Michael Burgess

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, this bill, H.R. 3, runs the risk of quickly stifling innovation in the new drug space. A preliminary Congressional Budget Office analysis of this bill has stated that it would result in 15 fewer new drugs coming on the market over the next 10 years, and we all know drugs are in the pipeline for much longer than that. The actual pipeline to deliver new product is 14 years, so it is that second 10 years where the real risk of this bill becomes apparent. The cure for Alzheimer's may be one of those ones that is included in that list of drugs that are never developed in the first place. That is why we need to defeat H.R. 3. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Newhouse), previous member of the Rules Committee and a valuable member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I want to share a letter that I received. This is from a woman who had lost her daughter to suicide following an episode of severe postpartum depression. She writes: After many long years of research and development, on 3/19, calendar year 2019, the Food and Drug Administration approved Zulresso, the first medicine to successfully treat moderate to severe postpartum depression worldwide. It is a 60-hour IV treatment, administered in a certified hospital setting. It is effective in as little as 20 hours. Had this medicine been available, I feel that my daughter would be alive today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as may consume. If we defeat the previous question, Republicans will amend the rule immediately to consider H.R. 2207, the Protect Medical Innovation Act of 2019. This bill, which now has 256 bipartisan cosponsors, will repeal the excise tax on medical devices that is set to go into effect January 1, 2020. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of this amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Brooks), my good friend, a valuable member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Baird) to speak on the amendment as part of the defeat of the previous question.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon) to continue our speakers on the defeat of the previous question and in support of their amendment.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) to continue to speak on the amendment that we will offer if we defeat the previous question,

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, we have been hearing from our colleagues from Indiana about the excise tax on medical devices and how important it is to repeal that excise tax on medical devices. That tax has been delayed several times but does go into effect January 1. It is a 2.8 percent excise tax on gross receipts. We are talking in H.R. 3 about a 95 percent excise tax. They are talking about the number of jobs that have been killed with a 2.8 percent Federal excise tax. How many jobs are going to be lost with a 95 percent excise tax? Again, as I said earlier, this is not a good faith negotiation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services. This is akin to a hostage situation because the threat of a 95 percent excise tax hangs over that discussion. We have heard a lot about innovation. Let me share with you an excerpt from a letter that I received from a constituent after the introduction of H.R. 3. The letter says: ``I started taking antidepressants when I was 15. Since then, I have been hospitalized three different times for attempts at suicide. Now I am at a place where I have found the medication that works for me; it is literally lifesaving. This medication is only possible through years of careful research and investment and in good supply because of a free market. ``If we had allowed a bill like H.R. 3 to pass into law previously, then the medications that have helped me might not exist. I cannot imagine a world where people just like me might go without the proper medication due to government overreach.'' The story is repeated over and over again. Mr. Speaker, Congress passed at the end of the session in calendar year 2016 the last bill signed into law by President Obama, the 21st Century Cures Act. Mr. Speaker, since the time that bill was signed into law, it really has been impressive the number of new things that are coming onto the market and those new things that are just over the horizon. This bill, H.R. 3, strips the ability for the 21st Century Cures Act to deliver on the promise. But here is the good news. The Rules Committee, in its wisdom, made available an amendment in the nature of a substitute. I have discussed H.R. 19 in some detail. The amendment in the nature of a substitute will be the text of H.R. 19 so Members will have an opportunity to vote for bipartisan consensus agreements that will lower drug prices now, that will protect innovation in the future, and that, most importantly, could be signed into law before the end of the year. Think about it. This is a deliverable that we have within our power to bring to the American people. We should not give up on that chance. I have been speaking against H.R. 3. The NDAA, which is also included in this legislation, I do support. I cannot support the guest worker bill. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question. Let's take up the amendment about the excise tax on medical devices, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. In the early days of my medical practice in the 1980s, I would sit around with other doctors and kvetch that there were treatments available in Europe that were not available in the United States. But Congress acted and enacted the prescription drug user fee agreements in 1992, sped up the regulatory process, and broke the regulatory bottleneck. The drug approval process over the past four decades has significantly improved to the point that American doctors now have more tools at their disposal to alleviate human suffering than at any time in the Nation's past. The President weighed in right around Thanksgiving with what he thought would be the correct path forward. Indeed, in the Rules Committee last night, we received the Statement of Administration Policy from the President that said he would veto H.R. 3 if presented in its current form. But he goes on to say that H.R. 19 is a far better approach to lowering drug prices and discovering lifesaving cures. The President believes there is a path forward. The administration remains committed to working with both parties to pass legislation. What H.R. 3 represents to me is a lost opportunity. It was an opportunity to work together. The President wanted to work together. But it is a lost opportunity to bring down drug costs for American patients. We can vote against H.R. 3. We can support the amendment in the nature of a substitute. H.R. 19 could become law this year, in 2019.