Michael Burgess

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the grand opening of the Mrs. Ella Mae Gratts Shamblee Library in the city of Fort Worth, Texas. On Friday, June 13, 2008, elected officials, clergy, historians, stakeholders, residents and visitors will gather to celebrate this opening and the library named in her honor. At a time when African-Americans were not allowed to sit in libraries or drink from ``public'' water fountains, Mrs. Shamblee, the city's first African-American librarian, interceded and acted as an agent of change by providing books to those who otherwise may not have been able to visit the city's library. Mrs. Shamblee repeatedly carried boxes of books and rode on streetcars and buses to deliver them to the African- American community of South Fort Worth. Through continued public service, Mrs. Shamblee became a pillar of the community and provided library services at establishments such as Stevens Grocery Store, a nursery school and the Federations Women's Club. Her enthusiasm in creating an atmosphere of education and knowledge resulted in her pioneering the library's bookmobile which was the forerunner of the city's branch libraries. The Shamblee Library will serve as an epitome of advancements made in providing access to information to all residents in the city of Fort Worth, and particularly the Evans/Rosedale and Terrell Heights neighborhoods. Incorporated into the design of the historic Tommy Tucker building, the Shamblee Library is the cornerstone of the Eva & Rosedale Business and Cultural District and an edifice to the long- anticipated Southeast Fort Worth renaissance. Today, I join with the entire city of Fort Worth community in recognizing the significance of this occasion and to pay tribute to the grand opening of the Ella Mae Gratts Shamblee Library.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to remember Hazel Harvey Peace and her extraordinary career in educating and enriching the lives of many African-American children and adults in Forth Worth, Texas. Born August 4, 1907, Ms. Peace served the African-American community for 46 years as teacher, debate team coach, counselor, Dean of Girls and Vice Principal of I.M. Terrell High School. After retiring from this historically recognized institution, she spent an additional 9 years as Coordinator of Financial Aid and was subsequently promoted to Director of Student Affairs at Bishop College in Dallas. She is credited with having increased recruitment efforts for scores of African-American students to colleges and universities around the country. In addition, Hazel Harvey Peace became the woman for whom the children's section of Fort Worth's main public library is named. Most recently, the University of North Texas honored her with the Hazel Harvey Peace Professorship. This professorship has the distinction as the first such honor to be named for an African-American woman at a 4- year, State-funded institution in Texas. Ms. Peace passed away Sunday, June 8, 2008, at the age of 100 years and leaves generations of students who will gather to celebrate her life and legacy. She will always be remembered as an educator who had a passion to inspire and a zest to mentor students through her dedication to education. Her life-long commitment and impact has touched thousands across the State of Texas as well as those across this vast Nation. We are truly indebted to her legacy.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Denton City Attorney Ed Snyder and his years of dedication and service to Denton, Texas. Ed has been with the City of Denton for 8 1/2 years and will retire June 30, 2008. After 31 years of practicing law, Ed has decided to pursue his dream to be a coach and will begin a new career as a teacher and coach. Ed began his career in Denton in October 1999 as Deputy City Attorney. In 2005 the Denton City Council appointed him City Attorney. Under his leadership, Denton was able to accomplish many goals, including the adoption and implementation of a new comprehensive plan and development code. Prior to working in Denton Ed was in private practice from 1977 to 1982, then Assistant City Attorney for Temple, Texas from 1982 to 1983. From 1983 to 1997 Ed served as First Assistant City Attorney for Plano, and returned to private practice from 1997 to 1999 before joining the City of Denton. Ed holds a Bachelor of Science in Education degree from Central Michigan University, and a Juris Doctor degree from the University of San Diego School of Law. Ed is a member of the State Bar of Texas and State Bar of Michigan. He has practiced before the United States District Court and is a member of the Denton County Bar Association. In the summer of 1999 Ed was published in The Urban Lawyer for his article: A Condemnation Case from the Condemnor's Perspective. In 2001 Ed was awarded the prestigious Galen Sparks Texas Assistant City Attorney of the Year Award, given by the Texas City Attorneys Association. Madam Speaker, it is with great honor that I rise today and recognize Ed Snyder for his years of hard work and dedication to the citizens of Denton County and the state of Texas. I am proud to represent him in the United States Congress. His service has set a standard of devotion and true leadership--one that will never be forgotten.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, this Congress has placed a significant burden on American families. Now they are having to decide whether to buy food or gasoline. The price of both has increased significantly in the past 6 months. Now back in my district they are having to defend themselves from opportunistic, gas-grabbing criminals. Thieves are actually posting Internet videos discussing how to steal gas from cars. The kind of information that used to be shared in the prison yard has made its way into the ``broadcast yourself'' genre of Web sites. It is shocking, but it is not really surprising, because we have ignored the issue of providing a supply of energy in this country. Americans may have given up on waiting for the majority party to ease the pain at the pump, so Americans may just file this under ``desperate times call for desperate measures.'' The Speaker may be able to ignore the Members who have asked for something to be done to address gas prices, primarily on the supply side. Eventually the consequences of the blatant disregard for rising prices is going to come home. Let's hope, let's hope, that this Speaker, this majority party, will take action before our families get robbed by thieves in the middle of the night.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the outstanding accomplishments of our leading Texas hospitals. Texas Children's Hospital in Houston, Children's Medical Center in Dallas, Children's Cancer Hospital at M.D. Anderson in Houston, and Cook Children's Medical Center in Fort Worth were recently recognized as among our nation's top hospitals by U.S. News and World Report. Texas Children's Hospital in Houston was ranked sixth in the country in general pediatrics, third in heart surgery, and in the top five of several other specialties. Cook Children's Medical Center in Fort Worth was ranked 29th nationwide for its respiratory disorders specialty. Children's Medical Center in Dallas was ranked 15th among cancer specialties, and ranked in the Top 30 on four other categories as well, including General Pediatrics and Digestive Disorders. Children's Cancer Hospital at M.D. Anderson in Houston was ranked 21st among cancer specialties. The U.S. News rankings were based on surveys of pediatricians, outcome of patient care including surgeries, and care-related measures including nurse staffing, availability of important technologies, and patient volume. As a physician, it is inspiring to see that the medical profession, and specifically the hospitals and doctors serving Texas, are so adamantly dedicated to their service and are able to provide such exceptional care to our nation's children. Health care affects every facet of our lives, and America's devotion to innovation and advancements in medicine is vital in maintaining our position as having the best health care system in the world. Madam Speaker, it is with honor today that I rise and extend my sincerest congratulations to these outstanding children's hospitals in Texas. It is my hope that they will continue to lead the way in pediatric care, maintaining the discipline, focus, and compassion that has earned them their reputations for excellence.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the outstanding accomplishments of Nortex Modular Space of Lewisville, Texas, an exemplary organization in North Texas that is celebrating its 10th Anniversary. Nortex Modular Space is a small business manufacturer with 95 employees based in Lewisville, and it is the leading manufacturer of durable and energy efficient mobile and modular office and classroom buildings. Jim and Sherry Stewart started Nortex Modular Space in Highland Village in 1998 and have a lease fleet of over 700 mobile office and mobile classroom units The company specializes in the sale, lease, rental, repair and renovation of modular and portable buildings, mobile office trailers, portable classroom buildings, re-locatable buildings, modular church buildings, GSA modular buildings, temporary offices, classrooms, as well as medical and special use buildings to government and private industry. Nortex Modular Space has clients all around the country and even overseas. Customers include the U.S. Department of the Interior, the U.S. Secret Service, the City of Dallas, the U.S. Army, the Texas Department of Transportation, the University of Texas at Arlington and the University of North Texas. In 2005, Nortex Modular Space was recognized by DiversityBusiness.com, the nation's leading multicultural internet site, as one of the Top 100 Small Businesses in Texas. Small businesses form the backbone of the American economy, which is the strongest in the world. They account for half of gross domestic product, more than half of American jobs, and three-fourths of new jobs created each year. Madam Speaker, it is with great honor that I rise today to recognize Nortex Modular Space and celebrate its 10-year anniversary. This excellent company has served North Texans for 10 good years, and I am certain they will continue their good work for many more years to come.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I came to the floor of the House tonight to talk, as I frequently do, about the state of health care in this country and some things that may be on the cusp of change and some things that will never change. But I want to start off tonight by talking about what is going to happen to physicians across this country on July 1st, less than a month from now, as far as their Medicare reimbursements. Now, you may recall I was on the floor of the House last December talking about the need for addressing the reduction of reimbursement rates for physicians across the country. The best we could come up with on the floor of this House was to stall that 10.7 percent reduction in reimbursement for Medicare patients. The best we could come up with was to stall that for 6 months' time. We told ourselves at the time that this gives us a little more time that we can work on a solution that is more meaningful. We want to work on a bigger and grander solution. But, Mr. Speaker, what has happened? The days and months have ticked by, and now we are less than 4 weeks away from that day when physicians will wake up and find that their reimbursement for seeing a Medicare patient is now 10.9 percent less than it was the day before. Is this really a big deal? Well, yeah, it is a big deal, because everywhere across the country currently new Medicare patients call up physicians' offices trying to be seen and they find the same situation over and over again. They can barely get the word ``Medicare'' out of their mouths before they are told by that physician's office that we are not taking any new Medicare patients. And why? Why is that happening? Because of the activities, or, in this case, the inactivity of the United States Congress, of the United States House of Representatives. It is imperative, it is imperative that we address this issue. It is imperative that we address it in a forward-thinking way so that we solve the problem once and for all and we don't have to come back here year after year and face the same problem over and over again, or, as is the case this year, every 6 months and face the problem over and over again. I have advocated for such a fix many different times on the floor of this House. It has been very difficult to get colleagues on both sides of the aisle to embrace this concept and understand that we must move forward from where we are now. We need a short-term, midterm and long- term solution to this problem. What have we done? Again, we find ourselves just about to go over the cliff, just about to fall over the precipice, where once again we tell the Medicare patients of this country that we don't care about them. We tell the physicians who are seeing Medicare patients in this country that we don't value your service and we are going to hit you with a 10.7 percent cut. And that is not the end of it. December 31st, there will be another 5 percent reduction, so a grand total of 15 percent in reduction of Medicare reimbursement before we reach the end of this year. Mr. Speaker, can you imagine any other business going into their banker and saying, you know what? I have got a great business plan here. I am going to start a business, or expand my business, because, after all, a physician's office is a small business. I am going to go into business or expand my business, and here is my business plan. And the banker looks at it and says, I see it says here you are going to earn 15 percent less this year than you are earning next year on each patient interaction. How in the world could you expect to be able to maintain your business with this type of business plan? Reality is this type of business plan would not fly anywhere in this country, and yet we are asking over and over again our doctors, our clinics, our health care providers to live under this regimen. Now, when I address the need for a short-term, mid-term, and long- term solution, let me just lay out for you what I have in mind. The short-term solution is available to us right now. We could delay these cuts to the Medicare reimbursement rate. We could do that by passage of a simple measure that was introduced the last week of May, H.R. 6129. This is a bill that is fully paid for, fully paid for and would forestall the 10.7 percent cut July 1, and the 5 percent cut December 31, to February 1. That is not a great length of time, but it allows us a little more time to work on this problem, actually gets us past the first of the year so that we get to the organization of a new Congress. And maybe, if we did our homework and did our legislative work before we all went home and campaigned for reelection, maybe if we did that work in July and August and September of this year, we could actually