Michael Burgess

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I want to share with you a letter that was received in the Rules Committee last night. It is a letter actually addressed to Chairman Kevin Brady of the Ways and Means Committee. It is from the Joint Committee on Taxation. It is a long letter. I will not read all of it. Some of it is difficult to understand, but let me pick out the important points. In each case, the taxpayers' total income tax liability is lower. Here is their concluding paragraph: In its totality, the combined effect of the tax rate and the income threshold and amendments made by the bill, along with the increase in the standard deduction, would not, in and of themselves, result in an increase in the amount of tax imposed on virtually any filer as a result of these changes. Translation: no one's taxes go up; not 36 million; not 3,600; not 36. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, that number is zero, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of former Shady Shores Mayor Olive Stephens. Mayor Stephens, who passed away on October 30 at the age of 101, was known for her commitment to her family, her neighbors, and the Shady Shores community. She was a dedicated public servant who helped Shady Shores grow from a small weekend fishing and camping spot to an incorporated city with a population of more than 2,800. An East Texas native, Mayor Stephens and her late husband moved to Shady Shores in 1956 and opened a general store. In 1963, Olive Stephens began her public service career when she volunteered to serve on the Town Council. After 10 years as a council member, she ran for higher office, and in 1973 won a successful bid to serve as the first elected mayor of Shady Shores. Mayor Stephens served her community in this capacity for almost 40 years until she retired from full time public service at the age of 94. A pioneer of local Texas politics, Olive Stephens left a legacy of lifelong commitment to public service. We will miss her leadership and passion for her Shady Shores community and all of Texas.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Bob Williams and the non-profit animal rescue and counseling center he founded as Ranch Hands Rescue in Argyle, Texas. Founded in 2008, Ranch Hands Rescue came to life as an outcome of a year-long recovery from a debilitating stroke Bob had suffered. With his background as a Motorola executive and a challenging recovery process, Bob was inspired with the recognition of the need for rescuing animals that would otherwise be euthanized. Rescuing the worst-of-the worst farm animal abuse and neglect cases, Ranch Hands Rescue was initially envisioned as a place that would provide a loving, caring and safe sanctuary to the animals that cannot be adopted due to special care needs. Through his own experience with the rescued animals, Bob realized the therapeutic impact they could also have on mental health. In 2010 he started the Ranch Hands Rescue Equine and Animal Assisted Couseling (EEAC) program. Through the work of animal partners and Licensed Professional Counselors, Ranch Hands Rescue provides hope and healing for children, women, veterans and others suffering from painful mental health symptoms brought on by sexual assault, physical abuse, domestic violence, and other traumatic life experiences. In relating with the trauma experienced by the rescued animals at Ranch Hands Rescue, clients of the non-profit from across the entire Dallas/Ft Worth metroplex benefit from the unique trauma-informed animal assisted psychotherapy provided by highly-trained Licensed Professional Counselors. Thanks to the commitment and ongoing passion for rescuing abused and neglected farm animals that would otherwise be considered ``throw aways,'' Ranch Hands Rescue is ``animals helping people and people helping animals'' to provide a special sanctuary for healing in the heart of Texas 26th Congressional District.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time, for the recognition. Let me just say, I want to thank members of the Health Subcommittee, both sides of the dais, who have worked hard on this legislation, and it is unfortunate that it was not brought to the floor of the House in the month of September. From a subcommittee perspective, we were ready. We had our legislative hearings in June. We were delayed one time when the whole House recessed after the shooting of the Members at the baseball practice, but we rescheduled for 2 weeks later, and we had a successful hearing. We had a good hearing; a lot of facts were laid out. We came up with commonsense legislation that was offset in a responsible way. The offsets are not draconian. We have before us a bill today that will, in fact, fund some of the Nation's most important public health programs. It does fund the State Children's Health Insurance for 5 years, one of the longest extensions for this program since its inception in 1996. It will ensure that children and families who rely on this program will continue to receive the access they need. It also includes, in a fiscally responsible way, to delay the harmful ObamaCare-mandated cuts to safety net hospitals, who also provide care to underserved patients. Now, think about that for a minute. We are accused of undermining ObamaCare, but here is a cut that ObamaCare mandates to your safety net hospitals across the country--not just in Texas, but across the country--and we are replacing that today in a fiscally responsible way. It provides funding for community health centers, an important key part of healthcare in communities across the country. It will help the Americans who rely on these vital health services. Not only does the bill provide assistance for underserved populations, but it does so without adding to the national debt. