Michael Burgess

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter that was sent by Representative Joe Barton, who was then the ranking member on the Energy and Commerce Committee, and myself, as the ranking member of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, June 11, 2010, asking for the economic data that the EPA was supposed to provide regarding their proposed rule changes back in 2010. House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, DC, June 11, 2010. Hon. Lisa Jackson, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Dear Administrator Jackson: While the President has repeatedly stated that job creation and economic growth are his top priorities, in the environmental arena it appears the Administration is allowing ideology to trump objective science and sound public policy, and is issuing new rules that will significantly impede economic development and growth throughout the United States, In particular, we are concerned that the Administration, through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is promulgating a whole host of unworkable, multi-billion dollar environmental regulations without fully considering all available scientific information, and without regard to, the realistic compliance costs, job impacts, or the ability of states, municipalities and/or businesses to implement the new regulations. In the past we have expressed very serious concerns about the Administration's global warming regulations and EPA's process for developing its endangerment finding, the agency's highly expedited issuance of that finding, and the agency's reliance on the scientific assessments of outside groups, including the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), without a careful and critical examination of their conclusions and findings. Further, we have significant concerns about the potentially hundreds of billions of dollars or more in compliance costs that are triggered by the finding, the over 6 million entities that may ultimately be subject to complex new permitting requirements, potential enforcement actions, fines and penalties, and threats of citizen suits and other third-party litigation. EPA itself has acknowledged that the stationary source permitting requirements triggered by the endangerment finding are totally unworkable, and that it would be administratively impossible for EPA and states to administer those new requirements, or for employers and businesses to comply. We write today regarding another set of multi-billion dollar regulations proposed by the Obama Administration which also appear to be extraordinarily expensive and unworkable. Specifically, in January 2010, EPA proposed new National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ground-level ozone, the main component of smog. NAAQS ozone standards have been revised a number of times over the past several decades, including in 1997 when EPA set an 8-hour ``primary'' ozone standard, as well as an identical ``secondary'' standard, to a level of 0.08 parts per million (ppm), or effectively 0.084 ppm. While EPA significantly strengthened that standard in 2008 to a level of 0.075 ppm, in January 2010 this Administration took the unprecedented step of setting aside the 2008 standards, and proposing its own alternative standards based on the prior administrative record and a ``provisional assessment,'' and without conducting a full review of the currently available scientific and technical information. EPA is now proposing a new primary ozone standard within the range of 0.060-0.070 ppm, as well as a distinct cumulative, seasonal secondary standard within the range of 7-15 ppm-hours. EPA has also proposed an accelerated implementation schedule. We are very concerned about the proposed standards, not only because there appear to be questions about the development of the proposed standards, but also because EPA estimates that the costs would range from $19 billion to $90 billion annually, or nearly a trillion dollars over ten years. Moreover, it appears, based on EPA's own ozone maps and estimates, that most counties in the country could violate the standards, particularly if EPA chooses to set the standard at the lower end of the proposed range. Further, it also appears many areas of the country, including rural and remote areas, could never be in attainment because the standards are so low that they may exceed natural background ozone levels, or ozone levels due to foreign emissions from Asian or other sources. We understand EPA plans to finalize the proposed ozone standards by August 31, 2010. Before EPA finalizes such standards, we believe your agency should provide the Congress with fuller information about the EPA's process for developing and proposing the new standards, the counties or municipalities expected to be in violation, whether the new standards can realistically be implemented by areas that have higher ozone levels due to natural background ozone levels or foreign emissions, and the potential restrictions that the new standards will place on future economic growth and development for non-attainment areas. We request your responses to the following questions within two weeks of the date of this letter: 1. Under Sections 108 and 109 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA is authorized to set NAAQS for certain criteria pollutants, including ozone, and the Act sets out specific procedures for revising those standards. a. In proposing the new standards, why isn't EPA conducting a full analysis of all available data, including more recent data? b. In proposing the standards, why isn't EPA following the express procedures set forth in Section 109 of the CAA? 2. Under the Clinton Administration's 1997 ozone standards: a. What types of measures have been required by state and local governments to come into compliance with those standards? b. What were the estimated costs for compliance with the 1997 standards and how do those compare with estimated costs for the proposed new standards? c. What analysis, if any, did EPA conduct relating to the potential impacts on employment of the 1997 standards? d. What were EPA's projections with regard to attainment of the 1997 standards, and approximately how many counties in the United States have still not been able to come into compliance? e. What are the primary reasons for the inability of these counties to come into compliance? 