have ready to go a package for the new Congress to pass shortly after the first of the year that would deal with this problem. But it is a paid for solution. It doesn't expand the deficit. It actually uses the same mechanism that was used by the Medicaid moratorium that we all passed. I think there were 300 favorable votes for that Medicaid moratorium on the floor of the House a few weeks ago. This is the same mechanism of taking the money out of the physicians assistance quality initiative to pay for this fix on the physicians payment. It would not expand the deficit, and it would get us passed the first of the year. The cuts that are looming ahead of us under a formula called the sustainable growth rate formula are going to be significantly pernicious, not just to keep our doctors in business, but to keep our doctors seeing our patients, our Medicaid patients, arguably some of the most complex patients there will be in any medical practice because they have multiple simultaneous conditions. We are going to prevent those patients from having access to a physician because we are telling the doctors that we don't value their service, and we are telling the patients that we don't value their ability to have access to their doctors who prescribe their treatments, who offer those treatments that are going to keep them living longer and healthier lives. And there is an unintended consequence to this as well. The unintended consequence is that many of the private insurance companies across the country actually peg their rates to what Medicare reimburses. So they have a contract that says we will pay, in the case of TRICARE, 85 percent of the Medicare usual and customary. In the case of some of the other private insurers, it is a little more generous, they pay 110 percent or 115 percent of Medicare rates. But all of those rates are going to be reduced when Medicare rates in turn are reduced if we don't act by the first of July. And actually, the way things work in Washington, if we don't have something pretty concrete on the table by the middle of June, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services is going to be required to go ahead and put forward their rules and regulations for when this new fee schedule goes into effect July 1. And make no mistake about it. We can tell ourselves that, oh, we will have time to come back in July and fix this and we will make it retroactive. But we don't make it retroactive for the private insurers who peg to Medicare. And the reality is we are talking about such small volumes on every explanation of benefits that comes through the physician's office that it becomes extremely tedious and time consuming and expensive to track all of these and make certain that the government makes good on its promise and comes back and delivers that. And how do I know this? I know this because when our side was in charge with the passage of the Deficit Reduction Act right at the end of 2005, because of a technical problem we didn't get actually the bill passed until the first part of January of 2006, and as a consequence the language in the Deficit Reduction Act that would have prevented a programmed reduction in Medicare reimbursement rates, that did not go into effect until well into the month of January 2006. And, again, we had to come back and retroactively make all of these practices whole. And just as a practical matter it becomes very, very difficult for the doctor's office to keep track of that and make certain that in fact those reimbursements were brought up to speed. The other aspect of this, the mid-term and the long-term aspect, and I have advocated for this for some time. We need to pass legislation that will put us on a path to repeal the sustainable growth rate formula. This is a formula that year over year reduces the rate at which physicians are reimbursed. The reality is Congress almost never sees that through. We always come in and do something to keep our doctors from having to sustain those large cuts in their practice. But every year we come up against this precipice, we come up against this cliff, and every year the doctors' offices are having to make plans for their future. Do they buy new equipment? Do they hire a new partner? Do they bring on additional personnel? Well, they can't tell because they don't know what we are going to do to them in Medicare at the end of the year or, in this case, in the middle of the year. So we need a method of repealing the sustainable growth rate formula. We have all discussed this. The cost associated with the repeal of that from the Congressional Budget Office is high. So what I have recommended in the past is we put ourselves on a path; we put ourselves on a trajectory to repeal this formula, do it over a couple year's time, get some savings in the meantime to offset that cost. And we all know that those savings are built into the system and they are accruing every day. But rather than having those savings go to part A of Medicare, let's hold them in part B and reduce the cost of repealing the sustainable growth rate formula. And then ultimately, in 2 years' time or so, repeal the SGR formula once and for all and put the Nation's physicians on what is called the Medicare Economic Index. This is not a formula that I derived; it was created by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, the MedPAC Commission several years ago, and it is essentially a cost of living adjustment, the same cost of living adjustment that hospitals receive, the same update that insurance companies receive, the same update that drug companies receive. Let's put part B, the physician's part of Medicare, on that same level playing field with the other participants in part A, part C, and part D of Medicare. So I did want to get that out there. I encourage my colleagues to look at H.R. 6129. This is an important piece of legislation. It is a rope to throw to the Nation's physicians and patients that are already on their way over the cliff. It is a cliff that we created for them. We gave them the push over the edge. The least we can do at this point is to offer them a little bit of help so that they don't come crashing down at the bottom of that cliff. Now, the reality is this is only for 7 months' time. This does not take any of the heat off of any of us, that we still need to work on that long-term solution. I actually offered this particular bill as an amendment to the Medicaid moratorium a few weeks ago in committee, and I was told, oh, no, no, no, we can't do that; because if we do that, then the people who might be working on solving this problem will know that the pressure is off and they don't have to work on it. I beg to differ. The pressure will still be on. The mid-term and long-term solutions still are out there to be had, and it will be incumbent upon this Congress, particularly here we are going into an election year, Do you want to go home and talk to your doctor groups around in your district and say: You know what? We just didn't think we had the time to fix this problem that you all are up against, so shortly after I am sworn in next year you will be looking at a 15 percent reduction in your payment rates. And, do you really want to go home and talk to your patients, who already call up their physician's office and say, I am sorry, I am not taking any new Medicare patients; do you really want to go home and face those patients in your town halls when they find out that you didn't lift a finger, you didn't lift a finger to keep this from happening when we all knew it was coming? We knew it was coming last December, and the best we could do was 6 months is the best we can manage. We knew it was coming all spring. We know it is coming now. Let's fix this. This short-term solution is paid for. It is not going to expand the deficit. No tax increase has to result. It is there. The money is there. We took the money from the same place that the other side took the money for the Medicaid moratorium. Let's take that money and fix this problem short term, and then get on about fixing it long term. Mr. Speaker, the real reason I came to floor tonight until this other problem took precedence was to talk a little bit about an event we had up here on Capitol Hill about 2 months ago now, and it was done to capture some of the successes that are happening out there in the real world as far as it relates to delivery of health care in this country. This was a symposium that was held on April 8 of this year, was done in conjunction with the Center for Health Transformation. Many people will recognize that organization. This is the organization that was founded and is still run by the former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich. He was very kind and generous with his time that day and came to this meeting over in the Rayburn Building, and we talked a little bit about some of the things that are working out there in the real world. Because, after all, Mr. Speaker, do we really want to give up a measure of our freedom in this country? And that is what it would entail if we go to a much more restrictive type of delivery of health care in this country. Freedom is the foundation of life in America, and unlimited options, unlimited opportunities are something every single one of us on both sides of the aisle takes for granted and will embrace when we give our talks at home, whether it be on Memorial Day or Independence Day. We like to talk about how the freedom of America makes us the greatest country on earth. Freedom is transformative. Freedom is the basis for what we should be doing when we look at how we can transform the Nation's health care system. And innovation goes hand in hand with those choices. Come to think of it, Mr. Speaker, when I was a youngster in medical school many, many years ago, I would have never thought we would have seen the day where you could go on the Internet, just an average person, you don't need a doctor's order, you don't need a ton of money; you can go on the Internet and get your human genome sequenced for you individually for less than $1,000. Never when I was in medical school would I have thought you would be able to go on the Internet and get such information. In fact, I wouldn't have known what the Internet was when I was medical school because Al Gore hadn't invented it then. At the same time, today you can go and get that information. We are putting that information in the hands of patients, which then they are going and sharing with their physicians. And this is powerful information for the individual to have. The New York Times in October of 2006 published a piece by Tyler Cohen when he talked about the ability to innovate and how it has made American medicine really the envy of the world. Seventeen of the last 25 Nobel Prizes have gone to American scientists working in American labs, and four of the six most important breakthroughs in the last 25 years have occurred because of the research of American scientists, things like the CAT scan, coronary artery bypass, statins for reduction of cholesterol. In fact, the National Institutes of Health will tell you statistics that 800,000 premature deaths from heart disease have been prevented in the last 25 years because of innovation that has in part been developed by the National Institutes of Health and then part developed by the private sector in this country. So it is truly a good news story, and the reality is America is not done. We are not done with the advancements in medicine. The next generation of breakthroughs, I already alluded to what is happening with the human genome. Look at the speed with which information is now processed and transferred and disseminated. Who would have ever thought that we would be in this phase of rapid learning in which we find ourselves currently. This is truly likely to be the golden age of medical discovery. And the breakthroughs that occur have been a result of the environment that has fostered and encouraged competition and choice. It doesn't mean we can't make a good thing better. It doesn't mean that everything about our system is perfect. But certainly, when we look at ways in which we might change the system, for heaven's sake, let's not do things that will harm the innovation that our system has brought us. American ingenuity prospers when we strive to be transformational. The reason we can be transformational is because of the degree of freedom we have. Remember, freedom is transformational. So when we are advancing toward a goal and we are not focused on the transaction like we do with our Medicare reimbursement; when we are focused on the goal of being transformational, that is when good things can happen. But the present debate in Washington is focused on dollars and cents, and we are not focused on the transformational. We are not even looking at ways where we can fundamentally enhance the interaction that occurs between the doctor and the patient in the treatment room. We are simply looking at ways of moving dollars around on a balance sheet, and we do that and we think we have done a good job. And, again, I reference what has happened with the Medicare physician reimbursement rates that are going to go down so much in just a few weeks. Mr. Speaker, I am one of the few policymakers on Capitol Hill that has also spent a lifetime in health care. For 25 years before I came to Congress, I had my own practice. I have sat in exam rooms with patients, I have looked them in the eye, I have taken a prescription for them and counseled them as to risks and benefits and costs and written a prescription. I figured out how to build my business, how to expand my business. I figured out how to build my business in lean economic times back in the 1980s in Texas. I figured out how to expand my business in good economic times in the 1990s in Texas. I figured out ways to pay my employees and keep the lights on. But, again, if we don't have a commonsense approach to these health care issues, our solutions are going to be far short of the mark. This experience gives me the practical knowledge to play some role in the development of this policy. I think this comes in handy because, as we change health care in this country, we want to be certain that we do it in a way that allows health care to still be delivered in this country. And there's widespread recognition that things need to change. There's different ideas as to how to accomplish it. The good news is that, regardless of what happens tonight, there is going to be a fundamental referendum on health care in this country come November, because whoever prevails on the Democratic side, of course Senator McCain on the Republican side, the views are distinct from each other, and it is going to give the American people a clear choice about the direction to go in health care. One is focused on more government control, and one is focused on more patient control. I'll give you a guess as to which side that I would come down on. And again, policymakers are focused on change, and the people who care for patients, the people who are involved in their practices, they need to be involved in this