Michael Burgess

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I certainly thank him for his diligence and for his passion on this, and I do understand that he respects and honors the institution of the House of Representatives, and it is that respect and honor that lead him on this journey that sometimes could be difficult and where sometimes people might try to dissuade him, but I am so encouraged by the fact that he has taken up this cause. It is extremely important. I have constituents who come into my office all the time. Constituent service is a big part of what we do as Members of Congress. Yes, we can help with a lot of things with regard to Federal agencies, but I always tell constituents who come in with tax difficulties that there is nothing that I as a Member of Congress can do to discharge an obligation to the IRS. It is just not within my power to do so. Well, how does it make me feel when it turns out that that, in fact, is not right? We have the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and now the Secretary of the Treasury who have told us otherwise, that we can discharge those debts if we just choose to ignore them or, when we're caught, that we can just pay what we owe, and we don't have to pay a fine. We don't have to go back and deal with what other citizens have to deal with when they're caught in this type of difficulty. I really applaud the judge for bringing forward the Rangel Rule. I know it has achieved a great deal of popularity out in the middle part of the country. It certainly has in my district. People understand that there do seem to be two sets of standards--one for those in charge and one for the rest of us. It has gotten to the point where people are not wanting to put up with that type of mentality any longer, and they look to us in this House to restore the credibility of the institution. That's why I think it is so important what you are doing. Mr. Speaker, I know that we are to speak to the Chair and that we are not to address our comments to the country as a whole, but I would encourage people, Mr. Speaker, if they are so moved, to call the Democratic leadership of this House and ask if the judge's simple request--the continuing chairmanship of the Ways and Means--might not be addressed by House leadership. Then perhaps we could have more than just a tabling of the motion. When the gentleman from Texas has gone to a great deal of difficulty to bring this privileged motion to the floor, then all we do is table a motion with no debate and with no actual discussion as to the merits of that motion. I think the gentleman made a great point last week, and he made a great point again today when the motion was read on the floor. It is institutionally important that we establish credibility here on the floor of this House. We don't have it in the country, and we've got a number of big problems to get past, and it only makes that work that much harder. So we have the chairman of the Ways and Means--the largest tax- writing body in the free world--who cannot do his own taxes because they're too complicated. I'll tell you what. There was a day back in Texas in the mid-'90s when my predecessor in my congressional seat introduced a bill called a flat tax, and I thought that was a great idea. Why do taxes have to be so hard? It turns out they're too hard for the chairman of the Ways and Means, and they're too hard for the Secretary of the Treasury. Well, yes. Then it's no great news that they're too hard for the rest of us as well. I think we should do fundamental tax reform. I, frankly, don't understand why that has been so difficult to get through this House under both Republican and now Democratic leadership. We should do that. We should take on that fundamental work because the American people want us to do so. Again, I commend the gentleman from Texas for bringing this issue to the floor of the House. I know it wasn't easy for him to do so, and he does attract a certain amount of attention that might be unwanted by doing this, but it was so important, and it is so important to the credibility of the institution. Therefore, it is so important to every one of us who serves in this body during this 111th session of Congress. I think that the words of the President that are up on the poster just could not be clearer, which is that there is one standard for the powerful and one standard for the ordinary folks who are working every day and who are paying their taxes. That is wrong. It has to change. The place to change would be that of the chairman of the Ways and Means, and the time to change would be first thing tomorrow morning. I yield back.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I would just urge my colleagues to take a second look before committing this bill to conference. We're making some fundamental changes in the way health care is administered in this country as a result of this bill, which has nothing to do with the creation of jobs but everything to do with the government taking a greater and greater share of our personal liberties that pertains to health care. Certainly the funding cliffs that are present in the funding for Medicaid and COBRA--COBRA extending medical benefits for 12 months, Medicaid an additional 18 months--but what happens at the end of that 12- or 18-month interval? Do those individuals just fall off a cliff or will Congress have to come back with yet more money? Already we're talking about an $800 billion bill. We don't include in that the cost of capital. If we were honest about this bill and included the cost of capital and the cost of funding past those funding cliffs, this, in reality, would be a $3 trillion product. And, Madam Speaker, I spent an hour today down at the Bureau of Debt and watched $32 billion be auctioned off shortly before one o'clock today. That was the third time today that they've had an auction down there. This is an incredible amount of paper that we're selling on the worldwide market, and you have to wonder how long the market can sustain that. And perhaps just as pernicious, we heard the minority leader mention the comparative effect of this statute, the health information technology statute, something that I support, that I believe in but really has no place in a stimulus bill. Look at the power, look at the power we're giving to the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology that provides medical decisions, sets the time and place of care. We're devolving an enormous amount of power to an individual that none of us, in fact, even know who that is at the present time. We're politicizing health care in this country in a way that's never been done before, and we at least ought to be honest with the American people about what we're doing and not do it under the cover of night.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Last night in the Rules Committee I introduced an amendment that would have required States to reimburse physicians at 90 percent of the Blue Cross/Blue Shield rate or the largest State HMO rate in that State or the insurance that the State provides for their own employees. That amendment was not even allowed a vote on the floor. This is the type of exclusionary politics that is being practiced in the House of Representatives, and the sooner we get past this point, the President asked for a more open and bipartisan government, the sooner we get past that point, the better for the American people.