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget called this a responsible health package, noting that the $18 billion cost is fully offset, with savings beyond the 10-year budget window. Other groups have also been supportive: Texas Hospital Association, Texas Health Resources--for me back home--Children's Hospital, and a number of healthcare organizations. We have data from MACPAC, whose job it is to advise Congress on Medicaid and CHIP policy; and MACPAC has advised us that, under current law, there are no new Federal funds for State Children's Health Insurance for fiscal year 2018 and beyond. Unless Congress acts to renew funding, all States will experience a shortfall in CHIP funds for 2018, which means, if someone is contemplating a ``no'' vote on this bill, if you are contemplating a ``no'' vote, you do need to be aware that if you live in the States of Arizona and Minnesota, you ran out of money in October of 2017; North Carolina, same situation. Oregon runs out next month. Vermont runs out next month. You need to think about your ``no'' vote before you apply it. Every single U.S. territory, with the exception of Puerto Rico, ran out of money in the month of October. So those are a few facts that people do need to bear in mind, if they vote ``no'' on this bill, what the actual implications of that are. Yesterday, during debate on the rule, I heard a lot of discussion about taking money out of the Prevention Fund. It doesn't take money out of the Prevention Fund, but it does provide discretion for some prevention and public health dollars. It takes it away from the executive branch and redirects these dollars to proven public health programs that enjoy broad bipartisan support in Congress, like community health centers. So we are fulfilling our Article I responsibility. We shouldn't just be giving everything to the administration to decide how to spend money, whether it be a Democratic or Republican administration. This is the right thing to do. I am proud of the work done by our subcommittee. I think our subcommittee staff has performed admirably on both sides of the dais. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the bill. It is time to act, as our chairman has said.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 600 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 600 provides for the consideration of a bipartisan bill reported by the House Ways and Means Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairs and ranking members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule adopts the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means. Further, the rule waives all points of order and makes in order no further amendments to the legislation. However, the minority is afforded the customary motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of millions of seniors in my home State of Texas and all across the United States, I am grateful that the House is considering H.R. 849, the Protecting Seniors' Access to Medicare Act of 2017. This bill has been championed by my good friend from Tennessee, Dr. Phil Roe, in this Congress and in previous Congresses. It accomplishes a very simple task: To repeal the unpopular Independent Payment Advisory Board created under the Affordable Care Act. This repeal has strong bipartisan support in both the Energy and Commerce Committee, on which I serve, and in this entire body. As of today, there are 270 Republican and Democratic cosponsors to the bill who all agree that the creation of this board was a very bad idea. More than 800 organizations representing every State support this bill. If I may add, this includes seniors, patient advocacy groups, physician groups, and other healthcare provider organizations. This board is charged with broad, sweeping powers to reduce Medicare spending when Medicare spending exceeds an arbitrary target. The board is a panel composed of 15 members appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate for up to two consecutive 6-year terms. Fewer than half of the Independent Payment Advisory Board members can be healthcare providers, and no one--and this is an important point--on the board may receive outside income. So that means by its very definition that this board is comprised of people who cannot be practicing physicians. The other members will come from the ranks of think tanks, unions, and academia. For a panel with so much authority over Medicare spending, there could be little to no clinical expertise amongst the board members. Is this what Americans really want? Now, here is some good news. The board has yet to be formed. Hooray for that. According to the 2017 Annual Report on the Boards of Medicare Trustees from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' Office of the Actuary, the Independent Payment Advisory Board may not be formed until at least 2021, based on the current Medicare spending rate projections. Well, that is good news