discussion as well because, in truth, health care begins and ends partly with patients, but truly with the people who are involved in the delivery of that health care, and specifically I reference physicians and nurses, hospital administrators and other health care personnel will figure into that equation. But those are the individuals who have to be involved in this grand national debate we're going to have about health care transformation in this country over the next 5 months. And many of my friends who are health care professionals don't realize the critical role that they must play in shaping the health care debate. They must be active, they must be engaged, or otherwise you're going to be forced to sit on the sidelines and play by the rules that other people are going to make for you. And again, I reference the earlier part of my discussion. You see, the rules that we'll come up with here in Washington, DC , those rules are, let's take 10.7 percent away from our doctors this month, and in 6 months let's take another 5 percent away from them, and then we'll figure something out in the meantime. Well, I will just tell my friends who are involved with the delivery of health care, whether it's in Washington, whether it's at home in Texas, you need to be involved. You've got to act before all you can do is react. And if health care professionals don't lead, then we'll have to accept what the health care prescription is that is given to us by the people who sit in this body, the people who sit on the other side of the Capitol, whoever sits in the White House. It doesn't make sense to have a body that is what, two-thirds lawyers, making all of the decisions about how the doctors are going to practice in this country. One of the possible prescriptions that's out there, one of the things that I find very problematic is expanding the government role for health care. Mr. Speaker, if I were to pose a hypothetical question, what is the largest single payer government health care system in the world? Well, you know what? It's right here in the United States of America. Our Medicare and Medicaid and all of the other systems that are involved and administered by the Department of Health and Human Services accounts for pretty much 50 cents out of every health care dollar that is spent in this country. That means 50 cents out of every health care dollar that's spent in this country originates right here on the floor of the House of Representatives. And I would just ask you, are we doing such a great job? I reference my earlier remarks about what's happening to the Medicare system if we don't do something within the next 4 weeks. Are we doing a great job with what we control currently? Now, the government can play a role by encouraging coverage and maybe help incentivizing and encouraging the creation of programs that people actually want. Rather than forcing them into a government-prescribed program, what if we build something that actually brings value to people's lives and offer that as an alternative as we try to expand access to health care and health care coverage in this country. And the good news is we actually have a model within the very recent past that has worked, and worked very well, and that is the Medicare Part D program which began in this Congress my first year here in 2003, and rolled out on January 1, 2006. And as a consequence, now, 90 percent of the seniors in this country have some type of coverage for their prescriptions. Contrast that to when I took office and that number was somewhat below 60 percent. So that has been a good thing. It has moved in a positive direction. Well, what do people think about this program that has now been in effect for a couple of years? Well, current polling shows about a 90 percent satisfaction rate with Medicare Part D. So that's a good news story. We've got 90 percent of the people covered. We've got 90 percent positive ratings with various polls. Well, what about the cost? We heard a lot about the cost on the floor of this House as we debated that bill and in the aftermath after that bill was passed, but the reality is when we passed that bill in the House, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services projected the cost per enrollee per month to be about $37.50. The reality is, the cost currently is about $24.50, and it has been stable over the time that this program has been in effect. So here's a Federal program that, yeah, it has been a joint public/ private partnership, but 90 percent coverage, 90 percent acceptance rate, and came in at a cost two-thirds of what was originally projected. I would say, from the limited time I've had here in Washington, that's the definition of a success story with a Federal program. So 29 people are enrolled as of 2007, and the average cost is less than $24 a month. The first Federal program to rein runaway medical spending by restoring savings incentives and leveraging the power of that public private competition. So overall, some of the best things that government can do is, when they recognize that there's a problem in say the delivery of health care or even in arenas such as health care information technology, we can kind of set the stage and tell people what our expectations are, and then get out of the way. Don't put a lot of regulation. Don't put new causes for liability out there. Get out of the way, and let the private sector do what they do best, what they do every day of the week. If we can do that by creating the right environment to let the private sector deliver the kind of innovation, the kind of cost savings and the type of quality that realistically has been delivered to other industries over and over and over again, if we can do that then maybe we have done something worthwhile. You know, these are the same market forces that took us from a single black rotary telephone to these fancy electronic devices that all of us carry with us 24 hours a day now. We cannot imagine being without our iPods and iPhones and BlackBerrys. But it wasn't too many years ago, in fact, the year I started in private practice where it was a single line black rotary telephone, and we thought it was the height of high technology when we got those little push buttons on our phone. Look at the change that's happened in aviation in literally what has been now the first century of aviation, going from the type of plane that the Wright brothers flew to the Boeing 787 dream liner that is coming on-line now. We have seen fantastic change. I already mentioned the inventor of the Internet, and in the short period of time, we've come to the age that's brought us things like iTunes and YouTube, things that most of us now would find indispensable. If someone said we're going to take this away from you, we'd say that's not a good idea. We'd rather the government wouldn't do that. But here's the secret. Here's the deal. The free market is delivering this same kind of value every day, day in, day out. Innovation and efficiency are hallmarks of what they're able to do. So why not? Why not allow them to participate in this grand plan that we call transformation of the Nation's health care system? I've experienced it, and I'm excited about experiencing more of it and learning more about it, both as a legislator and as a professional in medicine. But I just have to tell you, this past fall, Health Affairs did a symposium in downtown Washington, and I went to that symposium. I largely went because Dr. Mark McClellan was going to talk about his experiences with the Medicare program, Medicare Part D Program. Dr. Elias Zerhouni was going to talk about his experience with the National Institute of Health. But I had really no intention of sitting and listening to Ron Williams talk about--the new CEO of Aetna talk about what was happening within Aetna because I thought, well, Aetna's one of those private insurers who really, as a provider, we've oftentimes been at odds. But I listened to Dr. Zerhouni and I listened to Dr. McClellan. But it was Ron Williams who really talked about the biggest changes that are coming in medicine, particularly in the arena of health information technology, and the things that he was talking about were truly transformative. So my question to him later was to ask why is--what would you require, what is the environment that you require to be able to do these great things that you're talking about? And he outlined perhaps a program where there would be some certainty as to what the privacy regulations are. We all talk about privacy in this body. We're going to have a hearing about it tomorrow. But does anybody really understand what we mean when we say we want some privacy provisions? What about the STAR clause that prevents a hospital from putting a computer line in a doctor's office? Is that really a good idea as we go forward with wanting to develop more and better situations where we can have advancement in health information technology? Is that truly such a good idea? Maybe we would do better if we relaxed some of the regulations, if we provided some certainty in the areas of liability, provided some certainty in the area in the definition of things like privacy, maybe that would be a better way to go about it. During that discussion with the CEO of a large insurance company, he talked about things, about the different algorithms they've developed purely from using financial data, no clinical data involved, but the types of anticipation that they could now have about very expensive diseases that they might have to pay for and the clues they could get very early on in the process of this, and how they might be able to moderate or modify activities so that they didn't have to pay for that very expensive care at the end stage of the disease, they could actually work on that at an earlier stage and not only prevent the large expenditure for the more expensive disease, but also improve the quality of life because, after all, we're increasing the amount of time that a person has in a state of relative good health. Another company that I talked to recently talked about a new test they're going to have for a disease called preeclampsia, pregnancy- induced hypertension. When I was in practice, and even just a few years ago, if you saw a patient where you were worried that this might be happening, about the only option you have was to put the patient in the hospital and observe them over time and see whether this was a real phenomenon or just a one-time event. But the price you paid for being wrong was severe, and certainly could result in severe injury to the patient and/or her baby. So we always erred on the side of caution with that. But now there may be a new blood test that will elucidate very quickly whether someone is truly at risk for this problem, or if perhaps this one indication of elevated blood pressure was just an outlier, and, in fact, they aren't truly at risk for this problem. This would be a tremendous tool to put in the hands of clinicians. And look at the savings, not just in eliminating some of the unnecessary hospitalizations, but making certain that the people who really need the intensive care get that intensive care and get the intensive observation and scrutiny that their particular situation demands. And a recent study out of Dartmouth outlined how hospitals can deliver better care and do a better job at a lower cost by embracing some measures of efficiency. This study demonstrated that Medicare could save as much as $10 billion a year if all United States hospitals followed the example of the most efficient hospitals. These facilities didn't cut costs at the expense of patient care, but focused on better coordination of care and better avenues of communication between doctors and specialists and better avenues of communications between hospitals. Now, again, earlier in the month of April I was fortunate to co-host a panel with former Speaker Newt Gingrich which focused on some of the real world examples of success in health care transformation. And Mr. Speaker, I'll just tell you, it's no secret to people in this body that former Speaker Gingrich is a real leader when it comes to leading the charge for change in the arena of health care. He's involved in a great many other things, but certainly, in the arena of change in health care, former Speaker Gingrich has really pushed this to the forefront, and has really--I am so grateful for his involvement in that, and his bringing new ideas and new people to the table on a constant basis that help us, are going to help us evolve into this system that we all would like to think that we can help deliver to our country. Now, he brought in several companies that demonstrated how free market choice and competition can lead to more options at a lower cost, when it comes to health care. And let me just share a little bit about what we learned that day. Since there weren't many Members who were able to attend, let's talk a little bit about some of the companies that are relying on innovation to save lives and save money and to actually save time in the process. Overall, there was agreement that we can get better results with what--we don't have to pay more money. With the money that we're paying right now, we can get better results by actually engaging patients in their own care. And you know, this goes back to what Dr. Zerhouni has talked about at the National Institute of Health. Because of what we've learned about the human genome, medical care is going to be personalized to a level that no one ever thought about before. You're going to be able to know, no longer will it be a course, a question of, well, we're going to try this particular medication because we'll see how it works. If it doesn't work, we've got an alternate. You will actually know that beforehand because of knowing about a person's genetic makeup. So medicine will become a great deal more personalized. Because of that, it's going to be also, it's going to be, of necessity, focused on prevention. We know what diseases you're at risk for so we're going to recognize that and focus on the preventive aspects of that. And as a consequence, it has to become more participatory. That is, the patient can no longer simply be a passive recipient of health care services and the expense of health care doctors. The patients themselves need to be involved in the maintenance of their health and the decisions surrounding the delivery of health care. Now, in industry circles, this is what is known as consumer-directed health care, consumer-driven health care. The goal of consumer-directed health care is to kind of eliminate the middleman, in our case the government, or it could be the insurer in the private sector who tries to find their way in as a wedge. Remember I talked about that fundamental interaction between the doctor and patient in the treatment room? What of the barriers to enhancing that relationship? Well, it can be the government, it could even be a private insurance company. If we can somehow remove the middleman, number one, the patient will not be so insensitive, so anesthetized as to the cost of their care; and they will be