Mr. BURGESS. I do urge my colleagues to look long and hard before voting on this rule today, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule. The fact is, Madam Speaker, that over half of the country has not had an opportunity to participate in this debate. 40 percent of this country is represented by Republican Members. We have not had input into this bill. 12 percent of this Congress is new. They have had no input into this bill. That leaves over half the country who haven't been part of this debate. And what does it say about a bipartisan bill when the two principal Republican sponsors in the other body withdrew their support for this bill as it came through the Senate? Last night in the Rules Committee in one last attempt, I tried to modify the bill to perhaps make it a better product before it came before us on the floor of the House today. I brought amendments that would have required identity, a person to provide proper identification before they signed up for SCHIP; not another step, but just simply another line that needed to be filled out on the form, and that was rejected. You have to show your ID before you cash a check at the grocery store. Why should we not require someone to show identification before they sign up for this benefit? I also introduced an amendment, after all, we are, as the Member from Texas said, the gentleman from Texas said we are taking 2\1/2\ million children off of private health insurance and putting them on public health insurance. Why should we not at least ensure that we will pay the providers a sufficient amount so that they will participate in the system? Currently, it is difficult to find providers who will accept Medicaid and SCHIP. I introduced an amendment that would have required 90 percent of the reimbursement from the Federal Blue Cross/Blue Shield program or the States' largest----

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, the American people understand the need for a stimulus. They understand the need for job creation. What they don't understand is why we are pursuing this reckless path of aimless spending. Now we have heard it over and over again. Elections have consequences, they won, and we understand that. We also hear the need for bipartisan bills. But I have to ask you, Madam Speaker, doesn't legislation also have consequences? We often ask ourselves what makes a bill bipartisan? Is it just because we all have a chance to vote one way or the other and for that reason it is a bipartisan effort even if you vote against it or for it. In reality, a bipartisan bill begins at its inception where the ideas are talked about among Members and typically amongst their staff. Certainly it involves hearings and markups at the subcommittee level, and certainly it involves hearings and markups at the full committee level. But many of the bills we have before us fail to achieve that lofty goal. We are about to pass a stimulus bill that will vastly increase Medicaid spending, but at the same time in this great wash of cash, we can do nothing to provide adequate payments to providers. That would have been a bipartisan effort.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, we heard this evening the unwelcome news that the Senate, the other body, had confirmed the nominee for Secretary of the Treasury. I cannot tell you how disappointed I am that the Senate saw fit to do that. This is going to be a distraction at a time when our Nation's financial state deserves close attention. How can we ask our citizens to pay their taxes if we appoint tax evaders to head the Department of Treasury? I think it would have been appropriate to resist the temptation to be impulsive and instead take the time to make sure that the candidate we put to this high office is someone with more than just a solid resume. Make sure it is someone who will make a personal commitment to upholding the law. Tax evasion, be it by design or inattention, trivializes other citizens' duty to pay their taxes, and it makes the tax burden of proof even that much greater for those who do bother to follow the law. We have called this a time of change in our Nation, but this decision is another illustration of the perception that Washington is a place where the well-connected are given special privileges. At a time where Americans are losing faith in Congress, it is imperative that we convey it's not okay to appoint leaders who break the law. It's time to bring credibility and integrity back to this government.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman. We will probably go for about another 7 or 8 minutes on health care, and then I am going to yield the balance of the time to Judge Louie Gohmert from Texas, who wants to talk about some other things related to the economy and perhaps some issues related to the confirmation of the Secretary of the Treasury today. One of the things that when we talk about health care in the broad perspective, and it comes up periodically, is some of the difficulties encountered in our system because of the onerous burden placed by our medical justice system, cost of medical liability insurance. I just bring that up to point out how, in my home State of Texas recently was passed a bill that placed limits on noneconomic damages, and we have seen a dramatic reduction in premiums for liability insurance. Last Congress, I offered a bill that would incorporate the Texas plan countrywide, to coin a phrase. That bill did attract significant cosponsors, and I will be introducing that bill again. We hear other proposals for lightening the load of medical liability. Certainly some people like medical courts. Certainly that should be worth some scrutiny and study by our committee. I hear other people talk about early offer, and in fact several years ago we heard testimony in our committee how a concept like early offer and arbitration might work and might lighten the load. But here is a different concept that I would like my colleagues to consider that maybe is a little bit of out-of-the-box thinking; and let me give credit to the ranking member on our health subcommittee, Nathan Deal, because this idea largely originated with him. But we have a very large Medicare system in this country paying $300 million, $400 million a year in health care for the Nation's seniors. Now, this is not a State program, it is a Federal program, so it is administered equally across the land. Since it is a broad Federal program, what if we had some requirements to be met, to be sure. But if a physician fulfilled those requirements as set out, that we would allow that individual to have their liability coverage under the Federal Tort Claims Act as we would in a federally qualified health center. Now, some of the parameters that we might ask for in return would be certainly full deployment of health information technology, electronic medical records in that physician's or hospital's practice record. That seems pretty straightforward. There was a demonstration project done at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services that is now 2 years into the study looking at some of the things that is called the Physician Group Practice Demonstration Project. It is looking at some things like medical homes care coordination, and they have come up with some interesting data. For example, a patient who is admitted into the hospital with congestive heart failure, if that patient is given a slip with an appointment within 5 days back to their primary care doctor, their risk of readmission is very low. If they do not have such an arrangement made, their risk of readmission goes up significantly. What do you think the cost of that readmission looks like? It is pretty steep, much more than the original admission. So a very simple, simple task to undertake to ensure that everyone who leaves the hospital after this diagnosis for uncompensated congestive heart failure has a 5-day follow-up in their family physician or primary internal medicine doctor's office to ensure that they are complying with their medications, that they are indeed on the path to recovery that everyone thought they were on when they left the hospital. Other things, like during that ``welcome to Medicare'' physical, even just a brief episode of patient education about things like advanced directives, not to require the patient to sign up for an advanced directive, but