to seniors and their doctors and their families, but these projections are just numbers and they can change. In fact, last year the projection was very different, that the Independent Payment Advisory Board would be triggered this year rather than the delay. The concern of many of us here in the House and hundreds of stakeholders I have heard from is that under the law, the Independent Payment Advisory Board's proposals are required to be implemented by the Secretary of Health and Human Services unless Congress acts by creating its own proposal to achieve the exact same savings or by preventing the automatic implementation process as defined by law. So what is that process? The law mandates immediate introduction of legislation encompassing the Independent Payment Advisory Board proposed bills in Congress-- Stop and think about that for a minute. That is not a bill introduced by a Member of Congress. That is a bill introduced by an outside board. That is a bill introduced by the administration. Let me recapitulate. The law mandates immediate introduction of legislation encompassing the Independent Payment Advisory Board proposed bills in Congress and establishes strict deadlines for committee and Senate floor consideration, and places limits on the appropriations process. While Congress is permitted to modify the type of cuts to Medicare, it must achieve identical savings amounts to Medicare spending as contained in the board's plan. The law bars Congress from changing the Independent Payment Advisory Board fiscal targets in any other legislation it considers, and it creates procedures whereby a super majority vote is required in the Senate to waive this requirement. If the Independent Payment Advisory Board fails to report recommendations or never becomes operational, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services is given the power to implement the cuts unilaterally. Well, you might think that, then, of course this would be under judicial or administrative review, but the Independent Payment Advisory Board is exempt from administrative or judicial review. No matter what your views are on the Affordable Care Act, we should all agree that giving this much power to a panel of unelected and unaccountable officials or a Cabinet Secretary, whoever he or she may be in any administration, giving away this much power is simply bad policy. The House shouldn't be for that. This process is extremely complicated, and maybe that was the intent of the people who wrote the provision creating this board under the Affordable Care Act. I also fundamentally believe that the Independent Payment Advisory Board infringes on the separation of powers by shifting authority from the legislative to the executive branch. Not only does the creation of this board significantly limit Congress' authority, it eliminates needed transparency from hearings and debate. It eliminates any meaningful opportunity for stakeholder input. I believe leaving Medicare payment decisions in the hands of those who are unelected and unaccountable, with little congressional oversight, will actually harm seniors' access to quality healthcare. Congress has played an integral role in shaping policies that best reflect the needs of our districts and our States, and our constituents demand that. That is the reason they sent us here. Lastly, as a physician, I treasure the doctor-patient relationship. I believe we must do more to honor this relationship and prevent the Federal Government from further eroding this precious commodity. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe), the chief sponsor of the bill.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, I did want to delineate the membership of this board, as is outlined in the Affordable Care Act. The board will be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, with the advice and consent of the Secretary or the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and the Administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration. All of those individuals will serve as ex officio nonvoting members. But here are the qualifications for the actual board: ``The appointed membership of the board shall include individuals with national recognition for their expertise in health finance and economics, in actuarial science, health facility management, health plans, and integrated delivery systems, and reimbursement of healthcare facilities. . . .'' Missing from that picture, of course, are the people who actually provide the care to people who are involved in that doctor-patient relationship. Almost as an afterthought, here at the end of that paragraph, ``allopathic and osteopathic physicians.'' The other aspect is that no member of the board can receive outside income. That may be a good idea, but that guarantees there will not be a practicing physician on that board. I think that is a significant oversight. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Dunn), who is also a physician.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I recall things a little differently. I recall the lie of the year being, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, but I guess that is a debate for another day. Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for consideration of an important piece of legislation to protect seniors' access to healthcare from the ill-advised Medicare Independent Payment Advisory Board created by the Obama administration within the Affordable Care Act. I thank the authors, Chairman Brady and Dr. Roe, and the 270 House cosponsors of H.R. 849 for their thoughtful and bipartisan legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support the rule providing for consideration of this underlying bill, and then support the bill.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 601 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 601 provides for the consideration of a critical bill to provide health insurance and healthcare to millions of underprivileged children. This package, which includes two separate bills: H.R. 3922, the Community Health And Medical Professional Improves Our Nation, CHAMPION, Act of 2017; and H.R. 3921, the Healthy Kids Act. This was reported out of the Committee on Energy and Commerce after lengthy deliberation and negotiation and a lengthy markup. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The rule adopts an amendment from the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, modified by a second amendment by the same author, combining the two bills into the package on the floor today. Further, the rule waives all points of order and makes in order no further amendments to the legislation. However, the minority is afforded the customary motion to recommit. The congressionally appropriated stream of funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program expired at the end of September. Funding for other important public health programs, such as community health centers, the National Health Service Corps, and Teaching Health Center Graduate Medical Education, also expired at the end of September. While every State that receives Federal funding through these programs continues to have adequate dollars to maintain health insurance for every enrolled child, several States are beginning to exhaust their unspent 2017 funds and redistributed funds from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. With November now upon us, waiting any longer will only put more pressure on those States to begin sending notifications to children and families that they are losing their coverage for those programs; so it is important that we reauthorize funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program and other programs now. H.R. 3922, the CHAMPIONING HEALTHY KIDS Act, will achieve that important task. It is essential to our efforts to ensuring that these programs continue to meet the healthcare needs of children and families who have come to rely upon them. Today, more than 8 million low-income children across our country depend on the Children's Health Insurance Program for many of their healthcare services. These include routine doctor visits, immunizations, prescription medicines, and dental care. Through flexible, capped allotments to the States, the program has been able to successfully support these children, while providing States with opportunities to tailor their respective programs as best meet the needs of their respective populations. The CHAMPIONING HEALTHY KIDS Act would extend CHIP for another 5 years, which is the longest extension since its inception in 1996. An extension through fiscal year 2022 will provide financial stability for every State's CHIP program and certainty for those children and their families who are covered. Additionally, ensuring coverage for CHIP- eligible children will make them less likely to have to enroll in Medicaid or ObamaCare. This bill also contains and maintains a provision under the Affordable Care Act that provided 23 percent increased matching for 2 years; then that draws down to an increase of 11.5 percent matching in the third year; and then, finally, provides funding at pre-ACA levels for the final 2 years. These funding levels will provide the States enough time to plan their budgets before returning to the regular CHIP matching rates, thereby restoring the fiscally responsible Federal-State Medicaid partnership. While reauthorizing CHIP funding is the primary focal point of this legislation, the CHAMPIONING HEALTHY KIDS Act also includes other important provisions relating to our Nation's healthcare. The bill provides a 2-year extension of funding for Federally Qualified Health Centers, community health centers. One in thirteen individuals nationwide relies upon a community health center to receive healthcare services. The Community Health Center Fund plays an important role in supplementing the services that Federally Qualified Health Centers are able to deliver to underserved communities by providing care to all Americans, regardless of income or ability to pay. Funding for the Teaching Health Center Graduate Medical Education program is also extended for another 2 years. The legislation includes a 2-year extension of other important health programs, including funding for the National Health Service Corps, Family-to-Family Health Information Centers, the Youth Empowerment Program, the Personal Responsibility Education Program, the Special Diabetes Program for Type 1 Diabetes, and the Special Diabetes Program for American Indians. In addition to the important funding streams addressed in this bill, the Committee on Energy and Commerce incorporated a way to help our Nation's territories in a time of need following recent natural disasters. The