Michael Burgess

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, as we close out this debate, once again, I acknowledge that I have been aided on the floor during rule debate by the able services of Rachel Huggins, who, unfortunately, is leaving my office at the end of this month to join the Foreign Service. Our loss is the Foreign Service's gain, but she will continue to serve her country and serve her country well. We are so grateful for her service that she has provided in both my office and at the Rules Committee. Now, despite the name, this bill will do very little to reduce inflation. According to an analysis by the University of Pennsylvania Wharton School, the bill increases inflation through 2024 while having an overall negligible effect. You would almost need to be an atomic physicist to be able to measure on a molecular level how much this is going to reduce inflation, but it is going to increase Federal spending. We know already the increase in Federal spending is what lit the fire of inflation in the first place. This is a bad bill. Reject the previous question so we can take up Mr. Smith's amendment. Reject the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for yielding. Mr. Speaker, we are hearing that this bill is a tax cut. But that only applies if you sign up for ObamaCare and participate in all the green tax credits. But if you don't, then this bill is a tax increase of over $10.5 billion for those making under $200,000 a year. Despite what you say, there is $80 billion in this bill for 87,000 new IRS agents, and this will disproportionately increase audits on low- and middle-income earners at a time when even the best CPA firms cannot find qualified employees. Now, Wednesday in the Rules Committee, I tried to get an amendment by Mr. Davidson of Ohio made in order that would require that all of these new hires at least be CPAs. This was rejected by every Democrat in the Rules Committee. Mr. Speaker, they are coming after you. They are coming after you with poorly trained technicians, and it is just not right.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for yielding. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter submitted by the members of the House GOP Doctors Caucus. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, August 6, 2022. Hon. Chuck Schumer, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Leader Schumer and Speaker Pelosi: We write to express our strong opposition to the government drug price control policies in your reconciliation package. As medical providers and Members of Congress, we are deeply concerned with the harm these provisions will cause to patients across the country. The GOP Doctors Caucus has continuously worked to ensure that physician practices can stay open to continue treating patients. We have heard directly from providers that the cuts proposed in this bill will jeopardize patient access to care. According to Avalere, changes to the Medicare Part B physician-administered drug reimbursement would lead to an average cut of 39.8 percent for health care providers. The confluence of these cuts, including the 0 percent payment update, the reduction of the 4.5 percent Medicare conversion factor, and the adoption of several changes to the Evaluation and Management (E/M) Current Procedural Terminology codes, threatens the sustainability of medical practices and will lead to physicians closing their doors. It is irresponsible to divert seniors' Medicare dollars to pay subsidies to non-Medicare insurance companies, yet this plan would do just that. The proposal will take ``savings'' from the drug price controls in the Medicare program to pay for expanded health insurance subsidies under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). This is money going to insurance companies and their bottom line; this is not money going directly towards care in any way. These expanded subsidies were originally part of the inflation-creating American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). ARPA removed the income cap restricting access to premium tax credits, opening the door to taxpayer- funded subsidies for some of the wealthiest Americans. Some families making more than $500,000 annually now have access to expanded ACA subsidies, and they will continue to if this proposal goes through. Robbing Medicare to enhance the profit for insurance company shareholders and executives does nothing to improve anyone's health. To us, this is unconscionable. If this plan is passed into law, millions of patients could die waiting for new drugs and cures that will no longer be developed in their lifetime. Government price controls have consequences. The Congressional Budget Office has conservatively estimated that 15 fewer drugs will be developed over the next 30 years under this bill, Another study found that only six out of 11 currently approved therapies would have been brought to the market if this framework were in place. Any cure lost is one too many. As Members of Congress who have been involved in patient care, we understand the real- world impact that this will have on patients. Many of us have treated patients with chronic and life-threatening diseases. We've seen expensive surgeries and intensive inpatient care be eliminated by the development of new therapies. This development and innovation will all but go away, leaving patients without hope for improved quality of life and long- term savings. We remain concerned that this proposal will also put the government in control of Americans' medical decisions. This is another clear example of a policy crafted by politicians who have never seen a patient. The bill calls for a 95 percent excise tax if drug companies do not accept the price government bureaucrats put in place. Top down, ``take it or leave it'' government price negotiation isn't a negotiation at all--it's government price fixing. This reconciliation package under consideration applies upward pressure on drug pricing. The bill subjects a company to negotiation once its seven-year exclusivity expires. As a result, companies could introduce drugs into the marketplace with high