Michael Burgess

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Brooks), a valuable member of the committee.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close. I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, robocalls have moved beyond a simple nuisance. Sophisticated actors are now using robocalls to trick people into providing sensitive information by posing as legitimate organizations. When this happens to hospitals, patients have no reason to believe that there is a fraudulent actor on the other line, leading them to reveal sensitive health data and sensitive financial information. This activity threatens the integrity of real health-related phone calls and jeopardizes the relationship between the patient and their provider. Even more challenging than explaining to consumers that the calls from your phone number are not always from your organization is the response time required. According to testimony by Dave Summitt of the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, in a 90-day period, they received over 6,600 external calls identified as a Moffitt internal phone number, requiring 65 hours of response time. This is time that could have been used to support the hospital rather than respond to fraudulent calls. During the Energy and Commerce Committee markup, I offered an amendment with Mrs. Dingell of Michigan to establish a hospital robocall protection group at the Federal Communications Commission. This group will issue best practices to help combat unlawful robocalls made to hospitals, as well as those made spoofing a legitimate hospital phone number. The hospital robocall protection group will assist any hospital to combat these fraudulent robocalls so that they may focus on serving patients. A patient should not have to worry about whether they are speaking with their real doctor or their real hospital when discussing sensitive health information, and providers should not have to deal with disruptive false claims. This amendment was adopted in committee, and I look forward to the best practices being put forward in the hospital robocall protection group. The fraud committed on Americans by illegal robocallers is going to end. This bipartisan legislation creates a robust framework designed to protect consumers from the fraud and nuisance of these calls. Mr. Speaker, I urge a yes vote on the underlying legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favor of H.R. 1058, the Autism Collaboration, Accountability, Research, Education, and Support Act of 2019, also known as the Autism CARES Act. H.R. 1058 builds upon a strong foundation that Congress laid by passing the Combating Autism Act in 2006. This legislation, in 2006, expanded research, surveillance, and treatment of autism spectrum disorder, and it has equipped our Federal agencies with enhanced resources to expand its knowledge of this complex disorder. The number of children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder has increased. It is even more imperative that we reauthorize this program and ensure the continuation of the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee. As families across our Nation navigate raising children with autism, the Autism CARES Act would provide hope by authorizing funding for continued research, surveillance and education at the National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Health Resources and Services Administration, and it would continue this through calendar year 2024. I thank Representatives Chris Smith and Michael Doyle for their tireless work to reauthorize this program and better the lives for individuals with autism and their families. As Dr. Amy Hewitt pointed out at our hearing, the number of autism spectrum disorder diagnoses has risen more than 600 percent in the past few decades. In 2018, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention determined that 1 in 59 children is diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder, and that boys are four times more likely to be diagnosed with autism than are girls. As more individuals are diagnosed, it becomes even more important for Congress to ensure that there is adequate research and support services for these individuals and their families. Early detection and intervention for individuals with autism and their families help to increase the communication and social skills, preparing children for a successful future. The Autism CARES Act reauthorizes these early detection and intervention programs, in addition to workforce programs for health professionals. The Leadership Education in Neurodevelopmental and Related Disabilities, LEND, programs provide training for healthcare professionals to address intellectual disabilities, including autism. As we continue to support research efforts at the National Institutes of Health and through the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee, we will learn more about autism and how to best address it. As we gain knowledge, our healthcare system needs to stand ready to implement the best practices obtained, which is why workforce programs are important. It is critical that we reauthorize the Autism CARES Act on time so that the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee does not lapse, and so that our Nation's research can seamlessly continue. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this bill, and I hope that the Senate will swiftly take up this legislation after its passage here today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the principal author of this bill and the intellectual driving force behind getting this legislation reauthorized.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Once again, I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Smith from New Jersey, for being the intellectual driver and providing the enthusiasm for getting this bill to the floor and getting it passed. Mr. Speaker, I urge all colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favor of H.R. 2035, the Lifespan Respite Care Reauthorization Act of 2019. As many of us know from personal experience, being a caregiver for a loved one is a challenging and exhausting job, and for many Americans, it is a second full-time job. A number of those Americans are also caring for both aging parents and their own children. That is over 40 million Americans who have taken on the role of unpaid caregiver in the past year, and as our Nation's population ages, there will be an increasing number of caregivers who are struggling to balance the demands of caregiving with the rest of their lives. The Lifespan Respite Care program aims to assist caregivers by providing them with the opportunity for a small, much-needed break from those responsibilities. H.R. 2035 would reauthorize funding for this program through fiscal year 2024, which is important because this authorization had technically expired but continued to receive appropriations. Respite care is a critical resource for our caregivers who spend much of their time helping their loved ones each day. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington State (Mrs. Rodgers).