just to make them available so that when heart decisions come up later on in life, that they have at least already been approached; because, as we all know, some of the most expensive care is that care that we pay for in the last 2 weeks of life, and oftentimes that is care that really has no hope of delivering a good result and may in fact even be deleterious. So worthwhile to have these discussions at the front end. And, they might save some money, but more importantly, it might be a better way of taking care of people. Remember, I alluded to it is not all about cost and coverage, it is about taking care of people in the right way. If we set out these parameters, and if a physician group or an individual physician or individual practice agreed to abide by these restrictions, then cover them under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Can you imagine the relief from having to carry that on the individual physician's balance sheets. That is like $100,000 a year in real money in that physician's office. I suspect, rather than having doctors leave the Medicare system, we would have doctors who would say, ``You know what? I'll just take care of Medicare patients if we are going to be under those kinds of rules, because it is a lot easier than having to put up with that grief in the other parts of my practice.'' Something we should think about, some out-of-the-box thinking to provide a little bit of relief, a modicum of relief in the arena of liability reform. Medicaid, we haven't really talked about that much. There is going to be a push for a vast expansion of Medicaid in this Congress; indeed, it is already upon us in the stimulus bill, because we don't have to worry about how we are going to pay for it, we don't have to worry about what tomorrow looks like. But shouldn't we at least ask that there be a little bit of transparency in the system so that someone can look and see how many MRIs are done on a particular diagnostic group of patients, to have some idea as to whether or not these services are being utilized in a wise fashion? Similarly, should we not have someone who is responsible for coordination of benefits? Medicaid, if it exists in conjunction with a private insurance, always is supposed to be secondary; that is, the private insurance should be the insurer of first resort, Medicare should be the insurer of last resort. But in about 13 to 15 percent of Medicaid cases across the country, there is in fact a primary insurer who just has not paid. Medicaid then goes from secondary to primary, and that bill is put on to the American citizens when in fact that bill actually was the responsibility of a private insurance company. And why does that happen? It is because of the lack of reciprocity. And we get into this in a lot of different areas. But it is that inability of insurance companies to function across State lines. Some of that State reciprocity could actually go a long way. Again, when you are talking about a program that spends upwards of almost $600 billion a year, a 15 percent savings starts to look like real money. So I just offer those as a couple of things that we might consider as we go through this process, Mr. Speaker. I do know that Judge Gohmert from Texas, Louie Gohmert from Texas, did want to talk to us a little bit about the financial bailout package and the rescue package. Let me see if the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, had some final thoughts on the health care aspect before we leave that and go to the economy.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thought I would come to the House floor and talk a little bit about health care, because for better or for worse, this Congress is likely to be remembered for some time as the Congress that did tackle health care. And the question that's on everyone's mind is will we help or will we make things worse? Now, 2 weeks ago Congress was sworn in for the 111th Congress, we took to the floor of the House and we passed, under what is called suspension of the rules, we passed an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Now, passing under a suspension of the rules is a special case--usually that's reserved for noncontroversial items-- but anyone who followed the activities of the 110th Congress knows that this bill was far from noncontroversial. In fact, it had several provisions that created a good deal of controversy in the fall of 2007 and on into the spring of 2008. But we passed the bill under suspension of the rules because the Democratic leadership told us we didn't need to debate the bill any more because we had worked on it in the Congress before. But a lot of things were different in this bill, things we hadn't talked about in previous Congresses. And, in fact, there are 54 new Members of Congress, that means that greater than 12 percent of the Congress is new this year. That means that between 30 and 40 million Americans did not have representation in Congress when that bill was discussed in the 110th Congress, and their representatives were effectively cut out of the process. But when it comes to constructing a health care plan for America's children, I think it's important for us to do it right. Remember that the State Children's Health Insurance Program was started in 1997 by a then Republican Congress, it was authorized for 10 years. Everyone who was sworn in the last Congress knew that prior to September 30 of 2007 we would have to reauthorize the bill. What did we do? We waited till the last minute, had a big fight, had to extend it. The President vetoed it, it came back, the veto was sustained, fought some more. Sent it back down to the President, he vetoed it, sent it back, the veto was again sustained. And then we reauthorized the continuation of the State Children's Health Insurance Program for 18 months, bringing us to the end of March of this year. So, to their credit, the majority leadership, the Democratic leadership of the House did not wait till the last minute as they did 2 years ago, but they tackled it the first week of the session but, again, tackled it in an odd way. We didn't have a single hearing. We didn't have what's called a markup in either subcommittee or full committee on the Committee of Energy and Commerce or the Committee on Ways and Means. A markup is where you go through a draft of the bill and see if there are any improvements that either side can make. We went through a 12\1/2\ hour markup last Thursday night on this so- called stimulus bill. I am not sure we got a great amount of work done in that 12\1/2\ hours but, nevertheless, the minority and the majority, members on the committee who sit way down on the front who lack seniority were able to have their voices heard as this legislation worked its way through the committee, but not so with the State Children's Health Insurance Program. So I guess the question I would have, and this is my fourth term, perhaps I should be getting used to such things at this point, but I still find them odd. If the Members on the Democratic side are so confident in their ability to legislate and so confident on the merits of their legislation, why seek to stifle the opposition? What are you afraid of? Bring the bill to committee. Let's have a hearing or two, let's have a markup. Let's bring it to the Rules Committee, let's bring it to the floor like we do with bills all the time. What is the reason to hide behind a suspension of the rules of this very, very important legislation. And, again, I would stress, 54 Members of Congress here in the 111th Congress were not present in the last Congress. So it's all well and good to say, oh, it's old stuff, we have debated it before, we have worked it out before, it's just a rehash of something that has gone on previously. Even if that were true, and it's not, but even if it were true, Mr. Speaker, those 54 new Members didn't have an opportunity to weigh in one way or the other, and they may have had some good ideas. That's why we have elections every 2 years. That's why there is turnover in this Congress, because new Americans sign up to offer themselves in service of their country. They go through the rigors of an election, they are elected. They come to this Congress, they are full of good ideas, why turn them out? Why say ``no,'' what you are bringing to this Congress is unimportant because we talked about it last