more in tune to the benefits that can accrue to them should they work harder on participating in their own health care. If people are anesthetized, Mr. Speaker, they're anesthetized to the true cost of health care. All they want to know is when and if they can see their doctor and what their co-pay will be and if you order expensive tests, like a CAT scan or an MRI, the only question is is it covered; not is it necessary, is it truly something I need, how is this truly going to benefit my care in the future. It's, well, will insurance pay for it, and if it does, do I have to pay a co-pay. Now, I know from personal experience, and certainly my staff has told me this as well, you know, you receive one of those forms. It's called an EOB, explanation of benefits. You receive one of those from the insurance companies. Most people toss it. It's so confusing. It really has no bearing on reality anyway. It doesn't have anything to do with the ultimate cost or the ultimate bill that was paid either by the insurance company or the individual so most people just simply pay no attention to that; and yet this is the one piece of paper that actually tells the patient what it costs to deliver the care that they have just received. So that means they're consuming health care services but they're not conscious of the costs. So there's little incentive on their part to modify their behavior to do things better next time, to be active participants in their own health care. So consumer-directed health care says if people aren't anesthetized, if people are fully awake and fully conscious, they're more likely to make sound and wise decisions about their lifestyle and about maintaining their own health. Now, there was a McKenzie study that found that consumer-directed health care patients were twice as likely as patients in traditional plans to ask about costs and three times as likely to choose a less expensive treatment option, and chronic patients were 20 percent more likely to follow their outlined regimen very carefully. Now critics argue that consumer-directed health care will cause consumers, particularly those who might be less wealthy or less well- educated, to avoid appropriate and needed health care because of the cost burden and the inability, the inability to make informed and appropriate choices. Now, one of the companies that was at the panel we did in April had data that actually contradicted that criticism. The Midwestern Health Care Company introduced a consumer-directed health plan to its 8,600 employees. They also left their traditional PPO, their regular insurance, in place. In the first year, 79 percent of employees chose one of four consumer-directed health plans. These health plans had several important features, but two of those were preventive care was free and employees received financial incentive to change behaviors like smoking and weight control. In addition, they also received some incentive to manage chronic conditions like asthma and diabetes, that is, see their physicians at the prescribed time, take the prescribed medicines according to the directions and do the appropriate follow-ups. So this has been in place for a couple of years. Do we have any statistics, are there any metrics that would indicate an overall direction of improvement? And in fact, 7 percent of health care dollars were spent on prevention compared to a national average of a little less than 2\1/2\. So that's a significant increase. And nearly 40 percent of the employees now take an annual personal health risk assessment and earn $100. Nearly 500 employees have quit smoking, and as a group, that 8,600 employees have lost 13,000 pounds through weight-management programs. From a cost standpoint has there been a difference? And the answer is yes. The average claim increase of 5.1 percent in the past 2 years compared with those who are in traditional PPO-type insurance where the claims increased 8 percent. So a 3 percent reduction for an increase in claims activity for people who were taking a more active role in the involvement of their own health care. This company has a lot of impressive data. Policymakers can, in fact, learn from the example that was brought to us that day. And we can learn from some of the other companies as well. One of the largest for-profit health insurance companies featured on the panel described their incentive-based health benefit design. Now, they have a plan that is a high-deductible plan. It's a $5,000 deductible for a family. I don't think anyone would argue that that's a fairly high deductible for a family to have to face if they have an illness. But the good news is that family, with that $5,000 deductible, and of course they get a break on their premium with such a high- deductible plan, their premium costs less than some of the other plans. So they do save money on the premium. But also if they're willing to participate in some things like weight control, smoking cessation, cholesterol screening, exercise management, if they're willing to participate in those, they can reduce that $5,000 deductible in $1,000 increments down to a $1,000 deductible with no increase in their premium. So they still have the very low premium associated with a $5,000 deductible plan, but now they've reduced their deductible to $1,000 for that family, which is a much more manageable figure. And how did that they do that? Because they voluntarily enrolled in a smoking cessation plan, they voluntarily enrolled in a plan to measure cholesterol, and because they voluntarily enrolled in a plan to actively manage their weight and increase their exercise. So positive things that the individuals can do themselves that result in an actual benefit as far as the insurance expenditure is concerned. Now, there were also some very positive results from some of the other consumer-directed health care options. 88 percent of health savings account holders carried a balance from 2006 into 2007. That means they didn't spend all of their money that was set aside for health care expenditures, and they were actually able to carry that forward into the next year. And you can imagine doing that year over year over year along with the miracle of compound interest, as long as you start young, that can be a powerful way to put some savings in place for payment for health care later on. I actually say this from personal experience. I was one of the first people to get a medical savings account. This Congress, under the leadership of former chairman Bill Archer of the Ways and Means Committee, passed a medical savings account bill in 1996. In 1997, I signed up for one. I had it until I came to Congress at the beginning of 2003, and that money now sits there and grows year in and year out and is a substantial amount of money that is now available for treating health-related conditions well into the future. That is a powerful tool to put in the hands of someone. And the actuality is the earlier you start, the more powerful is that concept. So 88 percent of health savings account holders had a carryover balance from 2006 to 2007. And the average balance among people who were judged to be of low income was almost $600, $597 on average. So that's not insignificant. Now, how many Americans are encouraged to live healthier lives and to conserve their health benefits like these individuals that we've just described? People that are making personal decisions about prevention and lifestyle and managing chronic conditions and cost. Most people with other private health insurance are not because there is no reason for them to. They just simply pay their insurance premium every month. They hope that they don't have to use it. They hope that their health is not threatened and they have to rely on this insurance company, and if they do, they hope that they will in fact be covered when that illness strikes. In fact, Mr. Speaker, within my own family, I have a youngster who teaches school. He teaches middle school there in Denton, Texas. Once I said, You know, you have gotten to an age where you need to think about preventative health care. You need to think about going to see the doctor once a year for a physical and having some lab work done and having a few things checked. He said, I don't need to do that. I thought he was going to tell me because he was young and indestructible. He said, I don't have to do that because they came to our school and did a bunch of blood tests and told me I was fine. I said, What do you mean they came to your school and did a bunch of blood tests? He said, Yeah. If we went out and had the nurse draw our blood, they would actually give us $20 a month off of our health insurance premium, and I did the math. That's $240 a year. I'll take that in exchange for having a little blood work done. How forward-thinking for this independent school district to provide that type of service. That way if someone in fact does have an elevated cholesterol but it's entirely silent and they have no idea that they have it, that person can be identified and have some treatment started that will prevent the problem down the road. And in fact if there are no problems, then the school district also benefits because they know they have a very healthy workforce, and they are very fortunate to have a very healthy workforce working for them. But the closet diabetic, the person with high cholesterol that is otherwise not known, the person with other medical conditions that is otherwise not known, the person with even illnesses that would lead to electrolyte imbalances may be discovered by those types of screening tests. So this, all in all, is a good thing and a way for, yes, the independent school district to save money on some of those higher dollars, just like the CEO at Aetna described, being able to save money on those higher-dollar diagnoses by paying a little bit of money on the front end to, in this case, to elucidate those conditions, and then if they are found, to encourage that person to perhaps seek some treatment for that. So there is, of course, a quote that we're all familiar with about the fundamentals of learning being reading, writing, and arithmetic. Perhaps for Congress our fundamentals for health care should be risk, responsibilities, and rewards. And if we will focus on those--after all, on both sides of the aisle, who can be opposed to more care, lower cost, better quality? I mean, how can you be opposed to those three things? That's what we all talk about in all of these lofty terms about what we're all for. Well, let's be for that. Let's be for that and ensure that we put the tools in the hands of the American people so that they can actually participate themselves in the blessings that the American health care system is likely be able to provide for them in the years to come. So, that's the right prescription for health professionals, and it's the right prescription for them to push for when it comes to real system reform, and it's the right prescription for Members of Congress to subscribe to as well. So let me just finish by once again stressing the importance that we've got some immediate work in health care ahead of us. Forget all of the stuff that's going to happen in the presidential election. If we don't fix this problem with the Medicare physician reimbursement rate, if we don't fix or stop those cuts that are going to go into place in just a few weeks time, then a lot of this discussion will be for nought because we will have driven doctors out of practices and we will ensure that patients don't have access to care of any type. Whether it is expensive care, whether it is quality care, it doesn't matter. We will just have ensured that our Medicare patients don't have access to that care. So I do urge my colleagues to please pay attention to this. Look into whatever bill you want. I urge to you look into H.R. 6129, which is a paid-for short-term solution to the cliff about which we're fixing to go over the edge. And I do want to encourage my colleagues to focus on this because this is extremely important. This is important to the doctors and patients back in your district. Nothing is more personal to a person than their medical care and their relationship with their physician, and this hits right at the heart of that relationship if we allow these cuts to go into place and oh, yeah, by the way, there's another 5 percent reduction where that came from waiting for you at the end of the year. Make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker, this is a presidential election year. All eyes tonight are going to be on what is billed as the last presidential primary, and then we'll start the fall campaign literally tomorrow morning. Make no mistake, it's going to be difficult for things to rise to the top of the national discussion, which is why I encourage my colleagues to take the time and trouble now to look at this legislation, look at H.R. 6129, do the right thing and get behind this bill, if you can, and let's deliver to the Speaker of the House of Representatives a significant number of cosponsors, 200 or 300 cosponsors, so that we will actually get this legislation done in what remains of the days between now and the 4th of July break. And perhaps we can also, too, get some attention over in the other body on the other side of the Capitol so they will take this up as well. There's probably no more important thing, perhaps with the exception of passing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, but there's probably no more important or intense piece of legislation that we can take up these next 4 weeks. This is an immediate concern. This is a clear and present danger to the physicians who practice in this country and the patients who depend on those physicians for their health care, the access for those patients to their physicians. This is the number one issue of this Congress this month, and we should not shirk our responsibility. Please, let's don't do what they did in December and just simply walk away from this responsibility. Let's take charge of this. We have it within our power to affect this. Again, this is a paid-for provision. This is not going to expand the deficit. It doesn't create a tax increase. It doesn't take money away from anyone else. This is the right thing to do. And this Congress, this Congress ought to stand up and do the right thing when it comes to the patients and the physicians of this country. On the larger issue of the health care referendum that we're going to be facing in this country, I urge my colleagues to listen very carefully to the arguments that are going to come from both political parties as we go into the fall presidential election. Please remember that that which grows the government side of health care may not be in the best interests of patients in the long term. And those programs that tend to encourage the involvement of the private sector and tend to encourage the participation of the patient in the maintenance of their own health care, those are programs that are likely to deliver value and allow us to continue what has been the greatest health care system the world has ever known.