list prices, causing premium increases for healthier individuals enrolled in employer-sponsored plans. In summary, this reconciliation package will have grave consequences for patients and patient care: This price setting scheme put forth in this bill will endanger patient access to care by cutting provider reimbursement on impacted Part B drugs by an average of forty percent. The bill does nothing to address other ongoing Medicare provider payment cuts set to begin in 2023. If this plan is passed into law, millions of patients could die waiting for new drugs and cures that will no longer be developed in their lifetime. Government price controls have consequences, and one lost cure is one too many. This plan robs Medicare to pay subsidies to insurance companies and other non-health related expenditures. As medical providers in Congress, we urge you to recognize the danger this proposal will have on patients. We can and should work on a bipartisan basis to lower drug costs without sacrificing the cures and treatments that will provide for a healthier future. Sincerely, Brad R. Wenstrup, D.P.M., Member of Congress; --Andy Harris, M.D., Member of Congress; ----Roger W. Marshall, M.D., United States Senator; --Rand Paul, M.D., United States Senator; ---Larry Bucshon, M.D., Member of Congress; ---Neal P. Dunn, M.D., Member of Congress; ---Michael C. Burgess, M.D., Member of Congress; Bill Cassidy, M.D., United States Senator; John Barrasso, M.D., United States Senator; John Boozman, M.D., United States Senator; Earl L. ``Buddy'' Carter, R.Ph., Member of Congress; Brian Babin, D.D.S., Member of Congress. A. Drew Ferguson, IV, D.M.D, Member of Congress; --Scott DesJarlais, M.D., Member of Congress; ---Ronny L. Jackson, M.D., Member of Congress; ---Gregory F. Murphy, M.D., Member of Congress; ---Mark E. Green, M.D., Member of Congress; ---John Joyce, M.D., Member of Congress; Jefferson Van Drew, D.M.D., Member of Congress; Mariannette J. Miller-Meeks, M.D., Member of Congress; Diana Harshbarger, Pharm. D., Member of Congress.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, this is a letter that explains how healthcare policies included in the Inflation Reduction Act would affect American patients. There are 21 healthcare professionals who signed this letter. It is remarkable that none of our concerns were considered--all were ignored--not only as Members of the House and Senate but as healthcare professionals, as well. The point of the letter is that this legislation will do the exact opposite of what the Democrats intend. Unfortunately, the legislation will kill research and development, reduce quality of care, and threaten patient access to lifesaving drugs. Under this legislation, we are going to see changes to part B drug reimbursements that will lead to an average of a 40 percent cut for healthcare providers, doctors who provide care to Medicare patients in their offices. Currently, part B reimbursements for administering drugs in a physician's office are a calculation based on the average sales price plus 6 percent. Under this new system, part B payments to physicians are going to be calculated off of the maximum fair price. It is an attractive term, but no one knows what it means. It is yet to be determined by whom? The Secretary of Health and Human Services. We have all seen how trustworthy they have been over the past 2 years. The current 6 percent average sales price add-on payments to physicians, which is what doctors have come to rely on now to run their practices, will be based on a significantly lower government-set price versus the traditional market-priced ASP. This results in significantly lower payments to physicians. Now, Wednesday afternoon late, at the Committee on Rules, I offered an amendment with Dr. Murphy to fix this problem. Unfortunately, that was rejected on a party-line vote. These payment cuts threaten the sustainability of medical practices and will lead--let me say that again--will lead to physicians closing their doors. When practices close, the patient need does not disappear. Care will then shift to hospitals. This will ultimately lead to an increase in healthcare costs and a decrease in the quality of care provided, and it will limit access to treatments for patients across the country. From experience working in private practice, I can attest that there are significant consequences of consolidation. Here is the bottom line: Democrats are using Medicare as a piggy bank to pay for other things. What other things? Oh, like subsidies to insurance companies. They want to reward insurance companies and punish doctors. It makes no sense. This legislation will do the exact opposite of what Democrats intend. It is going to kill research and development. It is going to reduce the quality of care. It is going to threaten patient access to lifesaving drugs. As the most senior doctor in Congress and someone who deeply cares about the well-being of American patients, this bill is antidoctor and antipatient. We will live to see the consequences of this after final passage, I promise you that.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, this morning we are here to talk about the rule for the CHIPS Act to provide $76 billion for semiconductor manufacturing and authorizing $200 billion over 10 years for research and innovation programs. Now, according to a long-term budget outlook released by the Congressional Budget Office just yesterday, our national debt sits at $24 trillion and will rise to $138 trillion over the next three decades. That is equivalent to $370,000 for every man, woman, and child in the United States. Our mandatory spending over the same period would grow from just over $4 trillion per year to over $18 trillion per year. The CHIPS Act includes billions in new mandatory spending and billions more that is authorized for appropriation. We are experiencing the highest inflation in 40 years with multiple interest rate hikes. It has been widely reported that the Federal Reserve hiked interest rates again and with the statement that they have no choice but to try to slow the economy in order to tame this inflationary