year. We talked about it the year before. You couldn't possibly have anything to add to this near-perfect bill that was vetoed twice by the previous President. Well, lack of input into the bill has led to a number of problems in the current bill. The bill was passed by the House. It has gone over to the Senate. The Senate is taking it under consideration at some point. We will likely get it back, whether it's an identical bill to what we sent over there, or whether it will have to come back to a conference committee remains to be seen. But, nevertheless, the bill has gone from the House over to the Senate and awaits its fate over in the Senate. One of the things that was most disappointing about this legislation, remember that this is the State Children's Health Insurance Program to enroll children of families who earn at or below 200 percent of the Federal poverty level. In round numbers, that's about families of four who earn around $41,000 to $42,000 a year. So those are the families, the children of those families are the ones that would be eligible for coverage. But there are a number of children in those families that are eligible for coverage that are not covered, about 800,000. And wouldn't it be reasonable to take the steps to cover those children first before we expand coverage to children in higher income brackets. Many of us thought so 2 years ago, a year ago. Many of us still feel that way today, but this was a concept that was not allowed to be debated on the floor of the House. Oddly, and I don't know that I have ever seen legislation quite crafted in this way, we picked the ending numbers, and then we weren't going to build the legislation around it. This bill had to cover 10 million children, we heard it several times from the Speaker of the House on the various Sunday shows, she wanted 10 million children covered under this bill, and she wanted to spend $35 billion. Regardless, instead of the policy informing the numbers, the numbers dictated the policy in this case. The problem is, under their own Congressional Budget Office estimate, the only way to get to 10 million children to be covered under the State Children's Health Insurance Program was to displace 2 million children off of private coverage and put them on to State programs. You might wonder, well, what's the problem with that, one insurance is just as good as the next. But talk to your pediatrician in practice in your town. I don't mean your academic pediatrician at the medical center, at the big medical school in the big metropolitan area, I mean your pediatrician on the street corner, your pediatrician who works in your community. Find out if the State Children's Health Insurance Program reimburses at the same rate as, oh, I don't know, Mr. Speaker, Cigna, Aetna, United, regardless of the private insurance company, may differ some from community to community. But I know in my home State of Texas numbers are vastly different. The State Children's Health Insurance Program reimburses at about a 50 cents on the dollar rate compared to private health insurance. That's a significant change for the practicing pediatrician, because pediatricians, after all, function very close to the margin every month. They don't have a lot of excess in their cash flow every month. So the effect of displacing 2 million children and essentially cutting the reimbursement rates for 2 million children is, in fact, one big significance, to say nothing of the fact that now the child is on a different insurance than the parent, and that creates some difficulties with just getting care when the time comes to get care. Now, the other thing this bill did, which I am really questioning whether it was a good idea, it weakened the requirements to verify citizenship. There is a concept known as ``at a station,'' that is simply a test for citizenship rather than having to show proof of citizenship, like some type of identification card. So if someone comes into the office where you would enroll in this program and simply say, ``I am a U.S. citizen,'' that is going to be, under the new Democratic bill, that is going to be proof positive that that person is, indeed, eligible to sign up for the insurance. Now, many Americans, tax-paying Americans--and I know the Secretary of the Treasury doesn't pay taxes--but many Americans do pay taxes, and it's of concern to them. The tax-paying Americans are now going to be paying the freight for people where we are not even sure if they are in this country legally. If that's what we want to do, we at least need to be honest with the American people and tell them that, say we are not really even going to check as to whether or not these individuals are citizens as they sign up. And it may be for the best of intentions, we want to be kind to their children, we want to provide them with health insurance. After all, it's cheaper to provide health insurance at the front end than high- dollar care at the far end, but we need at least to be honest with the American people and tell them that's what we have done. But I don't know that that information has actually made it out into middle America. I rather suspect that some people will be upset with that information when they find that out. But the bottom line is, as the bill stands, as it left the House of Representatives, the government will end up covering children that may or may not be United States' citizens. Another problem with the bill, as written, is the funding is not provided by any sort of stable funding source. Regardless of how you feel about taxes on cigarettes, or so-called sin taxes, excise taxes, regardless of how you feel about that, what happens as a practical matter when you fund a bill like this with a sin tax, with a tax on tobacco. If you are successful, you drive down smoking rates, which arguably is a good thing, but if you are successful, you reduce the funding available to fund the program, and that would be a bad thing. And this discrepancy is not reconciled within the bill that we passed in the House and sent to the Senate. You have a real problem with the stable funding source, because this funding source, in this bill that we passed out of the floor of the House, funds the bill for 4\1/2\ years on a 5-year authorization. So that means after 4\1/2\ years everybody falls off a cliff because there is no more money. What happens then is anyone's guess. I suspect, as Congress always does, it will find someplace else to gather the money, but that means we do take it from some other source. A twist that actually borders on the bizarre, you wonder what it was even doing in the bill. The State Children's Health Insurance Program bill, as passed the House of Representatives 2 weeks ago, prohibits building physician-owned hospitals or expanding existing physician- owned facilities. Let me just say that again, because it is so incredibly, incredibly bizarre, the bill prohibits building physician- owned hospitals or expanding existing physician-owned facilities. Now, where else, where else, what other government in the world would prohibit someone from a lawful business practice simply because of the type of professional degree that they have? You go to medical school, you can't build a hospital. What an odd bizarre twist, and what an odd thing to put this in a bill for funding State children's health insurance. So, State children's health insurance, a good cause. I supported the original concept of SCHIP, I supported the original reauthorization, the 18-month extension we did in December of 2007. I would have supported a reasonable reauthorization in this Congress, but this was anything but reasonable. It was a badly written bill. It badly needed to be improved, and, again, it just begs the question, are we going to be helpful or are we going to foul things up in this Congress, particularly when it comes to health care. Now, I already alluded to the so-called stimulus bill that came through the House Energy and Commerce Committee last Thursday. We debated the bill. We marked up the bill for a 12\1/2\ hour session. It wasn't just health care. We had a lot of stuff thrown in that day. We had energy, we had all kinds of things that were heaped into that bill, but we did debate health care. Oddly enough, the health care part of that debate, you heard Mr. Kucinich talk for an hour earlier, he thought that was a pretty important