Mr. BURGESS

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

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to remember James ``Jim'' Nelson, a pioneer in his community and grandfather of the Republican Party in Denton County. Though my political life began after Jim's leadership of the Denton County Republican Party, his legacy and commitment to conservative principles is renowned. I am proud to call his son, J. Michael Nelson, and daughter-in-law, State Senator Jane Nelson, good friends of mine. Jim was one of the few Republicans in Denton County in the 1970s, and he worked hard to build the party's base there. He can be credited, in large part, to the overwhelming success of the GOP in North Texas today. Besides the Republican Party, Jim was involved in business, arts and charitable organizations. He also served as Texas Education Commissioner from 1999 to 2002. Jim was one of the hardest-working individuals I have ever met. The last time I saw him was at his Mayday Manufacturing Co. warehouse. Jim was right in the middle of it all, working on the line in the warehouse giving instructions. This is the type of tireless dedication that Jim applied to every aspect of his life. Madam Speaker, it is truly an honor to rise today and remember a man who, throughout his long life, did so much to better those around him and his community. My thoughts and prayers are with his family. Jim will be greatly missed.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Pilgrim Valley Missionary Baptist Church in Fort Worth, Texas. The church, which was organized in 1908 in a three-room house by Reverend James Hardeman, has grown and become a candescent light in the community. The congregation, which was originally located on Orr Street, has several times outgrown their buildings and therefore several moves have been required. The church is now located on South Riverside Drive. For years, Pilgrim Valley Missionary Baptist Church has had an open-door policy towards the entire community, which has surely led to its continual growth in membership. The church has been a cornerstone of the African-American community, providing a comprehensive drug abuse prevention program called Pilgrim Valley People Against Drugs, or PAD. The church has also provided sustenance for the needy, mentoring programs for the local children of the community, clothing giveaways, and college scholarships to its members seeking higher education. Through the difficult times and the good times, Pilgrim Valley Missionary Baptist Church has always been a welcoming home for many in Fort Worth. Those who sacrifice their own needs for others are of the utmost moral excellence, and this church and its congregation are the epitome of selfless. Madam Speaker, today I extend my sincere congratulations to the Pilgrim Valley Missionary Baptist Church and their continual outreach towards the community. I would also like to thank the recently retired Reverend W. G. Daniels for his 36-year devotion and service to the church. It is an honor to represent such a civic minded organization and individuals the 26th Congressional District of Texas.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. I thank the Speaker, and I thank the Members on the Democratic side for yielding back their time early. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to do something a little different tonight. Normally I come down here to the floor of the House to talk about health care. But we've heard a lot recently about where this country is in regards to its energy policy. We've heard a lot recently about the high cost of food and foodstuffs, and whether or not that has been related to this country's energy policy. You can call it what you want. Call it Murphy's Law, Newton's Third Law, or just the plain old law of unintended consequences, but when a government as large as ours is, and I assure you, after being here for 5 years, it is an extremely large Federal Government; but when a government as large as ours mandates the use of anything, there will be downstream effects, downrange effects that sometimes you can't predict and certainly are beyond your control. A case in point is the growing crisis of food versus fuel and the debate that rages in Congress. Now, the early part of this month, the 5th of May, I hosted an event billed as Food vs. Fuel: Understanding the Unintended Consequences of United States Policy. I invited representatives from the farming community, food companies, consumers, domestic charities and the press in an attempt to get a 360-degree view of this issue. Now, just for the record, I want to mention the names of the people who were kind enough to spend the morning with me earlier this month and whose opinions were represented at the round table. And it was a diversity of opinions. This was certainly not a one-sided debate. We had Jon Doggett from the National Corn Growers Association, their Vice President of Public Policy. We had Scott Faber of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the Vice President for Federal affairs of that group; Bob Young of the American Farm Bureau, their chief economist. Bob Young is a Ph.D economist. Candy Hill of Catholic Charities, who is a Senior Vice President for Social Policy and Government Affairs, primarily working in the domestic realm. And last but not least, Bob Davis, a reporter for the Wall Street Journal who's reported on a number of international economic issues over the years. And it was really Mr. Davis' reports in the Wall Street Journal that prompted my interest in this subject. When we had assembled this panel of experts, I asked the experts, with the policy now of so much of our corn being turned into fuel, and with food shortages an inevitable result, are America's biofuel programs the cause or the effect? Now this is kind of ironic because we just voted again on the farm bill today. But here's a poster that shows perhaps some of the consequences or the unintended consequences of putting corn in the gas tank and ignoring other needs, other uses that that ear of corn might go to. Has Congress been fooled into a bad fuel policy at the expense of our national food supply? I went into this round table with an open mind. We had a panel that was really evenly distributed. Certainly there was no stacked deck against anyone or in favor of any one particular policy. And perhaps it's unique for a Member of Congress to not arrive at a conclusion until looking at the data. So this food versus fuel matchup, is, in my opinion, another example of the law of unintended or unforeseen consequences. And, of course, the symptoms are all around us. They're impossible to deny. You turn on the TV, you click on your Internet, you read about the ever escalating cost of food prices, both domestically and across the globe, and the news is frequently paired with stories of shortages, heart rending stories of shortages, and the resulting unrest that food shortages cause abroad. On April 14, the Wall Street Journal reported ``surging commodity prices have pushed global food prices 83 percent upward in the last 3 years.'' My hometown paper, the Fort Worth Star Telegram, the newspaper of the largest city in my district, on May 2 of this year, they had an opinion piece in the Star Telegram that discussed how the indirect cost of ethanol hurt Texans at the grocery store. Mr. Speaker, just recently, according to the Bureau of Logic Or Statistics, between the beginning of March and the beginning of May when I held this hearing, a dozen eggs, the price was up 35 percent; a gallon of milk, the price was up 23 percent; a loaf of bread, the price was up 16 percent. Now, we still need to eat and so Americans are getting creative in which groceries they purchase, and they're using grocery store coupons in record rates. In 2007 alone, consumers redeemed 1.8 billion coupons, an increase of over 100 billion coupons from the previous year. Now overall, the Department of Agriculture estimates that food prices will jump 4 to 5 percent this year. Now, those price increases may seem modest, but for the poorest Americans who spend a greater portion of their family budgets on food, it is, in fact, becoming a tremendous burden. Cherries across the country are being challenged by the rising food prices. It's more expensive to buy food. Donations are going down, and more people are then turning to charities for assistance. So they've got a rising population that is coming in and asking for help, and their prices that they have to pay in order to provide that help is going up. And clearly those two are on unsustainable paths. Catholic Charities USA, one of the largest social networks in helping almost 8 million people a year, has seen a 60-percent increase in people seeking food and nutrition services across the country since 2002. In 2006 alone, Catholic charities saw a 12-percent increase in the number of individuals seeking help in order to provide food for themselves and their families. Rising food prices are not merely a domestic issue. They have international implications as well. Let me share this poster, and this is from a recent Washington Post series called, The Global Food Crisis, which depicts the haves versus the have-nots in the industrial world versus developing countries. And this graphic reads, ``North America helps feed the world supplying about half of the growable grain exports. People in developing countries spend up to 80 percent of their money on food. So when food prices rise sharply, partially as a result of supply changes in North America and other producing countries, the world's poor feel it the most right in the gut.'' The results of tighter supplies are reverberating literally across the globe, and they do have dire consequences. In Haiti, the capital city of Port-au-Prince, rioters have taken to the streets to protest higher food prices. The violence has gotten so significant that in fact it resulted in a governmental change in that country. Similar unrest has erupted in Egypt, Cameroon, the Ivory Coast, Senegal, and Ethiopia. May 5 was prior to the devastating events, the cyclone in Burma and the earthquake in China. I submit that all of these problems that were of significant proportion on May 5 of this year have now gotten that much larger because of the results of those twin catastrophes, and we're only just now about to enter into hurricane season in this country. Robert Zoellick, the president of the World Bank, estimates that 33 countries are in danger of experiencing similar unrest as a result of food prices and food shortages. While food shortages hurt people the most, they also harm American policy. One of our greatest diplomatic strengths is through foreign aid. Last week, President Bush requested an additional $770 million in emergency food assistance for poor countries responding to rising food prices that have caused social unrest in several nations. So what is the conventional wisdom on higher grocery bills here at home and lower food stores at an international level? In my previous life of as a physician, I was given to making diagnoses. My diagnosis in this situation, as a result of many experts saying that the United States' biofuel policy is to blame for increase in food prices and a decrease in food supplies; the argument then is that Federal mandates to produce more biofuels have, number one, diverted more crops from food to fuel, and two, increased the demand for crop building blocks like fertilizer, water, and transportation. And those inputs have increased the cost of biofuel costs like corn and soybeans and other nonbiofuel crops like rice and wheat as well. The International Food Policy Research Institute suggests that biofuel production accounts for a quarter to a third of the recent increases in global commodity prices. Within the United Nations, the Food and Agricultural Organization has predicted that biofuel production, assuming current mandates continue, will increase food costs by 10 to 15 percent. That's an important point: assuming current mandates continue an additional 10 to 15 percent, in addition to the 5 percent rise that we've already seen this year. Well, let's talk a minute because there is some confusion on what is a biofuel. If you Google ``biofuel'' on the Internet, you will find out the following: A biofuel is defined as a solid, liquid, or gas fuel containing or consisting of or derived from recently dead biological material, most commonly plants. This distinguishes it from fossil fuel which is derived from biological material that has long been dead--been dead a long time. And what are the building blocks of biofuel? Commodities like corn, soybeans, sugarcanes, vegetable oil that can be used either as food or to make biofuels. And probably the best or most well-known biofuel is, of course, ethanol. In the United States, the primary source of ethanol is from corn currently, 95 percent. Ethanol is a type of alcohol made by fermenting and distilling simple sugars. It's the same compound that's found in our alcoholic beverages, and its primary use in the United States, as a fuel, is as an additive to gasoline. Now, the ethanol policy in this country goes back to the Arab oil embargoes of 1973 and 1979. Since that time, the production of fuel ethanol has been encouraged through the Federal tax incentives of ethanol-blended gasoline. In 2005 when the Republicans were in control of Congress, the Energy Policy Act established a renewable fuel standard which mandated the use of ethanol. 