Republicans who are obstructing the extension of unemployment insurance benefits; but realistically, there is still money left in that stimulus bill. Since the stimulus has been such a failure in creating jobs and since the money is available to pay for those unemployment benefits, that seems like a reasonable suggestion. I get calls in the office all day long that, yes, that is a reasonable suggestion. Why don't we proceed with that? Instead, we continue to pass bills where this money is just simply going to be added to the deficit. If the money weren't just sitting there, languishing in the stimulus bill, then maybe you could see their point; but realistically, the money is there. It should be used to offset the extension of unemployment benefits because one thing that we do know is that there is a consequence for borrowing these vast sums of money. We know that expanding the deficit to the $1.4 trillion or $1.6 trillion that we are going to see this year is ultimately money which is going to have to be borrowed; and because that money will ultimately have to be borrowed, it could raise the interest rate and could, subsequently, have an effect on inflation. So why not do the sensible thing and spend the money that you have already allocated in the stimulus bill, which isn't doing anyone any good anyway? If you need to extend unemployment insurance, that would be the correct place to do it. I have some other points that I'd like to share, but I'll yield back to the gentleman and hear his thoughts on that.