3. Under the Obama Administration's proposed ozone standards, we understand that EPA projects, based on 2006- 2008 data, that of the 675 counties that currently monitor ozone levels, 515 counties (76%) would violate a 0.070 ppm standard, and 650 counties (96%) would violate a 0.060 ppm standard. a. Please identify the 515 counties that would violate a 0.070 ppm standard, and the expected time needed for attainment. b. Please identify the additional 135 counties that would violate a 0.060 ppm standard, and the expected time needed for attainment. 4. According to the attached map from EPA's Clean Air Status Trends Network (CASTNET) 2008 Annual Report, it appears many areas of the country that do not currently have ozone monitors would also be likely to violate the new smog standards, including in very rural and remote areas. a. How many counties don't currently have ozone monitors? b. Based on CASTNET data and any other data EPA may have regarding ozone levels in non-monitored counties, how many additional counties could be in violation of EPA's proposed ozone standards if a monitor were present? Please identify those counties using the CASTNET data and any other data available, and the expected time needed for attainment. c. Would there be areas with monitored air quality that attain the proposed standards but that might nevertheless be considered to be in ``nonattainment'' because they are in a Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA) in which one monitor or more exceeds the proposed standards? 5. According to the EPA Fact Sheet for the Obama Administration's proposed ozone standards, the implementation costs range from $19 to $90 billion annually while EPA projects the value of the health benefits would range from $13 to $100 billion per year. a. What are the primary studies EPA is relying upon in the development of its health benefits estimates? What are the major uncertainties in those studies that could affect the estimates? b. How many of the health-based studies included in the criteria document for the proposed ozone standards were based on statistically significant evidence compared to those studies that were not? c. How many of the new health-based studies included in the provisional assessment for the proposed ozone standards were based on statistically significant evidence compared to those studies that were not? d. Can EPA provide any assurances that the value of the health benefits will outweigh the implementation costs? 6. Under the Obama Administration's proposed ozone standards, what control requirements, including offsets, transportation planning measure or other measures, may apply to nonattainment areas? a. It appears the proposed standards would create a significant number of new nonattainment areas in the Western United States. How would nonattainment in rural or remote Western states and tribal lands be addressed? b. In the event that an area fails to attain any new standards by the applicable date, what would be the potential consequences, including any sanctions or penalties? c. What will happen to states or localities that cannot come into compliance with the proposed standards because of a lack of economically or technically feasible technology necessary to attain compliance? d. What will happen to states or localities that have natural background ozone levels, and/or ozone levels due to transport from outside the United States, that are currently close to or exceed the new standards? i. Will such areas be designated as being in nonattainment? ii. Will EPA require states or localities to attain standards lower than concentrations below the non- controllable background levels? 7. Given, as EPA recognizes, that there would be many new nonattainment areas, does EPA believe it is realistic to require states to provide recommendations to EPA by January 7, 2011? Is it reasonable to require State Implementation Plans by December 2013? a. If EPA believes these deadlines are realistic, please explain the basis for that conclusion. 8. Does EPA anticipate requiring separate planning requirements for a seasonable secondary standard if one is adopted as proposed? How does EPA plan to implement this type of secondary standard? 9. Has EPA prepared any analyses of the potential employment impacts of the proposed standards on specific sectors of the economy, including the manufacturing and construction sectors? If yes, please provide copies of such analyses. 10. Has EPA prepared any analyses of the potential relocation of production facilities outside the United States as a result of implementation of the proposed standards? If yes, please provide copies of such analyses. 11. Has EPA prepared any analyses of the potential impacts of the proposed standards on small businesses? If yes, please provide copies of such analyses. If the EPA withholds any documents or information in response to this letter, please provide a Vaughn Index or log of the withheld items. The index should list the applicable question number, a description of the withheld item (including date of the item), the nature of the privilege or legal basis for the withholding, and a legal citation for the withholding claim. Should you have any questions, please contact Minority Committee staff. Sincerely, Joe Barton, Ranking Member. Michael Burgess, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

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