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuel must be blended with the Nation's gasoline by 2012. But then last year right at the end of the year, Congress passed the Energy Independence and Security Act which increased this renewable fuel standard to require 36 billion gallons of biofuel additives for transportation fuels by 2022. Now, according to the United States Department of Agriculture, 3.2 billion bushels of corn will be used to produce roughly 6 billion gallons of fuel ethanol during the current corn marketing year, September 2007 through the end of August of 2008. Well, let's talk a little bit about corn because it is important. This poster tells a little bit about two different types of corn: field corn and sweet corn. Field corn is the most--is what is mostly grown in America. It's primarily used to feed livestock and to produce ethanol. So field corn is used for fuel, and sweet corn is used for human consumption. This graphic also explains to some degree how the field corn is used. The pie chart there at the bottom shows a little less than half, about 47 percent of field corn, the type of corn used to produce ethanol, was used for animal feed; about a quarter, 24 percent, was used for ethanol; 19 percent was exported, and 10 percent was used for direct human consumption in various forms. Now, those who believe biofuels are to blame for rising food prices argue that its fundamentally wrong to divert food meant for tables into gas tanks when there are those going hungry both here at home and abroad. Additionally, they argue that ethanol production is fighting off a potential environmental crisis and a potential dependence on foreign oil, but we face an actual crisis in food production in the United States. Ethanol opponents also point to significant scientific research regarding the environmental impacts of ethanol production. And what are they? It's important to look at those environmental impacts. Scientific research shows that the use of crop lands for biofuels actually increases greenhouse gasses through emissions from land-use change. Work by Tim Searchinger of the Georgetown Environmental Law and Policy Institute, which recently appeared in Science magazine, argues that the land-use change from forest to grassland to new cropland nearly doubles greenhouse grass emissions over 30 years and increases those greenhouse gasses for over 150 years. The important innovation in this research is that prior studies would show a 20-percent savings in emissions neglect the impact of land-use change, and clearly the doctor's work shows that that is significant. Now, as farmers respond to the rising demand for corn, they create new cropland, and they create that what? Out of grassland and forest. Plowing up more forest or grassland releases more of the carbon dioxide previously stored or more of carbon previously stored in plants and soils through decomposition and that which is burned when fields are cleared by burning. Also, the loss of forests and grasslands prevents the plants from performing their own form of carbon sequestration in the stocks and leaves and roots of the plant. Significant critiques have risen from this research. For example, Searchinger's work supposes that there's a constant yield per acre of corn, but if an acre of corn yield has increased over 300 percent since 1944, then new technologies have contributed to a 30 percent increase in the last decade. Research conducted by the National Academy of Sciences shows the biofuel mandates are contributing to air pollution, water pollution, and they do compound water shortages. Now, on the other side, and we heard from the other side during this hearing, those who support the use of corn for ethanol. In terms of economic security, ethanol supporters argue that the production of biofuels goes a long way in helping end our dependence on foreign oil. We can grow our own fuel here at home thus supporting our domestic economy. At the same time, we don't have to rely on rogue regimes in unstable parts of the world for the vast majority of our fuel needs which enhances our national security. The rising prices of food aren't caused by biofuel mandates, per se. Growing demand in global markets, especially China and India, drive up the price. Additionally, they point out that shortages caused by bad weather in places like Australia, and in fact they point out that-- people who support the use of biofuels point out that climate change may be to blame since certain areas of the world where grain was once grown no longer have the weather to support those types of crops. Another issue that is often brought up is meat consumption in China has risen from 25 kilograms per person in 1995 to over 50 kilograms per person in 2007. On average, it takes 5 kilograms of grain to produce 1 kilogram of meat, while the demand for meat has grown 28 kilograms per person. The resulting demand for grain has increased by 7.8 billion bushels. So with these two conflicting and opposing viewpoints, what do you think? Is it biofuels that are causing the high grocery prices, or is it just a result of natural forces within the world? And if the issue is that increased biofuels production is contributing to the high cost of food, what would be the answer? What would be the prescription for curing that ailment? So certainly we're going to continue to provide hunger relief both here and at home. But we could look at freezing the renewable fuel standards and rolling back some biofuel mandates, certainly providing increased incentives to make breakthroughs on cellulosic ethanol so we won't be using our food to fuel our cars. And that may be what is at the central part of this argument. As well intentioned as the policy was in 2005 when the Republican House of Representatives dictated renewable fuel standard, and as forward- thinking as it was in December of this past year when the Democratic House increased that renewable fuel standard, it all depended upon the advancement in technology. We can't continue to turn this much foodstuff into fuel for our automobiles and trucks. We depend upon this policy, depend upon the advancement, the breakdown of the cellulose in the plant wall to make ethanol and not distilling of ethanol from the starch and sugars that are contained in the grain component. Until we achieve that breakthrough of cellulosic ethanol, and I believe it will occur one day, but until that time occurs, it is almost not reasonable to assume that we will be able to meet the country's growing transportation fuel demands through production of ethanol, certainly by diverting our foodstuff into that product. Another thing that we could do, and this was a point that was so eloquently stated by Mr. Davis in the Wall Street Journal, we can change the way the United States handles its delivery of foreign aid, the commodity versus cash approach. The current approach is to buy excess United States production of grain and then deliver that product to the country where the crisis exists, but if we were to shift that approach and begin supporting local agriculture in developing Nations, it could break the cycle of dependence on foreign aid and break the cycle of hunger and famine. I don't think there's any question at this point that we have to be looking at other sources. Now, we had a pretty interesting debate on the floor of this House this past week, and we heard the Democrats talk about that in their last hour. This was the debate about the temporary stoppage of filling what's known as the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Now it's a small amount that would actually be put back in to increase supply in this country, but for the first time, for the first time, there appeared to be genuine, bilateral, bipartisan agreement that increasing supply was a way to positively affect fuel prices here in this country. Every other debate that we've had, certainly since I've been in Congress, when it comes down to an issue of increasing supply, generally 90 percent of the people on my side of the aisle are in favor of it, and 90 percent of the people on the other side of the aisle are opposed. ANWR is perhaps the poster child for this, and we heard a great deal about that in the hour previous to the last hour when Mr. Peterson from Pennsylvania talked about where we would be today had then-President Clinton not vetoed the provision that would have allowed drilling in ANWR in 1996, some 12 years ago. We're told it would take 7 to 8 to 10 years to actually deliver finished product out of ANWR into the marketplace in this country. Well, guess what, if we had started that in 1996, we'd be using that oil today, and we wouldn't be feeling the repercussions in the price at the pump that we see today. There wouldn't be the pressure on diverting food into fuel if only we'd paid attention to supply. But maybe that day is at hand. Again, we had broad bilateral commitment, broad bipartisan commitment, both sides of the aisle in this House that said temporarily we're going to stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve because, my opinion at least, there was broad bipartisan agreement that increasing supply even just a little bit would be a positive effect on prices at the pump. So how much more good could we do if we moved off that minuscule amount and looked at some of the other ways to increase the supply? Now there's not a person in this Congress, I don't think, that feels that someday we're going to get a lot of our fuels from different sources than we see today, but right now, it's coal, it's natural gas, it's oil. That's what's available to drive our economy, and sure, we may want to pivot to a day where that energy production comes from somewhere else, but until we get there--and we are not there yet on cellulosic ethanol by a long shot, and if we turn all this stuff into ethanol for our cars, we have unintended consequences and unintended repercussions downrange and downstream that are quite severe. So this Congress really needs to take a serious look at ways that we can increase supply because, again, apparently all agree that increasing supply is going to be a good thing as far as its effect on fuel prices in this country. So maybe ANWR's too emotional. Maybe we can't do it. Maybe we just have to leave that one in the too-hard box for a little while, and I would say, okay, but bring us your ideas from the other side of the aisle. Let's not make it all about turning this stuff into something we can put in our automobiles. Let's make it about how do we deliver more usable energy for the American people, how do we maintain the American economy. Is it going to be nuclear? We can talk about that. I'd love it if we talked about that. Is it going to be drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf as Mr. Peterson outlined or in the Intermountain West, to the oil shales in Canada? The fact is, we've got reliable supplies of energy here at home, but we've put an embargo on American energy and that, quite frankly, just simply does not make any sense. But it was a new day here in Congress this week when both sides, in a bipartisan fashion, said, by golly, increasing supply is going to be a good thing for the American energy consumer, and we're going to do that. And we only did a little bit by temporarily stopping filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, but maybe that new day has dawned and we're now going to have a meaningful discussion on where the common ground is, where we can meet in the middle and work on increasing that supply for the American people. Because, quite honestly, until we get to the day of the promise of cellulosic ethanol, this is not going to be a formula for success, and in fact, unintended consequences of this behavior may have absolutely devastating and dire consequences around the world. You know, the law of unintended consequences used to be that it took almost a generation for those unintended consequences to come home and to come back around and work their effect. But we're in a time now