pressure. And then here is the ironic part of all that, the CHIPS bill also is the key that unlocks the door for getting the long-stalled Build Back Better Act going over in the United States Senate. And what does that do? It provides billions of additional dollars of stimulus spending in the economy. But the Federal Reserve said they have no choice but to slow the economy. So which is it? Is it a stimulant or a depressant? As a medical professional, I will tell you, if you combine those two activities, you are going to end up with something that is just goofy. But then on top of that, there are tax increases at a time of recession. Even the Obama administration in 2009 and 2010 said, we can't undo the Bush tax cuts, we have got to continue the Bush tax cuts that they had long hoped to undo because they could not raise taxes during a recession. And yet now we have the other body poised, basically, with their Green New Deal to tax America back into the stone age. I agree that semiconductors are a critical component of likely everything we use, but we cannot put our fiscal future in further jeopardy, especially when this funding will benefit one specific industry. I am also concerned that the time required to ramp up the semiconductor production will be late in trying to alleviate current supply chain constraints. As my friend from Pennsylvania just pointed out, when this industry self-corrects, the likelihood is there will be too many. Rather than provide funding to large corporations, many of whom are already undertaking significant development efforts, let's incentivize competitiveness in all industries and continue to promote research and development and not raise taxes during a recession.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. One of the many lessons we learned during the pandemic is the ability to take care of patients who are safely in their own homes. It was truly a highlight. Understanding that we will not be going back to the status quo of 2019, we must recognize how telehealth has allowed our country to take a monumental step forward toward digitally enabled care. Telehealth has allowed Americans to take care of immediate and necessary health needs from their homes without the costs and health risks that are often associated with an in-person visit. They don't incur costs for parking. They don't have to take time off from work. They don't have to hire a babysitter. While I am in support of this legislation, it does not go far enough. We do need to provide a permanent solution for Medicare providers and, most importantly, their patients. It is important that providers are given long-term certainty when taking care of their Medicare patients and are technologically capable of delivering the best care possible. Yesterday, I introduced, along with Representatives Greg Murphy and Yvette Herrell, H.R. 8506 to permanently extend Medicare coverage of telehealth services for federally qualified health centers and rural health clinics. This important permanent extension would ensure that following the pandemic, providers and patients continue to have access to telehealth flexibilities, especially in rural and underserved areas. These are arguably communities that have benefited the most from an increase in telehealth access. We will continue to see innovation and technology that will further influence how we deliver care to American patients. We need to keep up with the times. This bill is an important step, but it is not the end of the discussion.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Guest) to explain his amendment.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Katko).

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Neguse for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for consideration of three bills, three bills that are unnecessarily partisan, but that is where we are. The first bill, H.R. 5118, attempts to address the wildfires raging across the country. Calendar year 2022 is shaping up to be the most destructive wildfire year on record. To date, 5 million acres in the United States have been ravaged by forest fires. Concerningly, risk projections compiled by the United States Forest Service have assessed that large swaths of the country will remain under the threat of wildfires for the remainder of this year. Forest fires are responsible for the destruction of lives and property. They are responsible for the degradation of our air and water quality and the destruction of vibrant natural ecosystems and wildlife. They are also responsible for billions of dollars in damages to States and individuals. Perhaps the most distressing component of the proliferation in intensity of forest fires is that some forest fires are entirely preventable. A major contributor is decades of poor forest management that have exacerbated forest fires. Environmental activists and their allies have made routine forest management all but impossible. Their campaign of legal obstruction has directly contributed to the current wildfire and forest health crisis. It is perplexing to see organizations that ostensibly are dedicated to protection of natural habitats instead engaging in an obstruction that has made safeguarding our habitats all the more difficult. Unfortunately, H.R. 5118 is a package of 48 bills from many different committees, but only 9 of these bills have received a committee markup. For example, this bill includes provisions related to the electrical grid, environmental justice, and the health effects of wildfire smoke, all things that are not immediately necessary to fight wildfires. The United States Forest Service has demonstrated that there are scientific and environmentally sound solutions to mitigate the damage of forest fires. If we allow the United States Forest Service to actually do their jobs, we can create healthier, more resilient natural habitats that all Americans can enjoy and from which all Americans can derive benefit. Second, H.R. 6929, the Susan Muffley Act, is a $1 billion taxpayer- paid bailout of privately run pension plans that have been absorbed by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation after Delphi, a spinoff of General Motors, went into bankruptcy. The benefits guaranteed by the PBGC under the plan insurance termination program are subject to statutory maximums. When the PBGC became the trustee, participants in Delphi Salaried Pension Plan, approximately 20,000 employees, were subject to these statutory benefit limitations. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's maximum benefit guarantee for that pension was terminated in 2009, and it is $4,500 a month or $54,000 per year for retirees who began receiving pensions at age 65. Of the 20,000 salaried plan participants, 72 percent were not affected by the benefit guarantee limit. Prior to the 2009 bankruptcy of General Motors and of Delphi, General Motors made an agreement to top-up potential benefit losses for certain Delphi unionized employees represented by the United Auto Workers. General Motors honored that agreement, and those unionized employees were not subject to the same benefit losses caused by the statutory limits. This bill could create a significant precedent in the single-employer pension system by allowing a taxpayer-funded increase for 1 of over 5,000 terminated single-employer PBGC trusteed plans. It would also create an expectation that Congress will do the same with current and future terminated plans. Here is the deal: This bill had no committee hearings, no markups, and no input from committee Republicans. Instead of working on appropriations, the majority has decided to use this last week in July to allow some of their Members to take home a win before the August recess. Lastly, H.R. 3771, the South Asian Heart Health Awareness and Research Act of 2022 takes an important public health issue and makes it partisan. The Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans have repeatedly expressed concerns with the South Asian Heart Health Awareness and Research Act throughout the entire legislative process. The bill did not receive a single Republican vote in committee. Cardiovascular disease is the number one killer in the United States. Republicans don't disagree with the need to undertake the research proposed in H.R. 3771. In fact, the Energy and Commerce Committee has a history of supporting research on heart disease for at-risk populations, including South Asian communities. Unfortunately, this bill will not help address the burden of cardiovascular health issues in America. This bill requires the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to make grants promoting awareness of heart disease in disproportionately affected communities. This, in fact, is a duplicative authorization that will deepen the CDC's already problematic mission creep. There are 24 programs currently at CDC, all of which are funded in the 2023 Labor-HHS Appropriations bills. Some have expired authorizations dating back to 1998. The CDC should be focusing on addressing emerging diseases instead of authorizing duplicative programs. The CDC has repeatedly demonstrated that it does not have the bandwidth to deal with its current responsibilities. I believe this clear lack of mission and focus on infectious diseases has significantly contributed to the CDC's failure, yes, of coronavirus and now of monkeypox. Furthermore, the CDC doesn't even want this authorization. When providing the required technical feedback on the bill, the CDC expressed concerns that the authorized grants are, in fact, duplicative. The agency also expressed concerns that it would not be able to provide the data required by the bill. I am uncertain what effect, if any, this bill will have on communities disproportionately impacted by poor cardiovascular outcomes when the partisan government funding bill released by the House Appropriations Committee will already be providing nearly $4 billion to the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. By creating this one-time authorization of a million dollars to establish an internet clearinghouse on evidence-based heart research and treatment options for South Asian communities, this bill merely serves as an earmark. As Members of Congress, it is our job to examine government programs to determine whether, in fact, they are effective and producing positive outcomes for the American people. The South Asian Heart Health Awareness and Research Act should not move forward. This bill is unnecessary, and it is never going to see the light of day in the Senate. Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, Republicans will amend the rule to immediately consider a resolution expressing support for United States Border Patrol agents introduced by Representative Michael Guest. President Biden's border crisis is demoralizing our border agents. Charged with securing our southern border, these agents are rescuing women and children left to die by traffickers, they are confronting the drug trade, combating gang violence, all while attempting to perform their usual duties in the face of over 3 million undocumented crossings. Instead of supporting these brave men and women, the Biden administration has, instead, turned them into political pawns. As we saw in the fall of 2021, Democrats, including the President, the Vice President, and the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, all were involved in a rush to judgment and publicly accused Border Patrol agents of criminal wrongdoing in Del Rio, Texas. Despite being cleared by the Department of Homeland Security's Inspector General and Customs and Border Protection's Office of Professional Responsibility, the administration still seeks to punish these agents in order to justify their initial criticism, all the while continuing President Biden's open border agenda. It is time for the House to stand with the Border Patrol by denouncing these false claims and supporting their mission of securing the border. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, we just heard a lot about wanting to right wrongs. Well, here is an opportunity to right a wrong. You can vote ``no'' on the previous question and allow this wrong to be corrected. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger).