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, most insurance plans do not cover the cost of respite care, but the Administration for Community Living at the Department of Health and Human Services works with the ARCH National Respite Network and Resource Center to provide respite care to caregivers across the United States of America. This legislation is vital to ensuring that we maintain our access to respite care for our caregivers and their loved ones. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support H.R. 2035, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS

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

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, back home in Texas, 1,500 people gathered at the Highland Park United Methodist Church on the campus of SMU to honor the life and legacy of H. Ross Perot. We lost Mr. Perot just a little over a week ago, at the age of 89. Mr. Perot had an outsized influence on our State and, indeed, our Nation. Mr. Perot was remembered by his children in very touching tributes. Mr. Perot's accomplishments were too numerous to go into in the space of a 1-minute talk, but I did want to acknowledge all of the work that he did on behalf of the United States prisoners of war and, certainly, his efforts to elucidate the cause and, yes, some treatment for what was then known as Gulf War Syndrome. Mr. Perot was a driving force in that, and he should be remembered for all of the efforts that he put forward for our Nation's servicemembers.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Morelle for yielding the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering H.R. 582, the Raise the Wage Act. This legislation would raise the Federal minimum wage to $15 an hour, a 107 percent increase over the current rate of $7.25 an hour. An increase of this magnitude could harm American businesses, could harm American consumers, and certainly will harm American workers. The legislation does not consider the labor market, it disincentivizes job growth, and it has the potential to leave nearly 4 million workers unemployed. Let us consider the data. The Congressional Budget Office recently released a report on the effects of mandating a Federal minimum wage in the United States. The report explains how more than doubling the minimum wage would increase unemployment up to 4 million individuals. Four million workers would have to be laid off to increase wages for a little over 1 million people. That means, for each person lifted out of poverty due to a wage increase, another three individuals will lose their jobs. Why? I ask my colleagues: Is this a fair tradeoff? This bill creates false hope for low-wage earners who will be counting on a wage increase and keeping their job. But what if they don't keep their job? Then it is no wage at all. In addition, those who are most likely to lose their jobs are likely to be minorities, women, and our young people. Increasing the Federal minimum wage to $15 an hour would have unintended secondary effects, particularly increasing the risk of inflation. As wages increase, the cost of doing business will rise as well. Businesses will be forced to pass on these increased costs by raising the price of their goods and services. As the costs are passed on to the consumer, who will be hurt the most? It is those vulnerable populations at the lower wage scale that this bill supposedly helps: the Americans who live in poverty. Congress cannot, in good conscience, pass this legislation, at least, without understanding the full effects. In January, the American Enterprise Institute released a report detailing how the costs of goods have changed over the past 20 years, controlled for inflation. This study included everything from televisions to furniture to housing and more. Unsurprisingly, the products with the most government involvement-- let's use as examples healthcare and education--saw the most rapid increase in cost. Is it the intent of the majority to increase prices of many consumer products and services beyond what would be natural economic inflation? Congress must also consider how this legislation will impact different parts of the country in different ways. Many urban areas have already raised their minimum wage to similar levels. By the end of this year, New York City and San Francisco will have minimum wages of $15 an hour. Seattle's two-tiered minimum wage system goes even further by requiring small employers to pay $15 an hour and large employers to pay $16 an hour. However, in many parts of the country, they simply cannot handle the burden of a $15-an-hour minimum wage. Rural areas with small mom-and- pop businesses and significantly lower costs of living do not have the same needs or purchasing priorities as urban dwellers. A Federal minimum wage should be a floor for all workers, not the floor for those working and living in the heart of the most expensive areas of the country. Even the progressive think tank, The Third Way, lobbied for a regional minimum wage in place of an across-the-board increase. If this legislation goes into effect as currently written, it should be renamed the ``Rural Jobs Killer Act'' because this one-size-fits-all policy would accomplish just that. Another consequence of this legislation will be the pricing-out of individuals who seek to enter the workforce. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, nearly half of low-wage earners are under 25 years of age. Increasing the Federal minimum wage to $15 an hour will make it harder for these individuals to compete, meaning that many will not be able to find work. As a teenager growing up in Denton, Texas, I worked a lot of different jobs. I bailed hay, delivered pizzas, and mowed lawns to earn money for my education. Passing this legislation will eliminate such opportunities for the young people of today. With this concern in mind, I offered an amendment to the Raise the Wage Act to protect opportunities for entry-level workers. My amendment would ensure that those individuals with less than a year of work experience have the opportunity to compete in the job market by allowing an entry-level wage for workers with less than 1 year's experience. The initial wage would be set at the current minimum of $7.25 an hour for the first year. Following that year, the Secretary of Labor would be authorized to update the entry-level minimum wage using a market- based analysis. The Secretary would be tasked to update this wage every 5 years to keep up with the changing labor and business environment, instead of a heavyhanded government mandate. Young Americans and new workers deserve a chance to gain experience without being priced out of the job market by more experienced job seekers. The final downside of a significantly higher Federal minimum wage is the risk this action has on the rapid automation of many jobs throughout the economy. Automation in stores, vehicles, and assembly lines could make many of our everyday tasks more efficient and convenient. However, the new technologies will likely displace those who are not trained for other occupations. There is a compelling commercial that one of our fast-food franchises has today that details the path of a young woman who gets her first job at one of these restaurants. Then, it sort of details her progress in every stage along the way. They say her name, and she gets the job. She gets promotions. She gets into school. She is the first in her family to walk across the stage at graduation. But wouldn't it be ironic if, instead of that young woman's name, they would have a kiosk from the same fast-food franchise. The kiosk is actually advancing through the university, the artificial intelligence university. Eventually, the kiosk may sit in the Speaker's chair one day. Look, that is not the future we want. We want to empower our young people. We want to be able to give them work experience and allow them to work and grow. It is a beautiful commercial. I think they have done a wonderful job telling that experience. But ironically, I think of that now when I go into that same restaurant. I am able to order a cup of coffee off the kiosk, and I never have to interact with an actual human at all. Increasing the minimum wage by 107 percent across the country will expedite this process quicker than the pace of innovation ever would. My fellow Texas Representative, freshman Representative Ron Wright, brought this concern to the attention of his colleagues at the House Education and Labor Committee. During consideration of this bill, Mr. Wright offered an amendment that required the Government Accountability Office to study the impact of the minimum wage on the loss of jobs due to automation and would stop the minimum wage hike if this job loss rose to half a million jobs. That seems reasonable. Unfortunately, our colleagues on the other side of the dais in the Education and Labor Committee rejected his concerns and his amendment. With that said, I commend my Democratic colleagues for their efforts to support the disability community with the inclusion of H.R. 873, the Transformation to Competitive Employment Act. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Department of Labor is able to grant employers 14(c) certificates. These certificates give employers the legal right to pay disabled employees' wages below minimum wage, officially called subminimum wages. This unfair policy enables individuals with disabilities to be exploited under the guise of integrating them into society. However, a 2001 GAO report found that only 5 percent of disabled workers at workshops that used the 14(c) certificates found employment outside of these facilities. Little to no training took place, and there was minimal integration into our modern society. Some workers, unfortunately, were paid as little as 4 cents an hour. This issue was brought to my attention by a constituent of mine, Blake Pyron. Blake is a hardworking Texan. He owns his own business in Sanger, Texas. Blake happens to have Down syndrome. He was the first person with Down syndrome in the State of Texas to start his own business, and he has been an advocate for those with disabilities for years. Blake is proof that being differently abled does not change the value of one's life or one's labor. Congress should continue to allow real wage growth to take place through a thriving labor market. By avoiding burdensome Federal mandates, by reducing expenses, by reducing red tape, Americans will see gains in productivity and wages, allowing for more employment, not less. We don't have to look very far to see an example of this. Over