where the effect of unintended consequences can be felt very, very quickly. We heard in the last hour the discussion about the reauthorization of higher education and student loans. Well, remember, we did something to student loans in September of last year. Then we had to turn around and undo it in April or May of this year because of the unintended consequences and the fact that we were driving up interest rates at the same time that availability of credit was coming down. And we were worried that no student loans were going to be available when this summer's crop of students went to apply for those loans in June, July and August. Unintended consequences have a way of coming around extremely quickly, and the unintended consequences of increasing the renewable fuel standard that this Congress undertook in December of 2007 has very quickly come home and the repercussions and reverberations are being felt around the world, and it's leading to instability in governments in this hemisphere. Is that something we want? We always talk about the world that we want to leave for our children. Is that the type of world we want to leave for our children where worldwide hunger and worldwide deprivation lead to instability in developing countries? I don't think so. I think it is time that this Congress needs to take action. After all, part of this crisis is of our doing. We should understand, this Congress should understand, the leadership of this Congress should understand about unintended consequences. Now a lot of people who serve in this House are politicians, and that's not a great surprise. And politicians have the urge to respond to public opinion and try to mold their policies to reflect public opinion. But we need to be careful when we respond like that. As policymakers, we have an obligation to enact, well, responsible policy. That's what we're sent here to do. We're sent here to find sensible solutions. Now Congress can't control foreign demand. Congress, I don't think, can control the weather. There may be some in this body who feel that they can, but we can address the effect of unintended consequences of our biofuel policy which diverts a quarter of our national corn supply to ethanol production, a quarter, a quarter of our annual national corn supply to ethanol. Congress and our President have nothing but good intentions--we care so deeply about people--nothing but good intentions in promoting the expansion of renewable fuels, but ethanol is not the energy security silver bullet that many people believe it to be. Last year, we burned 24 percent of our national corn supply as fuel, and we reduced our oil consumption by almost 1 percent. Unintended consequences are almost always unenvisioned consequences as well. If you lack the vision to look over the horizon and see what's coming next, unintended consequences are likely right around the corner. Obviously it was not the intent to cause distress both at home and abroad, but good intentions are not sufficient cause for Congress to plant its head in the sand and ignore what is becoming increasingly obvious. Our renewable standard is creating problems with food prices here at home and food shortages abroad. It's leading to destabilization of world governments because of the effect of hunger and deprivation in developing countries. It is time for this Congress to get it right. It's time for this Congress to reexamine those renewable fuel standards, back off for a while until the price situation stabilizes in the world market. And we have to get serious about increasing energy supply to run this economy, to run what Ronald Reagan described as the last best hope on Earth for democracy.

Mr. BURGESS

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

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, as a physician, parent, and policy maker, I understand that we need to work together to protect our children. I'm proud to say we have done that. The House crafted and passed a comprehensive, commonsense bill that boosts CPSC funding and personnel, bans lead in children's products, requires third-party product testing, and increases penalties for those who break the law. I went to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission labs. I saw first hand the need for more resources. I went to the International Toy Fair in New York City. I saw first hand the increasing number of toys coming into this country, as well as the measures that industry is taking to keep toys safe. Our bill takes into account the needs the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the needs of consumers, the needs of the industry, but most importantly, the need to keep our children safe. The House was able to put politics aside to keep children safe. While also providing more resources in a pragmatic, bipartisan approach. This Motion to Instruct recognizes these efforts and will help this important bill to be enacted into law.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize America's realtors. I would like to specifically recognize fifteen realtors, who are in Washington, D.C. today, for their commitment to the neighborhoods and communities across North Texas, the place I am proud to call home. I would also like to welcome these fellow Texans to our Nation's capital city. Realtors are a vital part of the American way of life. They help to provide the citizens of the United States with one of the most basic American Dreams: the joy of home ownership. I remember when I was looking to buy my first home, I was unsure about what I could expect or what processes I needed to take. Realtors helped me through the process and I am very grateful for the kindness and generosity they demonstrated. I would like to recognize the fifteen realtors from my district who are in Washington, D.C. right now: with the Greater Lewisville Association of REALTORS, Inc., Connie Niedzwiecki, Cathy Smith, and Lynda Bennett; with the North Texas Real Estate Information Services, Inc., Mikie Doyle; with the Greater Denton/Wise County Association of REALTORS, Inc., Chris Rosprim, Myra Oliver, Mary O'Conner, Kaki Lybbert, and Kara Phelps; with the Greater Fort Worth Association of REALTORS, Inc., Ken Jones, Dan Odom and Colleen Odom; and with the MetroTex Association of REALTORS, Inc., Eloise Eriksson, Judy Jones and Barbara Alsworth. Madam Speaker, I am very grateful for the hard work of these aforementioned professionals and the great service they provide to their local communities. Their energy, skills and commitment have made North Texas a better place to live and I am proud to have them here today.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Argyle High School UIL Team for winning the overall state championship among 3A schools in Texas. In addition to the great team effort put forth by Argyle High School, there were many outstanding individual scores that deserve equal recognition. The science team took first place while the calculator team finished second overall. Nick Strelke, Erik Katzen, and Thomas Quintana placed second, fourth, and fifth, respectively, in math, while the math team won first place overall. The number sense team also took top honors, with individuals Quintana in first place and Strelke in second. Robbie Ehlers placed second in calculator, and Strelke took fifth. David Graf came in first in biology and third in science, and Kristen Gill took third in computer applications. Quintana rounded out the team's brilliant showing with a second place finish in both the science competition and the chemistry and physics event. Argyle High School is well known for having a strong showing in UIL academic competition. This is the second time in three years that Argyle High School has triumphed in its quest for the Texas 3A state championship. Additionally, Argyle High School sent nine students with their team this year, the most they have ever sent to the UIL state academic competition. Before the state competition, Argyle High School placed first overall at both their district and regional meets. Madam Speaker, it is truly an honor to rise today and commend these students--their commitment to education and competition is apparent. I would also like to thank Argyle High School's teachers and UIL coaches for ensuring that these students have every resource possible to succeed. I am proud to represent these students and teachers in the 26th District of Texas.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, tonight I come to the floor of the House to talk about the bipartisan health care bill introduced by Mr. Towns, Ms. Blackburn and Mr. Waxman. This bill, the National Trauma Center Stabilization Act, is particularly timely, given that this is National Hospital Week. While it seems like there's a special observance for everything these days, National Hospital Week celebrates the vital role hospitals play in our communities. From delivering our babies to treating traumatic injuries, to caring for our sick and elderly, our Nation's 6,000 hospitals are a critical component of the American health care system, and the American health care system is the best in the world, in part, due to the quality of our Nation's hospitals. Because of my background treating patients, one of my top priorities in Congress is ensuring that the Federal Government does its part to maintain and improve health care in this country. This includes strong support for our hospitals. To this end, the National Trauma Center Stabilization Act will help give the 500 trauma centers around the country the support they need to do the critical work they do, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Madam Speaker, I took an oath as a physician and as a policy maker to serve patients and people to the best of my abilities. It's wonderful when these two pledges intersect to make productive policy. The bipartisan National Trauma Center Stabilization Act meets both of these criteria. There's no better time to sign on than today, during National Hospital Week.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Susan Cobb of Lewisville, Texas. Ms. Cobb has been named one of the Great 100 Nurses of 2008 by the Texas Nurses Association, Districts Three and Four, and the Dallas-Fort Worth Nurse Executives. She is a nurse at the Medical Center of Lewisville. The Medical Center's mission is to consistently provide high quality health services, information and education in an environment that is compassionate, professional, and responsive to its patients, physicians, and associates. Ms. Cobb is an excellent embodiment of this which her passion and commitment demonstrate. Each year this recognition is bestowed on nurses who embody excellence in the science and art of nursing. The chosen honorees belong to an array of professional organizations and work in a wide variety of clinical specialties. This is the 18th consecutive year that the Texas Nurses Association, Districts Three and Four, and the Dallas- Fort Worth Nurse Executives have recognized area nurses for their compassion and dedication. The recipients will be honored at a gala event on Monday, May 12, 2008. Madam Speaker, I am honored to stand today and recognize Susan Cobb. She provides an invaluable service to North Texas each and every day, and I join the community in thanking her for her devotion to saving lives. It is a privilege to represent Susan, and all our fine nurses, in the 26th District of Texas.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, every hour in the United States someone new is diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis. It is a lasting disease which attacks the central nervous system, and can be extremely disabling. This week the National Multiple Sclerosis Society is in town to promote awareness of people living with MS--approximately 400,000 Americans and 2.5 million people worldwide. Many Americans know a person living with multiple sclerosis, a mother or father, a son or daughter, another family member or friend, or maybe even a colleague. For me, it was a member of my staff. This brave and strong woman inspired me to get more involved in the battle to live in a world free of multiple sclerosis. As a medical doctor prior to coming to Congress, I'm working to find sensible solutions for the health care challenges that Americans face. As the co-chair of the newly formed Congressional Multiple Sclerosis Caucus, I intend to bring the needs of those individuals into the larger discussion of quality health care. Madam Speaker, we must work together to improve access to quality health services, to break down barriers, and to make MS therapies more affordable. I ask other Members of the House to join me in this noble cause. We must always remember that behind every statistic is the face of a family member or friend. We have a shared responsibility to offer help and hope. There is no better time than now to begin offering it.