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 750 expresses the sense of Congress that individual choice in health insurance should be protected. Almost 160 million Americans under 65 years of age are enrolled in employer- sponsored health insurance, and another 14 million Americans under 65 have purchased their own private health insurance. Additionally, an increasing number of Americans are taking advantage of the robust choices in Medicare Advantage plans. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the number of individuals with employer- sponsored insurance has increased by 3 million since President Trump took office, largely an effect of our great economy. Right now, the Energy and Commerce Committee is holding a hearing on one-size-fits-all healthcare. Being discussed are nine bills that serve to lay the groundwork toward socialized medicine in the United States. I fear that if House Democrats declare this their north star, as they did in the hearing today, it abandons the health insurance options that Americans have said are working for them. Medicare for All would eliminate private insurance, eliminate employer-sponsored health insurance, eliminate Medicaid, and eliminate the Children's Health Insurance Program, upon which many Americans depend. I am concerned about the consequences for existing Medicare beneficiaries, as this policy would more rapidly deplete the Medicare trust fund, which is already slated to be insolvent in 2026. The practical effect of that is no doctor, no hospital, could be reimbursed by Medicare under law once that trust fund is exhausted. Our Nation's seniors depend on the existence of Medicare for their health needs in retirement. More than 70 percent of Americans are satisfied with their employer-sponsored health insurance. It provides robust protections for all individuals, and since 1996, it has provided protections for preexisting conditions. This is why it is so important that we protect individuals' employer- sponsored insurance for the majority of Americans who would like to keep it. According to one study by America's health insurance plans, consumers prefer greater market competition rather than greater government involvement. Medicare for All is a complete government takeover of the healthcare industry. This same study found that consumer satisfaction is driven by comprehensive coverage, affordability, and choice. A one-size-fits-all health program results in no choice for Americans. Consumers value discounts for good health, flexible spending accounts, and health savings account programs that would all but disappear in a Medicare for All world. The New York Times reported rural hospitals are saying that they would virtually close overnight, while others have said they would try to offset the steep cuts by laying off hundreds of thousands of workers and abandoning lower paying services, such as services for mental health. Other countries with socialized medicine have seen increased wait times. In Canada, the wait time for a specialist consultation is over 9 weeks. Americans deserve to have better access to healthcare than the long waiting lists and lower quality care found in other nations. Single-payer healthcare would be another failed attempt at a one- size-fits-all approach to healthcare. Single-payer is not one size fits all. It is one size fits no one. It is critical that this Congress maintain access to healthcare choices and build upon what is working in our healthcare system. I urge my fellow Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can support H. Res. 750.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to remember the life of Roy Lawrence Wilson who passed away recently. He had a distinguished military career, retiring from the U.S. Army in 1997 at the rank of Colonel. Between 1967 through 1971, he served three tours of duty in Vietnam and was decorated with multiple awards and citations including a Bronze Star Medal with an oak leaf cluster and an Army Commendation Medal with an oak leaf cluster. Subsequently, he was recalled to active service for Operations Desert Storm and Desert Shield. Dr. Wilson had a private practice in Richardson, Texas as a dentist and oral surgeon and was a member of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons and the American Dental Association. After twenty years in private practice, he devoted his time during retirement to train students as a clinical advisor at the Texas A&M College of Dentistry. It is my honor to recognize Roy Wilson's notable service in the military and medical field. He was a beloved husband, father and grandfather and will be sorely missed by his family and friends to whom I extend my sincere condolences.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate Vishok Jonnalagadda, Kate Liang, Ernest Lu, Mayur Pabba, Shubh Sharma, Tarush Verma and Connie Xu, participants in the first 26th District of Texas Congressional App Challenge and all students attending the University of North Texas as Texas Academy of Math and Science (TAMS) students. The Congressional App Challenge encourages students to learn how to code through an annual competition hosted by Members of Congress. Structured as a competition, the Congressional App Challenge is a great way for Congress to engage students in computer programming and technology-related careers and encourage them to develop the skills that are becoming increasingly important for jobs contributing to our growing economy. By participating in the App Challenge, the students have the opportunity to create their own apps for mobile, tablet or computer device and compete with other students, receiving feedback from leading experts in the field. I thank each of the students competing in this year's endeavor as well as the judges who contributed their time and expertise to the process. The Congressional App judging panel assembled was comprised of Dr. Jennifer Moore, Associate Professor and School Librarian Certification Faculty Lead at Texas Woman's University School of Library & Information Sciences; Dr. Stephani Ludi, Professor, Undergraduate Coordinator and Co-Director of Research in the Software Engineering Lab at the University of North Texas' (UNT) Department