the past 2 years, the United States has seen unprecedented low levels of unemployment and record-high rates of wage growth. Due to comprehensive tax reform passed by the last Congress in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, American companies have been able to reinvest in their employees and projects like never before. Due to the Trump administration's effort to reform and rein in overbearing and obstructive Federal regulations, the economy is no longer being held back. With 7 million unfilled jobs in the United States today, the best way to raise wages is to let the power of capitalism work and allow companies to compete for workers. I urge opposition to the rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes for the purpose of response. The gentleman, Mr. Morelle, was not here in 2007, the last time the minimum wage vote was taken. The Speaker of the House was the same Speaker of the House that we have now. The minimum wage was raised. I don't know if the gentleman remembers what happened in the year and a half following that, but job losses in this country were staggering. I am not saying it was a one- to-one relationship, but it certainly set the stage. The economy may have already been softening, but it really did accelerate the job losses that occurred in the recession of 2008. Now, the gentleman correctly points out that 1.3 million people would get a raise. That comes at the expense of 4 million people who would see their employment eliminated by raising the minimum wage. Is that really the direction we want to go? His jurisdiction has raised the minimum wage. Any jurisdiction that I represent is free to raise the minimum wage to whatever level it wants. A city in my district may say that it is not going to negotiate with a contractor that pays less than $15 an hour. That is fine. That is its job. That is its prerogative. It may do so, but it will find itself in competition with other jurisdictions that perhaps will not be so onerous. Look, I was an employer not too terribly long ago, and I recognized, in the full-employment economy of the 1990s, that if I posted a job, the most entry-level job in my medical practice, for a minimum wage hire, I was wasting my money. No one was going to respond to that ad because no one worked for minimum wage in the late 1990s during the tech boom. Everyone had jobs that paid higher than the minimum wage. That should be our aspirational goal, to have an economy that pays more than what a baseline economy would pay. I sat on the Joint Economic Committee for the first several years of the Obama administration. It was a difficult time in this country. Christina Romer and Mr. Summer would tell us that the country's best days were behind us.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 1 minute. Now, we find ourselves emerging into a new area of our economy, a new area of economic freedom. Why don't we embrace that? Look, if we really wanted to do something to help people at the lower end of the wage scale, we would be working seriously on border security. We wouldn't have off-the-books labor competing with the lowest wage earners in this country. We would fix that problem as a United States Congress. That might have been a better effort than what we spent our day doing yesterday. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to read from the Congressional Budget Office report. The paragraph that says, ``Effects of the $15 option on employment and income,'' ends with the sentence ``a reduction of 3.7 million workers.'' And there is also the little item of an $8.7 billion loss in family income. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Brooks).

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I, first, just want to remark that--I think, the last 11 months are the last figures I saw--over the last 11 months wage growth in this country has increased more than at any time in recent memory. Wage growth is a lagging indicator, but it is happening, and that is a good thing, and we should celebrate that. There would be no reason to put the brakes on that that I can see. I think we should be encouraged that that is happening, and I don't think we should be doing things to the economy that would be detrimental and reverse that trend. But let me just say at this point, if we defeat the previous question, Republicans will amend the rule to immediately bring up H.R. 748, the Middle Class Health Benefits Tax Repeal Act, or Cadillac Tax Repeal Act, and include the text of H.R. 1398, the Health Insurance Tax Relief Act, and H.R. 2207, the Protect Medical Innovation Act, or the medical device tax repeal. Legislation in previous Congresses to repeal the Cadillac tax has gathered strong support and brought employers and labor unions together in their efforts to eliminate this tax. Since the Cadillac tax is calculated only based on insurance premiums, it could unfairly target those already struggling with higher healthcare costs and affect middle-income workers, including teachers and nurses, due to the continuing rise of health insurance costs. H.R. 748 would repeal this tax in its entirety. I would also like to note my support for the repeal of the medical device tax and to delay the health insurance tax. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski), my good friend.