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I oppose the bills in this rule because they were crafted outside of regular order without significant Republican input. I had hoped we could produce legislation that would mitigate and contain the scourge of forest fires that continue to plague our Nation. This bill does not provide for responsible forest management, those forest management solutions that have been demonstrated to be effective. For that reason, I oppose H.R. 5118. Additionally, Congress should not be authorizing taxpayer dollars to bail out privately run pension plans above the statutory maximum. It is unfortunate that Delphi overpromised and under-delivered for its employees, but allowing a taxpayer-funded increase for a terminated, single-employer pension would set a significant precedent for the over 5,000 similar pensions managed by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. Then finally, addressing cardiovascular disease is a nonpartisan public health issue, however, Congress should be conducting of oversight of the Centers for Disease Control, not authorizing another duplicative program. Our goal should be to reduce the duplication and be more intentional with the funding in order to achieve positive outcomes. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, a ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Washington for yielding. While practicing medicine for over 30 years back in Texas, I personally prescribed a lot of contraceptives. I have seen the benefit that they have over the lives of women who use them, and I will continue to support a woman's right to access contraception. But this bill was brought to the floor of the House urgently and outside of regular order. There was no attempt to work with Republicans. The majority hastily put forward an incomplete product that, at the end of the day, is never going to see the light of day in the Senate. The Right to Contraception Act would establish a statutory right for patients to obtain contraception and for doctors to prescribe. The kindest thing I can say about this legislation is that it is duplicative and unnecessary. But, unfortunately, it can also be damaging. Contraception is so broadly defined that it could guarantee access to medical abortion pills or even contraceptives that might not have FDA approval. It could lead to the dispensing of unsafe products. Even if a product gets FDA approval, it does not always ensure its safety. Essure was a medical device previously sold to cause sterilization. The FDA approved this device in 2002, but it didn't start examining reported concerns by users until 2015. In 2018, the FDA restricted the sale of Essure, and the manufacturer took the device completely off the market. The Dalkon Shield is an intrauterine birth control device manufactured and sold in the early 1970s. This device was responsible for many reported incidents of inflammatory infections, uterine perforations, spontaneous septic abortions, as well as at least four deaths. The FDA requested this device be taken off the market in October of 1974 but never issued a formal recall. Under the language of this bill considered today, a provider could provide that. When manufacturing ceased in 1976, more than 2 million of these devices had already been sold in the United States. Madam Speaker, I am the first to agree that the drug approval process at the FDA should be made faster, more transparent, and safer. But imagine the dangers of allowing contraceptives and devices where the FDA has not even considered their safety. Madam Speaker, you will find consensus in the Energy and Commerce Committee amongst Republicans regarding preserving access to contraception if the Democrats had only decided to work. We had no legislative hearing; we had no subcommittee markup; and we had no full committee markup. The bill was introduced last Friday and brought to the Rules Committee on Monday. I am also a member of the Rules Committee, so that was the only hearing that we had on this legislation. As I like to tell people, Rules Committee members are like the apex predators of the legislative process. We are only there at the end of the road. Madam Speaker, this bill is bad, and I urge it not to be adopted.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Bill Hale as he retires from public service. Throughout his nearly four decades with the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), he has been highly regarded for his leadership and innovation on concession and design- build projects within the State of Texas. He oversaw many crucial initiatives, including the LBJ Express project and the Clear Lanes program. After graduating from Samuel High School in south Dallas, Hale entered the University of Texas at Arlington. He earned both his bachelor's and master's degrees in civil engineering on that same campus. Hale began at TxDOT in the Ellis County Area Office in 1983. He went on to become the Ellis County assistant area engineer and was appointed the Southeast Dallas County Area Engineer (AE) in 1992. One of Hale's most significant milestones as the county's AE was the building of TxDOT's first movable barrier high-occupancy vehicle lane on Interstate 30. In 1999, Hale's work earned him the title of Abilene District Engineer (DE), and in late 2003, he was promoted to the post of Dallas DE. In late 2014, he was appointed Chief Engineer. During his tenure as TxDOT's Chief Engineer, Hale has been responsible for the management and control of the Bridge, Construction, Design, Maintenance, Traffic Opps and Right of Way divisions as well as the Local Government Projects office. He has managed the construction of the Margaret Hunt Hill and Margaret McDermott bridges, two cable- stay structures that define the Dallas skyline. He also oversaw the building of Texas' first deck park and led TxDOT's evaluation of a private-sector proposal to expand State Highway 121. Hale's work on both the LBJ Express project and the Clear Lanes program led to significant congestion relief in North Texas' five largest neighborhoods. In addition to his construction efforts, Hale launched the TxDOT Connect web-based project information program, which became incredibly vital to the department's operation. Hale is a ``civil engineer's engineer'': a hard-working professional. Those colleagues who worked with him on the projects he spearheaded both respect and admire him. He's been instrumental in how every major transportation project in the metropolitan areas in the State of Texas have taken shape. Hale's effective leadership and networking capabilities have been critical in bringing together public and private sectors and affected communities to move necessary transportation projects forward. My office has been privileged to have a congenial working relationship with Hale over the past two decades, and his experienced input and support of our joint annual Transportation Summits contributed highly to our success in educating local elected officials on upcoming transportation projects affecting Denton, Tarrant and other North Texas counties. I am thankful for Bill Hale's 39-year career in public service, and I wish him all the best in his retirement.