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of an important piece of environmental legislation to protect the lives and health of all Americans while providing smart tools to the States to implement the EPA's standards. I thank my fellow Texan, Pete Olson, for his work on this legislation, which I know affects his district in the Houston area as much as it does mine in the Dallas-Fort Worth region. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on today's rule and to support the underlying bill.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time. It is significant today to be here and be supporting H.R. 2430, the Food and Drug Administration Reauthorization Act of 2017. The passage of this bill provides certainly the security to the scientists who are working even now in pursuit of better cures and, of course, hope for patients across the country who are awaiting better treatments of the diseases that are afflicting them. By reauthorizing the Food and Drug Administration user fee program, we are ensuring that the Food and Drug Administration can continue to officially operate and approve new drugs for the market. Upon becoming chairman of the Subcommittee on Health this year, I had the privilege of convening four separate legislative hearings on the policies that are included in H.R. 2430. In each of those hearings, we heard about the tremendous success of the user fee programs in expanding access to affordable medications, supporting biomedical innovation, and maintaining high standards at the FDA for safety, efficacy, and quality. H.R. 2430 will build upon these successes and will also build upon the achievements that we achieved in the last Congress, in the 21st Century Cures Act. And now we can ensure that the FDA has resources necessary to get medical treatments and cures to patients and healthcare providers as quickly as possible. This bill is an important step forward for our committee and for this Congress, and we continue to pursue meaningful improvements to the healthcare system. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Gene Green, Ranking Member Pallone of the full committee, all members of the Energy and Commerce Committee, both subcommittee and full committee, who worked hard to improve the substance of this bill as it came through. Clearly, I wish to thank the majority and minority staffs who worked so hard to bring this to fruition.

Mr. BURGESS

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

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material into the Record on the bill.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), who is the chairman of the Rules Committee.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1492, the Medical Controlled Substances Transportation Act of 2017, authored by my good friend from Texas, the chairman of the Rules Committee, Representative Pete Sessions. Whether it is emergency medical service providers traveling to a disaster area to provide care or a team physician at an away game, certain medical practitioners often need to travel with and administer antiseizure or pain medications. Although many of these are regulated under the Controlled Substances Act, current law does not specifically authorize the transportation or administration of such substances away from their registered location. Currently, the Controlled Substances Act does not specifically authorize the transportation and the administration of controlled substances away from the location registered with the Drug Enforcement Administration. In order to ensure appropriate oversight of this practice, H.R. 1492 would establish a separate registration process for mobile practitioners who are already registered with the DEA and in good standing. For a practitioner to transport and administer controlled substances pursuant to this new registration, he or she must be licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted by the State in which the substances are administered to carry out such activity at the location where it occurs. In addition, the practitioner must limit the time of transport to not more than 72 consecutive hours and return any such substances not administered to their registered location from which they were obtained. Further, the practitioner must maintain records of the transporting and administering, and DEA would maintain the authority to deny or revoke a registration. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC, June 24, 2017. Hon. Greg Walden, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Walden: I write with respect to H.R. 1492, the ``Medical Controlled Substances Transportation Act.'' As a result of your having consulted with us on provisions within H.R. 1492 that fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary, I forego any further consideration of this bill so that it may proceed expeditiously to the House floor for consideration. The Judiciary Committee takes this action with our mutual understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 1492 at this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over subject matter contained in this or similar legislation and that our committee will be appropriately consulted and involved as this bill or similar legislation moves forward so that we may address any remaining issues in our jurisdiction. Our committee also reserves the right to seek appointment of an appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate conference involving this or similar legislation and asks that you support any such request. I would appreciate a response to this letter confirming this understanding with respect to H.R. 1492 and would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in the Congressional Record during floor consideration of H.R. 1492. Sincerely, Bob Goodlatte, Chairman.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1492) to amend the Controlled Substances Act to direct the Attorney General to register practitioners to transport controlled substances to States in which the practitioner is not registered under the Act for the purpose of administering the substances (under applicable State law) at locations other than principal places of business or professional practice.