Mr. BURGESS. 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, I am prepared to close.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, in closing, with this bill, the Democrats seek to increase wages for millions of low wage earners, but the Congressional Budget Office estimates that it will also result in nearly 4 million lost jobs. These job losses will disproportionately impact entry-level workers and students. That is why I offered an amendment to allow a market-based entry- level wage for workers with less than a year of experience, but Democrats on the Committee on Rules rejected that amendment during the Rules meeting. There was no reason not to make the amendment in order; they just rejected it. A $15 Federal minimum wage is a one-size-fits-all Federal mandate that does not consider differences in cost of living or employment patterns across the country. Federal assistance is meant to be a temporary hand up to aid individuals on the path to a better economic future, but rather than pulling people up, this bill will leave more Americans reaching for assistance. Republican concerns with this bill are not partisan; they are American. If the majority is serious about increasing the wages of all Americans throughout the country, they should work--they should work-- in a bipartisan manner to draft a bill that has a chance of passing in the Senate and making it to the President's desk. Unfortunately, this bill is another partisan political priority that really has no chance of becoming law. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, on the underlying measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BURGESS

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

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the achievements of Ricky Griffin, an outstanding North Texas educator and coach. Coach Griffin, from Argyle High School, was one of eleven coaches in the United States named National Coach of the Year by the American Baseball Coaches Association. Coach Griffin guided the Argyle Eagles to their second consecutive Class 4-A title this season and posted a 77-1-1 record over the last two years. Under his direction, Argyle High School become the first school in Texas UIL history to follow up an undefeated state title season with another state championship. Argyle had two outstanding winning seasons: 37-0 in 2018 and 40-1-1 in 2019. Under Coach Griffin's leadership, the Eagles have a combined 130-10-2 record for the last four seasons--an unprecedented accomplishment. In this case, coaching is a family affair. Coach Griffin's son, Storm Griffin, recently joined his father on the Argyle coaching staff. In addition to his remarkable career as head coach of the Eagles baseball team, Coach Griffin also serves as the defensive backs coach for the Eagles football team. Notably, the Argyle football coaches have established a football program that dominates the Texas 4-A high school football scene. With one state title under their belt and ranking as one of the top football programs for the upcoming season, the Argyle Eagles and their fans should credit their coaches, including Ricky Griffin, for leading Argyle students to success. While Coach Griffin has compiled a long list of achievements, his professional mission goes beyond the field as he strives to develop his students into remarkable young men. Winning seasons, state championships, and national recognition have been the icing on the cake. For his efforts, Coach Griffin will be honored at the annual ABCA convention in January 2020 in Nashville, TN. It is my privilege to recognize Coach Ricky Griffin for leadership of the Argyle Eagles baseball team and our North Texas community, and I wish him continued success.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize National Sunglasses Day and the importance of eye protection in the summer and throughout the year. Unprotected exposure to UV rays may lead to serious vision problems including short-term issues such as sensitivity to light, trouble seeing, sunburn of the eyes or eyelids, irritated eyes, and red or swollen eyes--in addition to serious long-term issues. Thankfully, this damage can be prevented. Manufacturers and suppliers in Texas and around the country that provide sunglasses with UVA/UVB protective lenses are helping to equip Americans to protect their eyes. In the case of eye care, prevention through protection is critical. As a physician, I commend the Vision Council for its work to educate Americans on the importance of healthy vision. On National Sunglasses Day, we are reminded that everyone can take easy steps to protect our eyes.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Yes, I am a member of the Rules Committee. I am also a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee has under their jurisdiction the Office of Refugee Resettlement. So, the Department of Health and Human Services is tasked with caring for unaccompanied children who are transferred from Customs and Border Protection at their processing centers. I have seen this firsthand on many trips to the HHS Office of Refugee Resettlement shelters. HHS personnel work hard. They provide quality, compassionate care to children who cross the border without legal status. These facilities have security to protect the children inside, but a child who wants to leave may request to be returned to their home country, and they may do so with on-site social work. In my experience, all shelters I have visited are designed appropriately for the ages of the children who are occupying them. If an older teen decides, of their own volition, that they need to leave, they are neither detained nor restrained. So, it bothers me when I hear these facilities referred to as detainment centers or child prisons. Office of Refugee Resettlement are shelters to protect these children while they are awaiting placement in homes in this country. And I do need to add one other thing. This is a closed rule. It is a shame we are doing it as a closed rule. I offered an amendment up in the Rules Committee a few moments ago to reimburse the State of Texas for the $800 million that Governor Abbott has felt is required to send down to the border for border security. Governor Perry did it in his administration. This is an ongoing problem for the State of Texas. This is work that should be done by the United States Federal Government, and the State has to take up and expend those dollars. That is wrong, and it needs to change.