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding time. You know, as we hold this debate, I remember back to a morning as a young resident at Parkland Hospital starting out in a residency in OB/ GYN and our major professor, our department chairman, Jack Pritchard, addressing us and telling us that starting into a career in OB/GYN, we were in a unique position in medicine. Every time we took a case, either as a primary doctor or consultant, we would have the unique opportunity to be taking care of two patients who had a combined life expectancy of over 100 years. He said nowhere else in medicine are you going to be able to affect the future to the degree that you can as an OB/GYN. In nearly 30 years of practice back in Texas, I have taken care of women with ectopic pregnancies. We did it before. We will continue to do it. It is a surgical emergency, and you don't shy away from it. Unfortunately, some pregnancies do conclude in a miscarriage, and some of those do require the attention of a physician. I would not hesitate to do that, then or now. But what I would not do and could not do was disrupt a viable pregnancy where a child could issue from that care. None of that changes, either before or after the Supreme Court decision. Look, there have been times when I have had to step in when someone had care at another facility and sought refuge in my emergency room because of severe complications they were having from an abortion done elsewhere. I would have to step in and correct the problems from the abortionist. I didn't hesitate to do that and will continue to do it in the future, but what I will not do is end a life in a pregnancy.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding time. In the 1970s it was misleading, but pregnancy was described as a clump of cells and a lump of tissues. How many people listened to that and didn't ascribe the agency to the young life that was developing? Then medical sonography was just coming into its own at the same time that Roe was decided; and for two generations of Americans since then, the first picture in their baby book is their sonogram picture. Is it any surprise that two generations of Americans now ascribe agency to the unborn child because they see from whence they came? Having an abortion is not a simple fix to a problem; it is not a simple procedure; and it is not birth control. An abortion is highly complex, and it is a deeply emotional procedure. Obviously, it is going to affect the baby, and obviously, it is going to affect the woman. Do you know what, Madam Speaker? It even affects the provider.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time. Before coming to Congress, I practiced medicine for nearly 30 years. I had the privilege of delivering 3,000 babies. I dedicated my career as a physician to protecting the lives of children and families and running a pro-life practice in north Texas. I have seen both sides of this argument, both as a doctor and a policymaker. Indeed, the chairman of the Department of OB/GYN at Parkland Hospital's Southwestern Medical School, when I was a resident, pointed out to us that those of us who were privileged to begin the practice of obstetrics were unique in medicine in that we are going to be charged with taking care of two patients, with a combined life expectancy of over 100 years, and almost nowhere else in medicine do you have that ability to impact the future. Back in 2002, I decided to run for Congress because I saw lawmakers, particularly in Congress, who have never experienced taking care of a patient, discussing and setting the stage for how you are supposed to run a medical practice. Today is no different. It is deeply frustrating to see individuals discussing procedures with little understanding of how or why they are performed and how they affect the patients involved, both the mother and the baby. Throughout my time as an OB/GYN, I have taken care of women with ectopic pregnancies--never any hesitation. That does not change after a Supreme Court decision. I have taken care of women who, unfortunately, were suffering from miscarriages. That will not change after a Supreme Court decision. I have had cases where a woman had an abortion at another location and then presented to my hospital in a crisis because of complications. Without hesitation, I would render care to those patients, irrespective of any Supreme Court decision. Many of those cases, indeed, were life-threatening, but each and every time, my responsibility was to step in and save a life. Again, that is done without hesitation. The Supreme Court decision changes none of that, despite the heated rhetoric we are hearing from the other side. It seems like a simple answer: Have an abortion, take care of a problem. Back in 1973, when Roe v. Wade was first decided, medical sonography was really just beginning. In the time since then, it has really developed into a science unto itself. In fact, two generations of Americans since Roe v. Wade was decided have as their first picture in their baby book an ultrasound picture or maybe a videotape of themselves as an unborn child. Indeed, two generations of Americans have no trouble assigning agency to that pregnancy because they know from whence they came. An abortion is a highly complex and deeply emotional decision. The decision affects, yes, the mother. No question that it affects the baby and affects other family members. Yes, it affects the provider as well. My belief in the right to life has influenced my professional career for much longer than my time in Congress, and I will remain committed to that. After a lifetime dedicated to pro-life work, there is no question it is just the right thing to do. You always err on the side of life. You always give life a chance. This rule also includes consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act. Yesterday, in the Rules Committee, there were a lot of amendments submitted. There are a lot of amendments we are going to debate on the floor. Most of them were amendments submitted by Democrats. Republicans got very few of those.