bill includes more than $1 billion for the Medicaid programs in both Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. This funding should assist our territories in providing care for their populations who have faced substantial devastation from Hurricanes Irma and Maria. The Medicare funding issue is unique to Puerto Rico and the United States citizens living in the territories. This was a problem that predated the hurricanes, but it was exacerbated by the devastation that the storm brought to the islands. Without a legislative fix from Congress, this will be an ongoing and festering problem until it is properly addressed, and the bill before us today begins to do just that. Additionally, the bill delays the $5 billion in cuts to many of the hospitals across the country from the Affordable Care Act-mandated Medicaid disproportionate share hospital reductions for fiscal years 2018 and 2019. I am sure that many of my colleagues have heard from hospitals in their districts whose ability to remain operational and to continue to provide care could be jeopardized by these payment cuts. These cuts are offset in future years, adding an additional $6 billion in reductions in fiscal year 2021, 2022, and 2023. This delays but does not fix a problem that ObamaCare created for safety net hospitals. It is one which we will have to revisit, but it delays the cuts that have already been affected by current law and protects these safety net hospitals which provide care to the neediest citizens in our country. Not only does the CHAMPIONING HEALTHY KIDS Act reauthorize funding for essential health programs, the bill is fully offset. It will not add to the national debt. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget called this a ``responsible health package,'' noting that the $18 billion cost of the bill is fully offset with savings beyond the 10-year budget window. One of the ways that costs are offset was to alter the qualified health plan grace period so that it would align with State law grace period requirements. This involved changing, in the Affordable Care Act, the grace period for subsidized individuals from 90 days to 30 days unless a State specifically allows otherwise. It also redirected $6.4 million from the Prevention and Public Health Fund to help pay for the legislation. This fund is required by law to receive $2.5 billion in annual appropriations which must be used for prevention, wellness, and public health initiatives administered by the Department of Health and Human Services. If Congress--let me say it again--if Congress does not direct these funds toward specific efforts, the Secretary of Health and Human Services has the authority to spend the funds however he or she deems fit. While we are redirecting these taxpayer dollars, the overarching purpose of the funding is still to improve the health and wellness of Americans through existing mechanisms, and community health centers will do just that. We allow for certain wealthy Medicare beneficiaries with individual incomes of over $500,000 to pay increased premiums in order to offset some of the cost of authorizing these programs. These beneficiaries will be subject to higher premiums, thereby increasing their overall cost, but still their cost will be lower than if they purchased insurance on the exchange. The CHAMPIONING HEALTHY KIDS Act is a fiscally responsible way to fund some of our Nation's most important public health programs. The bill would ensure continued access to care for children and individuals who rely on the programs for vital healthcare services. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. Mr. Speaker, these offsets are reasonable. For these reasons, I encourage my colleagues to support today's rule and support the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds in response before yielding to the chairman of the Rules Committee. It pains me to hear people talk about the 33-day delay in getting SCHIP funding resubmitted. I just want to assure the House of Representatives that Republicans on the Subcommittee of Health in the Energy and Commerce Committee have been ready to go with this legislation. We did our legislative hearings early in the summer, as the gentleman will recall because he was there, and we were ready for our markup in the month of September. Why was it delayed? Let me reference an article from CQ News, October 23, 2017: ``Democrats do not want a children's health insurance bill to come to the floor this week for a vote, said Frank Pallone, Jr., ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee at a district event. . . .'' `` `The idea is to not have the bill come to the floor this week,' said Pallone. . . .'' I include in the Record a copy of the CQ News article. [From CQ News, Oct. 23, 2017] House Democrats Push To Delay Children's Health Vote (By Sandhya Raman) Democrats do not want a children's health insurance program bill to come to the floor this week for a vote, said Frank Pallone Jr., ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee at a district event broadcast on Facebook Live on Monday. ``The idea is to not have the bill come to the floor this week,'' said Pallone, emphasizing that Democrats still want to find a bipartisan compromise and will not accept the changes to Medicare or Medicaid that Republicans want to use to fund the coverage. He later added, ``This