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I want to commend Chairman Sessions for working on this important legislation with the Energy and Commerce Committee, the House Judiciary Committee, and the Drug Enforcement Administration to ensure that we got it right. This is a good bill with appropriate safeguards. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Paul Voertman, the former owner of the iconic Voertman's Bookstore on Fry Street in Denton, Texas. In addition to his business interests, Mr. Voertman also was a patron of the arts, a humanitarian, and a philanthropist. Mr. Voertman grew up near the University of North Texas and attended the UNT Demonstration School from kindergarten through twelfth grade. He received his undergraduate degree in economics at the University of Texas at Austin. Upon graduation, he entered the U.S. Air Force. While on active duty in Germany, his father passed away and he returned to Denton to take over his father's general store. Over time, Voertman transformed the store into a well-known cultural landmark renowned for its high-quality wares, reasonable prices, and excellent customer service. Countless students at UNT and Texas Woman's University purchased their textbooks, spirit wear, and more at Voertman's. Mr. Voertman generously contributed to the arts for more than 60 years and was one of UNT's most generous benefactors. In Denton, he sponsored prizes for Texas art organizations, commissioned locally- produced art works, and established juried art competitions at UNT and TWU, which still continue today. The Voertman-Ardoin Memorial Scholarship assists first-generation college students at UNT, and the Ardoin-Voertman Endowment Fund supports the College of Visual Arts and Design, the College of Music, and the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences. Mr. Voertman also gave significant financial backing to TWU's Chancellor's Circle, scholarships, and athletics. He was a patron of community organizations, including the Cumberland Presbyterian Children's Horne, the Monsignor King Homeless Outreach Center, and the Denton Community Health Clinic. I would like to express my sincere condolences to Mr. Voertman's family and friends. He will be remembered for his business acumen, cultural contributions, and selfless generosity to the Denton community

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life of Mr. Bill DeBerry, Sr., one of the finest businessmen in Denton, Texas. As the founder and owner of a funeral home in Denton, Bill devoted much of his life to assisting others during some of the most difficult times of their own lives. Bill left school at an early age to help support his family when he began driving an ambulance for a funeral home. The owner of the funeral home at the time noticed Bill's work ethic and encouraged him to finish his education. With both high school and University of North Texas degrees in hand, Bill worked his way through the Dallas Institute of Mortuary Services. After graduating with his specialized degree, Bill began his mortuary career at Schmitz-Floyd-Hamlett Funeral Home in Denton. After gaining valuable experience in the industry, he opened Bill DeBerry Funeral Directors in 1990. This local business continues to serve the Denton community today under the leadership and dedication of his sons. I would like to offer my sincere condolences to Mr. DeBerry's family, friends, and colleagues. He will be remembered for his compassion and commitment to excellence throughout his 60 year career, as well as his service to our Denton community.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life and public service of Robert B. Toulouse. Dr. Toulouse, provost emeritus and dean of the Toulouse Graduate School at the University of North Texas in Denton, Texas, devoted his life to the education of others. Robert Toulouse served his country for 25 years. Beginning in World War II, Dr. Toulouse served five years of active duty in the United States Air Force and twenty years in the U.S. Air Force Reserve. In 1978, he retired at the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. Dr. Toulouse earned three degrees in education from the University of Missouri, which led him to a robust career in academia. In 1948, Dr. Toulouse began his distinguished career in education as assistant professor in the University of North Texas' College of Education. He made a significant impact on campus through his service as dean of the graduate school from 1954 to 1982. During this time, the graduate school grew to host more than 100 graduate programs, increasing from just a few hundred graduate students to more than 5,000. After 28 years at the helm of the graduate school, Dr. Toulouse joined the university's leadership team as provost and vice president for academic affairs in 1982. After he retired as provost emeritus, the University of North Texas named the Robert B. Toulouse School of Graduate Studies in 1990 in honor of his tremendous professional and personal contributions to the institution. Dr. Toulouse passed away this year at the age of 98, leaving a rich legacy of service to our community. I would like to offer my sincere sympathy to the Toulouse family on their loss. I am grateful for the service Dr. Robert B. Toulouse rendered to this nation and to the university of which I am a proud alumnus.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, July 7, 2016, is forever marked by the sadness and loss our community suffered when five Dallas police officers were gunned down in the deadliest attack for law enforcement in the United States since the September 11 attacks. These officers were killed as they protected Dallas citizens exercising their constitutional right to protest. They put their own lives on the line for the safety of others. Reflecting on the events of last July 7, what stands out to me is the heroism of those who answered when duty called and a community that banded together during this tragic event. We are in the midst of an environment that can be deeply divided. We should all seek to follow the example of the Dallas community. I want to acknowledge former Dallas Chief of Police David Brown and offer my sincere gratitude for his leadership; as well as the Dallas Police Department; first responders; the Parkland hospital; Baylor University hospital, where this iconic photograph was taken, for providing excellent emergency care; and others who helped the victims of this attack. Mr. Speaker, we must recognize the sacrifice of the men and women and the critical role they played to protect our communities.