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Toni Haddox, of Denton, Texas. Ms. Haddox has been recognized as one of the Great 100 Nurses of 2008 by the Dallas-Fort Worth Nurse Executives and Districts Three and Four of the Texas Nurses Association. Ms. Haddox is a nurse at the Denton Regional Medical Center, which serves Denton, Wise, Cooke and Montague Counties. She is a perfect example of Denton Regional's mission in the community: she is a caring, compassionate person who exhibits passion, knowledge, and commitment to her patients and colleagues on a daily basis. Each year this recognition is bestowed on nurses who embody excellence in the science and art of nursing. The chosen honorees belong to an array of professional organizations and work in a wide variety of clinical specialties. This is the 18th consecutive year that the Texas Nurses Association, Districts Three and Four, and the Dallas- Fort Worth Nurse Executives have recognized area nurses for their compassion and dedication. The recipients will be honored at a gala event on Monday, May 12, 2008. Madam Speaker, it is with great pride that I stand here today to recognize Toni Haddox. It is an outstanding honor to represent both Ms. Haddox and her fellow nurses in the 26th District of Texas. Her constant vigilance and skill has made North Texas a better place, and her allegiance to her craft is nothing less than remarkable. I sincerely thank her for her service to our community.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mary Alice Williams, of North Richland Hills, Texas. The Texas Nurses Association, Districts Three and Four, and the Dallas-Fort Worth Nurse Executives have recognized Ms. Williams as one of the Great 100 Nurses of 2008. Ms. Williams works as a nurse at the North Hills Hospital. Nurses are often the initial and most frequent individuals who come in contact with patients. They serve as greeters, encyclopedias of patient histories, comforters, and above all healers. Mary Alice exhibits all these excellent qualities on a daily basis. Each year this recognition is bestowed on nurses who embody excellence in the science and art of nursing. The chosen honorees belong to an array of professional organizations and work in a wide variety of clinical specialties. This is the 18th consecutive year that the Texas Nurses Association, Districts Three and Four, and the Dallas- Fort Worth Nurse Executives have recognized area nurses for their compassion and dedication. The recipients will be honored at a gala event on Monday, May 12, 2008. Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to stand today and congratulate Mary Alice Williams. She is a fine representative of the North Texas nursing community. Her work is an excellent contribution to the patients of North Hills Hospital and I am proud to serve her in the 26th District of Texas. Ms. Williams has exhibited great skill in the field of nursing, and truly deserves this great honor. I join the entire North Texas community in thanking her for the apparent commitment to her fellow citizens.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the dedication of the Tom Harpool Water Treatment Plant. The dedication ceremony for this new water plant in North East Denton County, Texas, is scheduled for May 13, 2008. The facility is named after the past president of the Upper Trinity Regional Water District President, Tom Harpool, a water pioneer for the Denton County area. The water treatment plant incorporates technology that is at the forefront of the industry and will improve the reliability of the water system for the entire region. It is the first facility in the area that will incorporate advanced membrane technology. This new technology is the latest advancement in the treatment of potable water that will provide a barrier against pollutants as well as helping to assure the health and security of all water that leaves this facility. With the naming of this facility, the Upper Trinity Regional Water District is bestowing a well-deserved honor on a local civil leader. Tom Harpool is credited with securing the large water supply the people of his community will require in the future. Mr. Harpool began his service in 1954 by serving on the Denton Independent School District Board of Trustees. Since then he has committed his life to serving his community, and Denton County is a better place because of it. Madam Speaker, I hope you will join me in rising to celebrate the dedication of the Tom Harpool Water Treatment Plant in the 26th District of Texas. I am proud to represent this area and I am glad to know that the people of my district have this remarkable facility to provide them the highest quality water possible. I am comforted knowing the Denton County vicinity will have a healthy and secure water supply for many years to come.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the anniversary of the Alliance Opportunity Center, which has served North Texas for 10 years. The Alliance Opportunity Center, a non-profit organization supervised by Hillwood, Tarrant County College, Tarrant County Workforce Development Board, Texas Workforce Commission and the Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce, has long been committed to economic growth in Tarrant and Denton Counties, and their impact on the area is certainly cause for celebration. The Alliance Opportunity Center's main goal is to shorten employee turnaround time, reduce job recruitment costs, and enhance employee skills and retention. This objective is achieved through the many services the AOC offers to the community. The Alliance Opportunity Center advertises Alliance job listings nationwide, maintains a current job-applicant database to best match open positions with available candidates, provides companies with the resumes of candidates best suited for open positions, and screens applicants for qualified referrals. The organization also hosts the Annual Alliance Texas Hiring fair and coordinates and conducts job fairs for individual companies. The Alliance Opportunity Center staff keeps the interests of the community in mind, allowing area companies more time to focus on their core work and, in the process, making Alliance businesses an even greater success. Madam Speaker, it is with great honor that I rise today to honor Alliance Opportunity Center for its commitment to playing an active role in the development, improvement and success of the North Texas community. I am proud to represent such a prestigious organization in Texas' 26th Congressional District.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and honor a young student from my district who has achieved national recognition for exemplary volunteer service in her community. Haley Whatley of North Richland Hills has just been named one of the top two honorees in Texas by The 2008 Prudential Spirit of Community Awards program, an annual honor conferred on the most impressive student volunteers in each state and the District of Columbia. Haley, a seventh-grader, was nominated by Smithfield Middle School in North Richland Hills. In honor of this achievement, Haley will receive a $1,000 reward and an engraved silver medallion. She also won a trip to Washington D.C. this May to join the other top nominees from around the country. All the honorees will attend several national recognition events and ten of the participants will be named America's top youth volunteers for 2008. Haley's passion for volunteering began at a young age. When she was six-years-old, Haley saw a television commercial about kids with cancer, and wanted to do something to cheer up the young patients. She began collecting stuffed bunnies during an Easter campaign, and collected 600 bunnies her first year. Since then, she has found several corporate sponsors, spoken to more than 50 civic groups, and enlisted the help of more than 30 ``bunny ambassadors'' to help collect bunnies from the community each year. Her tireless efforts have yielded more than 13,000 bunnies for sick children in the last 7 years. The Prudential Spirit of Community Awards was created by Prudential Financial in partnership with the National Association of Secondary School Principals in 1995 to impress upon all youth volunteers that their contributions are critically important and highly valued, and to inspire other young people to follow their example. Over the past 12 years, the program has become the nation's largest youth recognition effort based solely on community service, and has honored more than 80,000 young volunteers at the local, state, and national level. Ms. Whatley should be extremely proud to have been selected from the thousands of dedicated volunteers who participated in this year's program. I sincerely thank Haley for her initiative in seeking to make her community a better place to live, and for the positive impact she has had on the lives of others. She has demonstrated a level of commitment and accomplishment that is truly extraordinary in today's world, and deserves our sincere admiration and respect. It is an honor to represent such an extraordinary young person in the 26th district of Texas, and I earnestly look forward to seeing the present and future results of her tremendous promise.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Don Brown for his contribution to the Young Life organization. Following many years of passionate, devoted service to the high school students of North Texas, Mr. Brown is retiring. Don Brown served as a volunteer for Young Life for seven years prior to taking over as director of the Lewisville/Flower Mound area branch of the organization. Whereas the standard tenure for a leader is five years, Don served as the local director for 30 outstanding years. Young Life is a non-denominational Christian youth outreach ministry for high school students. In 1938, youth leader Jim Rayburn started a weekly Christian club in Gainesville, Texas; by 1941, it had evolved into a motivational and inspirational group called Young Life. The goal of the organization is to introduce young people to Jesus Christ and to help them grow in their faith. This occurs by creating an atmosphere in which caring adults can build genuine friendships and a connection of faith with the young group members. Young Life depends on the relationships between the leaders and the students to create a strong fellowship within the group, and there is no better example of a successful and devoted Young Life leader than Don Brown. Mr. Brown facilitates the Young Life assemblies, during which attendees watch skits, sing songs, and learn about Christ. Don also serves as a confidante, mentor and friend to the students, proving time and again that he is a reliable source of information, advice, and compassion for those interested in learning. I extend my sincerest congratulations to Mr. Brown on his retirement and commend his dedication and desire to serve the Young Life community. It is an honor to represent such a selfless and civic-minded individual in the 26th District of Texas. I know his commitment to the youth of North Texas will inspire others to follow his lead.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the bravery of Texas Department of Public Safety Trooper Larry Buxton. Mr. Buxton, who is stationed in Denton, Texas, in Texas' 26th District, is a recent recipient of the department's Purple Heart Award. Trooper Buxton suffered life-threatening injuries April 6, 2007, at a roadside park in Denton County after he pulled over a suspected drunken driver. While performing routine checks he was injured when a car driven by another suspected drunken driver veered off the highway into the park. Despite his severe injuries, Buxton managed to check on the condition of the drivers while also calling for help. Trooper Buxton has been with the Texas Department of Public Safety for 13 years, and has since returned to duty. The Purple Heart Award which he was justly awarded honors the sacrifices of troopers while performing their duties. The Texas Department of Public Safety provides public safety services to the people of the State of Texas. Madam Speaker, it is with great honor that I rise today to recognize a dedicated public servant. Trooper Larry Buxton is a fine example of what the Texas Department of Public Safety requires in an officer and is truly deserving of the Purple Heart Award. I am glad to know that the 26th District of Texas has the best of the best protecting its citizens and am truly grateful for the commitments and sacrifices Larry Buxton has made to protect his community. It is an honor to represent him in the United States House of Representatives.