is supposed to come up Thursday. Hopefully, it won't.'' Pallone suggested that the process could be lengthy if the House passes a partisan bill and the Senate does not act quickly to pass their bipartisan measure. The two likely would have to be reconciled through conference negotiations. ``We're going to just delay this for months, and the end result could be we don't deal with this until the end of the year,'' said Pallone, speaking at a community health center. Democrats disagree with the offsets in House bills to reauthorize CHIP (HR 3921) and community health centers and other safety net programs (HR 3922). The CHIP bill's offsets include increasing premiums for Medicare recipients with income over $500,000 a year and limiting Medicaid benefits for lottery winners. In addition, Democrats take issue with an offset that would bill other insurance before Medicaid for recipients who use more than one form of coverage. The offsets for the community health centers include changes to undermine the 2010 health care law (PL 111-148, PL 111-152) including cutting almost $6.4 billion from the Prevention and Public Health Fund over 10 years. Republicans also would allow states to create their own grace periods for individuals on the exchanges to pay their premiums or use a default one-month grace period. The current grace period is three months. ``If you miss it and you don't pay it, you can't get your insurance. You've got to re-enroll for the next year,'' Pallone said about the grace period. ``The problem is that they haven't been willing to give much on taking this money from the Affordable Care Act or Medicare, but why do they even have to come out of health care at all? Why can't we use another vehicle to pay for it?'' said Pallone, adding, ``Part of that could be cut back significantly.'' Democrats also object to the way Puerto Rico's Medicaid funding in the CHIP bill would be addressed. ``They're still requiring a state match from Puerto Rico,'' said Pallone. ``The bill funds a little bit, but it's totally worthless if Puerto Rico has to come up with the match.'' The island does not have money to contribute, Democrats say. Earlier this month, Committee Chairman Greg Walden of Oregon asked his Democratic colleagues to suggest offsets that may be more amenable than those currently in the bill that the committee passed. Last week, Walden said in a statement that he had not received any Democratic offers. Democrats contend they have put suggestions on the table. One idea would require drug companies to help seniors better afford their prescriptions by closing a funding gap, known as the ``doughnut hole,'' in Medicare coverage. Currently, seniors have to pick up more costs after a certain spending threshold until they hit another limit when Medicare resumes paying for coverage. ``We've been making offers back. One of the things we said is make the drug companies pay for the doughnut hole. We still have a doughnut hole for Medicare Part D. So if they pay for the cost of that, that could be used as a payfor,'' said Pallone. ``This bill that may go to the floor next week is going nowhere,'' said Pallone, stating that it would ``be a totally partisan vote.'' Federal funding for CHIP expired Sept. 30. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has redistributed unused CHIP funds to nine states and territories including Arizona, California, Minnesota, Washington, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, U.S. Virgin Islands and Oregon. The funds come from unused CHIP allotments from previous years and are used to help states that are running low on their current year funds.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds for the purpose of a response before I yield to the gentleman from Georgia. Mr. Speaker, if we are going to tell stories, then ``once upon a time'' should be part of our opening. This bill merely takes some of the discretion for the Prevention and Public Health Fund away from the administration and returns it to Congress where it is supposed to be in the first place, so we take discretion over some of the Prevention and Public Health Fund dollars away from the executive branch and redirect these dollars to proven public health programs that enjoy broad, bipartisan support in Congress like the community health centers. Every Democrat voted for the Cures for the 21st Century, and it did exactly the same thing. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne), who is a fellow member of the House Rules Committee.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. First off, the gentleman may not remember that we had a legislative hearing in June on this very bill. It was delayed from June 14. The gentleman may recall there was an unfortunate circumstance of a shooting at a congressional baseball practice. In fact, a member of our committee, Majority Whip Steve Scalise, was in surgery, and most felt we couldn't go through with the hearing that day, but we had it 2 weeks later as soon as we could get the hearing time. So it was done well in advance of the expiration of the funding. Furthermore, as far as the substitute goes, the minority is afforded the customary motion to recommit. I look forward to the gentleman introducing a substitute at that time. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Tennessee.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?