part of the stimulus bill. So, oddly a very important part of the stimulus bill was left right until the very end, and then our time was severely curtailed. We were allowed to talk for 2 minutes instead of the normal 5 on any amendment that we had to this bill. One of the amendments was proposed by Mr. Whitfield of Kentucky. You know, we have a problem in Medicare. Every year we come in and we say, well, you haven't got quite enough money, so we are going to cut doctor reimbursement rates just a little bit this year and a little bit next year, and over time you begin to talk about real money. So we are facing a reduction in physician reimbursement rates in December of 2009, 11 months from now, and that reduction of reimbursement is going to be 20 percent. Well, what is the practical effect of that? It makes it harder for people to find a doctor who takes Medicare. Mr. Whitfield's district is in Kentucky. This has been a particular problem for him. And he had an insightful amendment to try to correct this problem. Now, you look at the stimulus bill as drawn. We don't have to justify paying for anything in the stimulus bill. It's all money that just comes from somewhere. One of the headlines in one of the magazines up here a few weeks ago was, ``It's raining money.'' Well, if it's raining money and we perennially have a hard time finding the funds to do away with this physician reimbursement nick that we put in every year, why not just repeal that part of the Medicare law? Why not repeal the so- called sustainable growth rate formula just outright. Since cost is no object, it doesn't matter how much money we spend, there is no upper limit. Truth be told, this isn't really money anyway. It's already been reimbursed to the doctors. But, because of a funny budget gimmick in the Medicare law, we have got to go back for well over a decade, well back to the early nineties, every year, and capture all the savings we should have gotten had we enforced this every year, and tack that on to the end. So they are not real dollars. They have already been dispensed. In fact, if we were a private company and did this, we'd look just like-- well, I won't go into it. But we'd probably have an ankle bracelet if we did this in the real world. But, nevertheless, we had an opportunity in amending this bill to repeal the sustainable growth rate formula outright, since money is no object, we've got all kinds of money to spend, and the amendment was defeated. Every Democrat in committee that evening voted against repealing the sustainable growth rate formula. No hesitation; no, Can I ask you one more question about that? It was simply a straight ``no'' to the amendment. Well, suffice it to say, I was pretty disappointed by that, but undaunted. I thought, Well, maybe, maybe we could offer an amendment-- and, in fact, this was an amendment offered by Mr. Dingell during the Deficit Reduction Act a few years ago. This would have stopped the cuts in the sustainable growth rate formula for 2 years. Not a great heavy lift. Again, we've got plenty of money in this bill. It seems like money is no object because we can buy grass for the Mall. All kinds of things are in this bill. Why not pay for a 2-year moratorium and at least give our physician community a little bit of stability in planning their businesses? Again, turned down. Every Democrat in committee voted against that amendment. Oddly enough, every Democrat had voted for that amendment when their ranking member, Mr. Dingell--when they were in the minority when that amendment was proposed by Mr. Dingell. Well, we also had some information technology contained within that stimulus bill. Again, you heard Mr. Kucinich talk about it. Information technology is going to deliver untold promise to the practice of medicine. There will be no problem with money in future because of the benefit brought by information technology. In fact, we are going to give our doctors a bonus for implementing information technology. It's not a big bonus, but it's a bonus nevertheless. This bonus is going to go into effect in 2011. Wait a minute. It's a stimulus bill. It's 2009. So I offered an amendment to accelerate those bonus payments. Let's start paying them in June of this year, rather than waiting until 2011. Almost everyone in this body hopes that the recession will be done by 2011. So that bonus will have no positive effect on the recession. Let's go ahead and provide that money to the physicians now. Again, that amendment was defeated. Every Democrat in the committee room voted ``no.'' Mr. Barton, the ranking member of the committee, also offered one more chance to allow doctors to own hospitals and surgery centers. Again, that amendment was turned down. Every, every Democrat voted ``no'' on that bill. Now there are a lot of things we can talk about in health care, and I see I have been joined by some of my friends. Just three quick things I want to mention when we talk about going forward and what perhaps we'd like to see in any sort of health care legislation that is crafted. There's no question that the way the current tax code is drawn, it does discriminate against individuals who want to own their own insurance. It does load the system to those who earn at the upper end of the income scale. So at some point someone is going to have to look at that inequity and see if there's not a better way to approach it. But, in the meantime, just keeping it very, very simple, why not allow someone who purchases their own health insurance, why not allow that to be deductible from their income tax? If they are working and they want to purchase their own insurance policy but they don't really make enough money to pay much income tax, provide them a tax credit. Give them a little help. That is the people that Mr. Kucinich was talking about. The working poor. Sure enough, let's give them a little bit of help. If we wanted to go one step further and help those who were without health insurance, why not provide--called it a voucher, call it a tax credit, a prefundable credit, advanceable tax credit, call it what you will-- but why not perhaps incorporate that into the tax code. These are three relatively simple things we could do tomorrow and vastly have a significant effect on the ability of individuals to have health insurance in this country. We are going to hear a lot of discussion over, I suspect, over the next months and even years on the whole issue of are we going to have to mandate coverage or do we have some other way to get people the coverage they need without requiring a mandate? Now some people may recall we faced that same dilemma in the Medicare Part D. In Medicare Part D, many people wanted a mandate you're going to have to buy this prescription drug coverage on Medicare. Dr. Mark McClellan, who was the head of CMS at the time, and Secretary Mike Levitt over at Health and Human Services decided they were going to take a different track, and I am so grateful that they did. They said, We are going to create programs that people actually want rather than forcing them into a program that may be of limited utility for them. So they did. They spent a great deal of time crafting programs that would actually help people. They had six protected classes of drugs. There had to be at least two options in each protected class of drugs. Now I have been so far removed, I don't remember them off the top of my head. But it was a brilliant strategy. As a consequence, as a consequence, the signup for Medicare Part D, the percentage of seniors who now have some type of credible coverage for prescription drugs is in excess of 90 percent and, more importantly, the satisfaction rate is in excess of 90 percent, and perhaps most importantly is it didn't cost nearly what the projections said it would cost initially. The initial premiums for part D were set by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid services at nearly $39 per member per month. The actual cost has come in somewhere between $22 and $24. It's gone down a little bit in subsequent years, but a significant decrease over what was projected by both the Congressional Budget Office, CMS, and even the Office of Management and the Budget down at the White House. So a much more reasonable way to approach things rather than telling people what they must do, and that is always hard in a free society. Always hard. My