of Science & Engineering; and Mr. Mark Payne, Executive Director, Denco Area 911. After reviewing each of the Apps submitted, the board scored the entries, resulting in a tabulated outcome recognizing ``Mindful Minutes'' by Ms. Connie Xu and Kate Liang as the winner. ``Mindful Minutes'' is an app designed to combat the societal challenge of forgetfulness by allowing users to count anything, including hours worked or hours exercised, or even creating custom counters for any repetitive activity or subject they choose. Their app will be displayed in the U.S. Capitol and shown on the U.S. House of Representatives web site. The students will also be invited to the House of Representatives' Code Demo Day reception in Washington, D.C. I am proud to participate in the Congressional App contest as a way of encouraging the development of the math and science education our country requires to remain competitive. Ms. Xu and Ms. Liang have displayed their creativity and skill through their submission, providing an example of the bright future they, and our country, have ahead. I am honored to represent these two bright young women and wish them and all the representative UNT TAMS program students involved, much continued success in their education and careers.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, today, we are considering a bill that requires the Secretary of Labor to issue a rule on workplace violence prevention in the healthcare and social service sectors. According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, workplace violence is any act or threat of physical violence, harassment, intimidation, or other threatening disruptive behavior that occurs at the worksite. It may be surprising to hear that acts of violence are the third leading cause of fatal occupational injuries. Of these incidences, approximately 8 percent were intentionally caused by another person. When Americans go to work each and every day, they do not expect to face violence or other harm. The risk is especially high for healthcare providers and social workers. These caregivers can be subject to patients who may not be in control when under the influence of medications, or they may have a mental disorder, upset family members, ongoing domestic disputes, and even gang violence. The rate of workplace violence resulting in days away from work for healthcare providers is, on average, four times higher than other professions. In addition, healthcare providers and social workers are less likely to report incidents. This may partly be due to the pledge to do no harm and the inclination to forgive patient-caused injuries as accidental. Regardless of the situation, all workers deserve a safe workplace. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is responsible for setting the standards to ensure the safety of American workers. Under the general duty clause of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers must provide employees with a safe work environment. Currently, there is no mandatory standard on workplace violence prevention. However, in calendar year 2015, OSHA published ``Guidelines for Preventing Workplace Violence for Healthcare and Social Service Workers'' and is currently working on a workplace violence prevention rule. H.R. 1309 would require the Secretary of Labor to issue a rule on workplace violence prevention based on OSHA's 2015 guidelines. An interim standard is required within 1 year of the passage of this legislation, and a final rule must be issued within 2 years. While the goal of this legislation is laudable and important, the timeframe imposed on the Department of Labor and OSHA does exceed the norm. Between 1981 and 2010, the time it took OSHA to develop and issue safety and health standards ranged from 15 months to 19 years, but the average was more than 7 years. While no one believes we should continue to delay worker protections, OSHA has already begun the rulemaking process and is gathering stakeholder input. According to the OSHA rulemaking process, a rule should take 10 years to complete. There are 7 stages comprised of 48 different steps. For example, one step is listed as ``continue discussion with stakeholders.'' The penultimate stage requires OSHA to send the final rule to the Small Business Administration before submitting the rule to Congress. This last stage involves developing a small entity compliance guide responding to legal action. This is bureaucracy at its finest. While it is important to ensure that any rulemaking does not adversely affect the people and industries it is meant to assist, the length of this process far exceeds other administrative rulemakings. Perhaps, rather than pass a bill to require the issuance of a single rule, we should be considering reforms to the entire OSHA rulemaking process. It seems like that may be overdue. Despite the lengthy process of OSHA rulemaking, as written, this bill truncates established rulemaking procedures. But that is up to us. Until Congress changes this process, OSHA will follow the established framework to develop its workplace violence protection rule. H.R. 1309 requires covered employees, including hospitals, outpatient facilities, residential treatment facilities--which includes nursing homes--and any other medical treatment or social service clinic at correctional facilities to develop and implement a written workplace violence plan within 6 months of the issuance of a rule. The plan must include identification of violence risks and prevention practices and incorporate reporting and emergency response procedures. In addition, the plan must delineate violent incident investigation procedures and training programs for employees. Again, the importance of such a plan is undeniable. Six months may be a short timeframe within which to determine all of the required components. In order to produce the most effective plan to ensure employee safety, employers really should be granted adequate time to fully evaluate their workplace, gather input from employees, and identify the best procedures to ensure a safe environment. It is possible that, given the short timeline, workplace violence prevention plans could be hasty and, therefore, incorrectly assembled. Here is the good news. There is middle ground. While OSHA's rulemaking process is lengthy, this bill's timeline is short. OSHA is currently gathering feedback from stakeholders and requiring an expedited rulemaking that will limit their input. While OSHA rulemaking would ensure enforcement of workplace