Mr. BURGESS. I submitted amendments to require reports to Congress on our military response in Ukraine and the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan last August, something that we cannot allow to be repeated. Russia invaded Ukraine in February, yet we have not had another briefing by the generals and State Department as we did prior to that invasion. The situation is vastly different on the ground. We were given to understand that it would not take long for Russia to completely overrun Ukraine. They didn't anticipate the response of the Ukrainian people. Now, we see a war of attrition evolving, but Congress is not read into any of the administration's plans. Then, finally, we have to ensure that the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan is fully investigated and understood. What advice was the President receiving? From whom did he receive it? How do we prevent that from ever happening again? I thank the gentleman for yielding me additional time.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. This en bloc includes my amendment No. 114 to require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to Congress every 6 months detailing the short- and long-term plan for the Pentagon's response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Russia invaded Ukraine in February, and yet, we have not had another briefing by our military generals and the State Department and Director of National Intelligence as we did prior to that invasion. Now, as was reported on FOX News by Jacqui Heinrich on February 5 of this year, General Milley predicted that Kyiv would fall in 3 days' time. That did not happen. The Ukrainian people have bravely been fighting this war, and it has now evolved into a war of attrition. But Congress has not been read into any of the administration's plans. The Speaker of the House brought a bill to the floor rapidly to provide $40 billion to the military effort in Ukraine. I, like everyone else, am horrified by what Russia is doing on the ground in Ukraine. I supported that bill. But you cannot bring another bill to the floor of this House, asking for continued aid, when we have not even had a report or briefing by the people advising the administration on what is happening on the ground. We have to have that information. Simply adding more money to what has already gone without a strategy to back up that assessment is a failure on the part of the House of Representatives and one in which I will not participate.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Curtis Paul Ramsey. A lifelong educator, Ramsey, spent every chance he had sharing his wisdom with others. On November 24, 1926, Curtis was born in Denton, Texas. In his early years, he became a member of Boy Scout Troop 65. He then earned the ranking Eagle Scout and later attended the Troops 100th celebration in 2018. Curtis also was a member of the First United Methodist Church. He spent his time teaching adult Sunday school and serving as a youth counselor. Ramsey graduated from Denton Senior High School. He attended North Texas State College, now known as the University of North Texas (UNT), where he was elected the 1950 Senior Class President. He earned a bachelor's degree in Biology and Psychology, and completed a master's degree in Curriculum and Guidance at the same campus. His pursuit of education didn't stop as he then earned his Ph.D. in Education at George Peabody College for Teachers in Nashville. During his time at Peabody, Curtis conducted research with the hopes of improving educational outcomes. Curtis served in World War II as a company clerk in Japan, later returning with a great appreciation for the Japanese people, their art and their culture. His passion for education followed once he returned to the states. After the Brown vs. Board of Education decision, a Peabody Grant allowed Curtis to aid de-segregated school districts. Dr. Ramsey served as Chairman of the Elementary Education Department at Kent State University and in the Bridgeport and Stamford schools while advocating for Cleveland area schools. He then served as the Dean of the College of Education at the University of Bridgeport in Connecticut. His passion took him overseas as he taught at the Bir Zeit University as a Distinguished Visiting Professor in Education and Psychology. Upon his return to Denton, he taught at Texas Women's University while serving on Denton's ISD School Board. His passion for education was demonstrated on the state and national level as he served on the Leadership TASB (Texas Association of School Boards) and with the Texas Legislative Taskforce lobbying in D.C. Curtis treated the students of Denton ISD as his own. He was a beloved father to Rebecca Ramsey Lindrose, Cynthia Ramsey Despot, Dawn Ramsey, and Victoria Ramsey, and a devoted husband to Virginia Mary Ramsey. He was a proud grandfather of four grandchildren and a great- grandfather to six great-grandchildren. Curtis Ramsey's positive impact spread beyond the city of Denton and Denton ISD. Everywhere he went, he shared himself personally and professionally. He was a father, a husband, a grandfather, a friend, a son, a Denton native, and most of all, a respected and dedicated educator.