home State of Texas has an individual mandate for automobile insurance. But not everybody signs up for it. In fact, the city of Dallas just started a program where if you're stopped for whatever, taillight busted or ran a red light, and you don't have car insurance, your car is towed. See you later. You're on the street. Find another way to get home. Well, we really can't do that in health insurance, but that just underscores the difficulty that you have with enforcing a mandate. But, creating programs that people want--remember, over 90 percent of seniors now have credible prescription drug coverage because someone took the pains to find out what people wanted. Find a way to make it cost effective and find a way to make it available to them. I would stress for both sides of the aisle, when we talk about health care in this Congress, do remember, it's more about cost than coverage. This is about caring for people. Medicine, and I can say this because I spent a lifetime practicing medicine, it is both an art and a science. It's constantly evolving and transforming. We are on the cusp of one of the most transformational times that has been seen in medicine, ever. The human genome has been sequenced. We can know more about people before it happens to them than at any time for any group of healers that never had that kind of power in their hand in the past. Dr. Elias Zerhouni recently left as the Director of the National Institute Of Health. And he used to talk about medicine. Because of the discoveries of the human genome, medicine is going to become a great deal more personalized. Well, that's a good thing, personalized medicine. We'd all like to see that. Medicine more personalized, it's going to become more predictive. Because it's more predictive, that leads to more prediction. But part of the key is going to have to be a lot more participatory. You cannot be a passive actor in tomorrow's health care environment and expect to get the rewards that it is capable of delivering. But how ironic. As we stand upon in this transformational time in medicine, what is the one thing, what is the one thing that could divert from this path? It's the United States House of Representatives. We are inherently transactional, not transformational. We take from one group and we give to the next. And we have the power within our hands to derail the transformation that is, even today, taking place in medicine. For all of the faults of American medicine, for all of the faults of private insurers--and Mr. Kucinich detailed them in laborious detail-- for all of those faults, things are beginning to move in a positive direction. Information technology, health insurance technology. Do we really need the government to write the code for medical information technology? Wouldn't we be better to just simply set some parameters and get out of the way and let the people who know what they are doing actually do that? No. We are going to try to write every jot and piddle of the code so that we control it from start to finish. But the reality is across the country, and I know this because I have spent the last 6 months going across the country, people are incorporating electronic medical records into their individual physician practices, into their larger hospitals, into their health maintenance organizations, into their insurance regimes. It's happening already. Part of the challenge for us is to make sure that all those part interconnect properly and there is proper communication, proper transparency, so the patient who goes to one large multispecialty clinic in the Midwest and transfers to another large multispecialty clinic in the gentleman from Ohio's hometown, that those two clinics, the record from those two clinics can talk to each other. But that is just a technical problem. That can be solved. And it doesn't require the United States Congress writing the computer code in order to make that happen. In fact, if we'd relax a little bit on our regulatory laws, the so-called Stark laws that were written back in 1981. It's the 21st century, for crying out loud. That's nearly 30 years ago. And we are still putting the same constraints on medical practices today that they were back in 1981. If we define privacy once and for all, tell people what we mean by privacy, and then not change our minds every 3 months, maybe they could get this done. But there is a transformational change taking place. And you can see it in the insurance companies, the physician practices, hospitals and clinics, Federally-qualified health centers across the land. And the only thing that can stop this evolution in health care is the United States Congress. So that is kind of a daunting possibility. When we hear people talk from the floor of this body about all the wonderful and great things that they want to do with health care, we do always need to remember that we have it within our power to allow that transformation to blossom or stop it dead in its tracks. Now I have been joined by some of my colleagues, and I think we still have about half the time left, so I will yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, the other Dr. Phil.

Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for that insight. Am I recorded as a cosponsor on H.R. 143?

Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman. This proposal that you've put forth is terribly intriguing, and I suspect we will get a lot of interest. I know we have to direct our comments to the Chair and not to the cameras, but I would be curious if the gentleman has a bill to that effect.

Mr. BURGESS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. May I ask the Speaker, may I inquire as to the remaining time.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, as Members of the House of Representatives, we don't get a vote on confirmation of Cabinet appointments. But at the same time, that does not absolve us of the responsibility to speak out when we see a problem and, currently, the designee for the Secretary of the Treasury poses an enormous problem for this House and for the Senate. Now, Madam Speaker, my constituents have trouble with taxes, just as all of our constituents have trouble with taxes, and sometimes they get into real difficulty. But it doesn't, it doesn't absolve them of their obligation to pay their taxes and their interest and their fines because, of course, we have many thousands of people who paid their taxes honestly. I speak to you about that as someone who ran their own business and had to pay payroll taxes. Whether this was a mistake or an evasion, yesterday, when President Obama spoke about a call to service but also underscored a call to competence, mistake or evasion, it certainly doesn't underscore either.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me say at the start, I support the reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. I supported it when I was a physician in private practice in 1997. I supported it in December of 2007 when we provided the current 18-month extension. But what I don't support is the approach we are taking today of a closed rule. Ironically, the speaker prior to the previous speaker talked about how Republicans are concerned that the House is now moving too fast. I am not concerned that we are moving too fast. I am concerned that we didn't move when we had the opportunity, that is, the last 18 months, to try to improve the product and try to work through some of the problems that clearly some of us on this side have with the current bill. I am opposed to a closed rule. I think there are good ideas that come from the Republican side. I think our new administration that is going to be sworn in in less than a week's time has already said he welcomes ideas from both sides of the aisle. What a shame it is that our Rules Committee then cannot see fit to allow good amendments to come from either side of the aisle. I am also concerned about the stability of the funding in the underlying bill. I am concerned very much about looking to the physician-owned hospital as a source for the funding. Why do we impugn the motives of people who are inherently altruistic? What would we have done if Will and Charlie Mayo had come to us and said they wanted to start an enterprise, and we said no, you cannot do it; the Secretary will not authorize it because it is prohibited under the SCHIP bill?