violence prevention policies, according to a 2018 American Hospital Association survey, 97 percent of respondents reported already having a workplace violence prevention policy in place. In 2009, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stated that additional research was required to identify effective strategies to prevent violence, particularly in healthcare settings. In addition, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the cost to private entities will be well over $2.5 billion the first 2 years of implementation and almost $1.5 billion annually thereafter. The rule self-executes a manager's amendment that will bring this cost down to $1.3 billion for the first 2 years and $700 million annually thereafter. This mandate may make it difficult for rural hospitals and healthcare providers to continue effectively serving patients in their more rural locations. Extending the implementation timeline of this bill may help reduce some of these concerns. We had an opportunity to work on a bipartisan basis--this is not a partisan issue--to solve a problem that we all agree needs to be solved. We are, instead, considering a bill that circumvents the established rulemaking process in favor of a swift outcome. We can all agree that there is a need for OSHA to issue proper workplace violence prevention regulations to protect healthcare providers and social workers. I hope we are able to accomplish this goal, but we should recognize that we are placing burdens on entities through an expedited process that may require modification in the future to ensure a safe and effective workplace for all Americans. Madam Speaker, for these and other reasons, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Madam Speaker, just so that we are technically accurate, the resolution in front of us today, point number one, it is a structured rule for H.R. 1309. This is not an open rule. I have served in the United States House of Representatives when we had open rules, and it is a different environment. Mr. Cole last night in the Rules Committee did make a motion for an open rule on this, saying: If you are going to accept all these amendments, maybe we should open the floor up to all Members. This is an important topic. Let's get their input. But the request for an open rule was voted down in the Rules Committee. It wasn't really a suspenseful vote. The Republican side lost 4-9, which is generally the way that works out in that committee. I am grateful that so many amendments were made in order. I think that is important. But I also feel obligated to point out that under no circumstances should this be regarded as an open rule. It is anything but. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, Republicans will amend the rule to immediately consider H.R. 1869, the Restoring Investment in Improvements Act. This bill, which has 271 bipartisan cosponsors, would fix a technical error in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act to allow qualified improvement property to depreciate over 15 years and be eligible for immediate expenses. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of this amendment into the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski) to further explain the bill.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for his comments, and I would agree that the efficient functioning of any Federal agency should always be our highest priority. The efficient use of the taxpayer funding that goes into those agencies or branches of agencies should require our constant attention. We should always be looking to improve the service and the protection that those agencies provide. I will also predict that this bill is likely to pass with a large margin and it will be bipartisan and will raise the question of why we are not considering it under a suspension of the rules. Nevertheless, that is what the majority has chosen to use their time doing this week, so we have the bill in front of us today. Workplace violence is a threat that no American should have to face. The threat is particularly high for healthcare providers and for social service workers. These workers dedicate their lives to taking care of others, and they deserve to be taken care of in return. I support the goal of this legislation. I believe it would benefit from further discussion to ensure that the timeline for issuing a rule and developing a workplace violence prevention plan will produce the most effective and safe outcome for American workers. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BURGESS

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

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am happy to come to the floor tonight to reflect on a great Texan, a great American, Secretary Rick Perry. It has been an honor to have served the people of Texas alongside Secretary Perry. In fact, my first political race in 2002 was alongside then-Governor Perry, who had succeeded Governor Bush when Governor Bush won the Presidential election and Governor Perry was running for his first full term as Governor. Then, as we know, he went on to serve a full 14 years as Governor of the State of Texas. He began serving our country as a C-130 pilot in the United States Air Force. More recently, he has been leading the United States Department of Energy. With each task, Secretary Perry has shown true leadership and fought to uphold the Constitution. Most recently, as Secretary of the Department of Energy, Secretary Perry was dedicated to putting forward innovative ideas while reducing Federal overreach and the regulatory burden on Americans. Back in 2007, in the Subcommittee on Energy and the full Committee on Energy and Commerce, I worked to prevent a mandate on light bulbs that I thought was ill-advised. I thought it would be better to let the consumer make these determinations rather than the government. I continued this fight during the appropriations process to delay rulemaking at the Department of Energy. Then, after assuming office, Secretary Perry took steps to protect consumer choices and rolled back the mandates on light bulbs. I appreciate Secretary Perry's efforts in this area to reduce Federal overreach. Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to wish the departing Secretary and his wife, Anita, the very best, the very best for their family as they embark on this new journey. Mr. Speaker, I thank Secretary Perry for many years of dedicated service to our State and our country. As the song says, ``God bless you, Texas.''