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, today's rule provides for consideration of three bills: H.R. 7666, the Restoring Hope for Mental Health and Well-Being Act; H.R. 5585, the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Health Act; and H.R. 4176, the LGBTQI+ Data Inclusion Act. Two of these bills represent the progress that can be achieved when we work together on legislation that is important to the American people. It underscores what can happen when we work together, regardless of party ideology. I do recognize the hard work that the members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce put into the Restoring Hope for Mental Health and Well-Being Act of 2022. This package is the first major effort put forth to address our Nation's mental health crisis since the lockdowns began for coronavirus. Following COVID-19 and the pandemic, we have seen a tremendous increase in the youth mental health conditions, suicides, and overdose deaths exacerbating the mental health crisis we already faced prior to the pandemic. This bill maintains the flexibility for States to make funding decisions that best addresses the needs of their communities. The spending in this bill--and this is important--the spending in this bill is fully offset and targets funding toward the treatment of serious mental health conditions instead of generalized wellness programs that may not have an impact. Included in this package is the Into the Light for Maternal Mental Health and Substance Use Disorders Act of 2022. That is actually a bill that I introduced with Representatives Yvette Clarke, Jaime Herrera Beutler, Young Kim, and Doris Matsui. Our bill authorizes and funds existing programs to help those impacted by maternal mental health conditions. Substance use disorders and mental health conditions are among the top leading causes of death for women who are pregnant and recently pregnant. When I was a resident at Parkland Hospital in the 1970s, the top three causes of maternal mortality: hemorrhage, preeclampsia, or hypertension. Now, the preeminent causes are suicide and drug overdose--entirely preventable causes of maternal mortality. This bill will help us address that. So I am very encouraged to see that move across the finish line. I also supported an amendment by Representative Drew Ferguson to include the Behavioral Health Interventions Guidelines Act--he likes to call it the BIG Act. Representative Ferguson and I actually introduced that as a standalone bill, but this amendment was made in order during the Committee on Rules yesterday. The BIG Act passed the House last year with broad support. It requires the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration to develop best practices for schools to establish behavioral health intervention teams. I heard from one of my colleges in Texas, Texas Tech University out in Lubbock. Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center brought to me their successful program to provide training for behavioral health intervention and schools in West Texas. You know, sometimes in school, it is no secret who the kid is that is getting into trouble, the kid who is actually self-identified. And this is a way to provide the guidelines for that behavioral intervention that can be life-changing and lifesaving. By establishing these behavioral intervention teams, the BIG Act helps to encourage prevention measures and interventions before youth mental conditions worsen or become even more serious. Unfortunately, we continue to see the consequences of not addressing mental health issues. This rule also contains H.R. 5585, the Advanced Research Project Agency-Health Act, or ARPA-H. ARPA-H is modeled after the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, DARPA, and the Advanced Research Projects Agency in Energy. The goal is to bring a greater focus on the research and development of our greatest healthcare challenges in areas where the private biopharmaceutical companies are unlikely to explore for scientific or business reasons. ARPA-H was initially authorized in fiscal year 2022 in the omnibus budget and placed within the National Institutes of Health. But placing ARPA-H within another department of the Department of Health and Human Services risks its independence, and its independence is its entire reason for being. Without its independence, I don't know that ARPA-H would have the ability to foster innovation. But this bill secures ARPA-H as an agency independent of the influence of the rest of the executive branch. And that is important. With significant Republican input, we ensure that this legislation also is fiscally responsible. We also make certain that the goal and mission of this agency is focused on research and development and provides accountability for this new research agency when submitting feedback from projects supported by the agency, as well as prohibiting the Federal funding to China and to Russia. The bipartisan manager's amendment also ensures that the number of offices is cut from 14 to 6--what I call bureaucratic streamlining--and at least two of those six offices are actually dedicated to research and development and the administrative costs of the agency--and this is extremely important--the administrative costs are capped at 15 percent. ARPA-H will provide the ability to focus on high-risk transformative technologies to improve healthcare and healthcare outcomes for all Americans. The final bill that we are considering today requires federally administered surveys to collect information on sexual orientation and gender identity. The list of surveys affected by this bill is over 130 and it does include the every-10-year Census. The information requested by this bill is deeply personal and involves a person's internal state of being. I have to point out that the Federal Government does not have a good track record of protecting Americans' private information, as evidenced by data breaches over the last several years. The final concern with this bill is it is asking about very personal information without a clear statutory or regulatory need, but still we are prohibited from asking a person's citizenship status. I don't think I need to say any more about that. Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.