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, the bill before us today is going to harm access to high-quality hospital care by prohibiting physician ownership of hospitals. In past Congresses there have been attempts to prohibit physician ownership, and they have been struck down due in large part by the recognition of many Members of Congress across the aisle and on this side that these few physician-owned hospitals are doing a great job. Patients like going there. Physicians and nurses like working there. And I will just tell you as someone who has worked in a physician-owned facility, there's nothing like the pride of ownership in helping you deliver first class care. The bill before us today will put rural Americans at risk. Physician- owned hospitals also provide care in many rural areas of this country where patients have few health care options. The attack on physician-owned hospitals will hurt the economy in a number of States. It's estimated up to $4 billion is generated in activity in these facilities in eight States in the country including my own home State of Texas. During this time of economic downturn, it is simply irresponsible to shut down a strong stream of economic activity in these States while shutting down patient access to care.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the students, faculty, and staff from Hurst-Euless-Bedford Independent School District on receiving the prestigious honor of being named the Top District in the State of Texas by Education Resource Group. Education Resource Group looks at the 200 largest districts in the state, which enroll the majority of students who attend Texas Public schools. Giving careful consideration to academic, demographic, staffing, and financial information, they determine the award recipient. The award measures the relationship between operating expenditures and student achievement. This year marks the 50th anniversary of Hurst-Euless-Bedford ISD. The district strives to provide an exceptional education to its students, and has received national recognition for its outstanding academic, athletic, and fine arts programs. The district maintains a high quality faculty and staff who host a learning environment that promotes character, achievement, and personal responsibility. Madam Speaker, I am proud to represent many of the students, faculty, and staff of Hurst-Euless-Bedford ISD in the 26th District of Texas. Their outstanding educational standards set a great example for all academic institutions. I wish them all the best in their future endeavors.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Captain Robert Vallejo II who was killed on September 18, 2008, while serving our country. Captain Robert Vallejo II was a captain in Texas National Guard. He and six other Guard members lost their lives while on duty aboard a Chinook helicopter near Tallil, Iraq. The soldiers were assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 149th Aviation, 36th Combat Aviation Brigade based in Grand Prairie, Texas. Captain Robert Vallejo II will be remembered for his commendable and selfless service to this great nation. Captain Robert Vallejo was born in Beeville, Texas, and later moved to Fort Worth. He was a member of the ROTC program at Texas Christian University, where he graduated in 2005 with a Communication Studies degree before being accepted to flight school at Fort Rucker, Alabama. He dreamed of being a pilot and he put his passion into practice when he joined the Texas National Guard. Madam Speaker, it is my honor to recognize such a brave man as Robert Vallejo II. I am proud to have had the chance to represent him in Congress. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the family and friends of this American hero.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the U.S. House of Representatives Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2638, Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act for 2009: 1. Institute for Science and Engineering Simulation (lSES), University of North Texas--$3.36 million--RDTE,AF--Congressman Michael Burgess. ISES at the University of North Texas is currently working closely with the U.S. Air Force to remedy a critical requirement. Due to increased operations as a result of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan during the past 5 years, Air Force aircraft are often pushed to perform beyond their intended design criteria: this has created serious concerns for safety of both the aircraft and personnel. The Air Force requires modeling & simulation research of the performance and lifecycles of materials in aircraft in order to extend the life of current military aircraft and to perform testing on future aircraft structures and material. Utilizing state-of-the-art facilities and equipment at the University of North Texas, the research conducted at ISES will be used to predict/identify and reduce the risk of catastrophic failure in aircraft structural components, extend the life of current aircraft and increase the safety of pilots and personnel. The University of North Texas is located at 1155 Union Circle #311277, Denton, Texas 76203-5017. 2. Unmanned Force Augmentation Systems (UFAS), Geneva Aerospace--$2.4 million--RDTE,N--Congressman Michael Burgess. The UFAS program supports research, development and testing of advanced UAS technologies. The program is intended to facilitate the rapid transition of UAV systems to the warfighters that offer order-of- magnitude improvements in usability, capability, and, hence, operational effectiveness. Specific program and technology areas that the FY09 program will support include extended development and testing of the Air Deployable Sensor (ADS), which is a Sonochute Launched UAS supported by Technology Transition Agreements with multiple Navy sponsors. The Air Deployable Sensor is one of several new capabilities developed under the UFAS program. Additional successful technology developments have included the development of an autonomous sense and avoid system for UAS in support of UAS National Airspace Integration initiatives, UAS autonomous takeoff and landing systems and gap-filler UAS designed to support a growing DOD UAS Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) capability gap. Geneva Aerospace is located at 4240 International Parkway, Carrollton, Texas 75007.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Caroline Rose Hunt on receiving the annual Virginia Chandler Dykes Leadership Award. The Virginia Chandler Dykes Leadership Award is presented to Dallas residents who demonstrate a commitment to developing a strong community. The Award is a testament to care, commitment, and leadership given by Hunt to cultural and charitable organizations. Ms. Hunt is an accomplished entrepreneur, author, humanitarian, and grandmother of nineteen. She is a vice-chair and co-founder of the United Way of Metropolitan Dallas Foundation where she was nationally recognized by the Tocqueville Society. Ms. Hunt is also the cochair of the Ralph Rogers Society of KERA television and chairwoman of the Crescent Club Board. Ms. Hunt has been honored with the Award for Excellence from the Dallas Historical Society, and named ``One of 50 Most Powerful Women in the U.S.A.'' by Ladies Home Journal. Ms. Hunt is a graduate of the University of Texas, and was named a Distinguished Alumnus in 2006. She has served as a trustee of Mary Baldwin College, where she began her academic career. Ms. Hunt was named the first woman deacon of Highland Park Presbyterian Church, where she also chaired the Early Childhood Division. Madam Speaker, today it is my honor to recognize the achievements of Ms. Caroline Rose Hunt. She has demonstrated a level of commitment and accomplishment that is truly extraordinary, and deserves our sincere appreciation and respect. It is a privilege to represent Mrs. Hunt in the 26th District of Texas. I look forward to observing the positive impact she will continue to have on our communities.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of U.S.A. Olympic Team member Deron Michael Williams for his contribution to the U.S. men's basketball team in the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing, China. Deron Michael Williams was born on June 26, 1984 in Parkersburg, WV and later moved to Texas with his mother, who planted a love for basketball inside him. Deron's success began when he played as a point guard for the Colony High School Cougars. His passion for basketball paid off and he was recruited by the University of Illinois. Deron gained national attention when he helped get his team to the National Championships, and was named one of the Big Ten's Best Players. Deron was also awarded the position of third pick by the Utah Jazz in the NBA draft. His intensity and drive revitalized the Jazz and brought renewed energy to the team, and he was awarded the NBA Skills Champion title earlier this year. Deron's hard work led him to the U.S.A. Olympic Team, where he and his teammates brought home the gold. Deron's role on the U.S.A. Olympic Basketball Team helped bring positive attention to America, and with his team, helped contribute to the spirit of the Olympics. As a Member of Congress, I am proud to stand before you today and boast of the accomplishments of a man like Deron Williams, whose professional accomplishments began in my own district as the point guard for the Colony Cougars. Deron, thank you for your unselfish dedication both on and off the court and for your role in representing America.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Samuel Beck Elementary School in Northwest ISD. The school has been awarded a No Child Left Behind Blue Ribbon Award for 2008. This prestigious award honors schools that have shown remarkable gains in student achievement. Samuel Beck Elementary was one of only 18 public elementary schools in Texas and 320 schools across the nation to receive this great honor. The No Child Left Behind Blue Ribbon School award distinguishes and honors schools for helping students achieve at very high levels and for making significant progress in closing the achievement gap. The program honors public and private elementary and secondary schools that are either academically superior or that demonstrate dramatic gains in student achievement. . Samuel Beck Elementary School was selected for the achievement of having students score in the top 10 percent of the state on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills. The No Child Left Behind Act requires schools to make adequate yearly progress in reading and mathematics. The accomplishments of the staff, faculty, and students at Samuel Beck Elementary School have extended beyond test scores--they've learned the value of teamwork and they've shown how dedication and persistence can lead to success. I am proud to represent Samuel Beck Elementary School in the 26th District of Texas, and I wish them all the best in their future endeavors.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Taylor Park Church of the Nazarene on their centennial celebration. The church, located in Pilot Point, Texas will be celebrating at the very spot where the church was officially organized. Taylor Park Church of the Nazarene was founded in 1908 by a small group of worshippers, who at the time met in an abandoned grocery store. The Church of Nazarene has become one of the largest denominations in the world, with almost two million members. Through a commitment to ministry and mission work, the Church serves to enrich the community within its own congregation as well as the local community. The church has undergone numerous expansions, helping them grow to provide more resources for their community. Recently they acquired new property for an increase in classroom space and fellowship activities. Madam Speaker, today it is my honor to recognize the Taylor Park Church of Nazarene. They have demonstrated a level of commitment to community that is well appreciated, and serves as an example for us all. It is a privilege to represent Taylor Park Church in the 26th District of Texas. I look forward to observing the positive impact they will continue to have on our communities at home and abroad.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Matthew K. Rose, Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer of Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad. Rose is being honored as this year's Fort Worth Business Executive of the Year and will be inducted into the Fort Worth Business Hall of Fame. In June 1999, Rose became Chief Operating Officer of Burlington Northern Santa Fe where he was responsible for all operations and marketing activities. He quickly accrued accomplishments, being made President and Chief Executive Officer in December of 2000, and later being elected Chairman of Burlington Northern Santa Fe in March of 2002. In addition to leading the company to five consecutive years of recordsetting revenue earnings, Rose rebuilt flood-damaged rail lines ahead of schedule and won national recognition for this accomplishment. Rose's peers know him as not only a gifted businessman but also as a man with excellent leadership skills and a strong ability to work well with others. It is with great honor that I recognize Matthew Rose for his hard work and leadership given to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad. He sets a great example for us all, and I am proud to represent him in Washington.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I also come to the floor today to talk about this $700 billion bill that's in front of us. I use the term ``bill'' advisedly because we have seen no bill. We are here, debating talking points on, perhaps, what is the largest fundamental change in our Nation's financial system in its history. House Republicans have been cut out of the process. Not only have we been cut out of the process, but we've also been derided by the leadership of the Democratic Party, and have been called unpatriotic for not participating. Mr. Speaker, I have been thrown out of more meetings in this Capitol in the last 24 hours than I ever thought possible as a duly elected Representative of 820,000 citizens of North Texas. Politics is a full-contact sport, and I understand that, but it is a full-contact sport in the light of day, in the public arena. Since we didn't have hearings, since we didn't have markups, let's at least put this legislation up on the Internet for 24 hours. That's what Thomas was made for. Let's do that, and let the American people see what we have done in the dark of night. After all, I have not gotten any more mail, any more e-mails on any other subject than this one that is before us today. Mr. Speaker, I understand we're under martial law as declared by the Speaker last night. I think it's ironic that House Republicans have not been needed for a single thing in this House to ensure passage for the last 22 months and that, today, we're going to be asked to vote for a bill for political cover because Democrats are too weak to stand up to their Speaker.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Denton County Commissioner Cynthia White and her years of service to Denton County and the North Texas region. Cynthia White began her career in public service as a Constituent Liaison for U.S. Congressman Dick Armey. She then began a distinguished career in local government serving on the City of Lewisville Planning and Zoning Commission as well as the Board of Adjustment. In 1992 Commissioner White was elected to the LewisviIIe City Council where she served as Mayor Pro-Tem from 1994 to 1995. She was elected Commissioner in Denton County in 2000 where she has since worked hard for the people of Precinct 1 and beyond. Commissioner White has become known as a leader on transportation issues for her region. Her dedication has helped pave the way for numerous projects in Precinct 1 from safety improvements along Highway 377 to providing needed funding for FM 423 to partnering with local cities to secure funding for improvements on FM 2181. When the LewisviIIe Lake Bridge/FM 720 concept stalled, Commissioner White brought concerned parties back to the table to get the project moving again. Thanks to her efforts, that bridge is now being constructed and will soon help provide needed relief to traffic congestion. The Commissioner has served as the Chair of the Regional Transportation Council, a board member of the Dallas Regional Mobility Coalition, and has spoken on transportation to audiences throughout the state, including the Texas Senate. Commissioner White's public service goes far beyond government. She has volunteered with organizations such as the United Way, the Boys and Girls Club, the Denton Benefit League, the American Heart Association, and the Salvation Army of Denton Advisory Board. In addition to this, she remains an active member of her church, a certified personal trainer and promoter for health and fitness issues, and often performs as a musician in the community. It is with great honor that I recognize Commissioner Cynthia White for her years of hard work and dedication given to the citizens of Denton County and North Texas region. I am proud to represent her in Washington. Her service sets a standard of devotion and true leadership, one that will never be forgotten.