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 379 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the honorable gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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 may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, the day before yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration for two very important measures. First, the resolution provides for the consideration of H.R. 2372, the VETERAN Act. This rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee. In addition, the resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 2579, the Broader Options for Americans Act. This rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee. Mr. Speaker, both of these bills are a part of the House of Representatives' commitment to repair damage done by the Affordable Care Act. These bills seek to amend key parts of the American Health Care Act, which the House passed on May 4 of 2017. The American Health Care Act expands health coverage options for Americans by allowing them to use advanceable, refundable tax credits to purchase State-approved plans in the individual market. The two bills will ensure the tax credits that Americans will use to purchase health insurance policies will be available to all who qualify. When the House passed the American Health Care Act, the bill included individual, advanceable, flexible, refundable tax credits that individuals can use to purchase health insurance policies on the individual market. When the bill passed, however, procedural reasons prevented the House from including two key groups of Americans: veterans who are eligible for coverage through the VA and individuals who need to get continuation of coverage through an employer's COBRA- sponsored plan. The two bills covered under this rule will remedy that same problem. In recent years, the Internal Revenue Service has adopted a practice of providing eligible veterans the choice to get financial support for a private plan in lieu of enrolling in healthcare provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs. H.R. 2372, the VETERAN Act, will codify this and continue that practice retroactively for both the Affordable Care Act's Premium Tax Credit and the new tax credit created in the American Health Care Act. Veterans will continue to be able to get premium support when they opt out to purchase a private health plan instead of enrolling in the healthcare provided by the VA. Similarly, H.R. 2579 will expand access to the new American Health Care Act tax credit to COBRA, in the continuation of that coverage. Under COBRA, group plans allow beneficiaries to keep their existing employer-sponsored coverage if they are laid off, work fewer hours, or lose insurance due to a change in family circumstances. Often, those who need to use the COBRA coverage are those most in need, such as individuals who are in the middle of a treatment course and want to preserve their network of providers. COBRA coverage is frequently very expensive, since the individual policyholder must now pay all the premium for their policy. H.R. 2579 will extend the new tax credits to include people receiving COBRA coverage and enable people who need it to continue taking advantage of their employer-sponsored healthcare coverage, even after a triggering event. Mr. Speaker, the bills the House will consider under this rule will help fulfill the promise Republicans made to the American people. We made repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act with something that works the highest priority. Six weeks ago, we took the first step in fulfilling that promise with the passage of the American Health Care Act, and today we will take another step forward creating a healthcare system that works for all Americans. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the rule, I urge support for the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just say that I do agree with the honorable gentleman from Massachusetts. Yesterday, I think Speaker Ryan gave one of the finest speeches that I have heard on the floor of this House. I also agree that there will be ample time for debate on all of the issues that are encompassed in today's rule, and I look forward to that spirited debate, as I always have in the past. But I also agree with the gentleman, that some of that debate may be best left for another day. I also want to acknowledge the gentleman from Massachusetts and his comments about David Vince. Any time one of our staffers departs from either the minority or the majority side, it is obviously a time of gratitude for their service, and we look forward to what is next in their lives. But I want to join with the gentleman from Massachusetts that we appreciate the service of David Vince to the minority and to the members of the Rules Committee in general. So thank you for your service to the House, David. Mr. Speaker, I applaud my colleagues for all of their work on the rules and the underlying bills. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of former First State Bank executive, Lamar Ball, who passed away on March 26, 2017. Mr. Ball was known for his commitment to his family and his leadership in the Denton banking community. He was a skilled visionary who saved First State Bank from potential closure immediately after assuming the role of chairman and CEO in October 1989. A Tennessee native, Mr. Ball graduated from the University of Tennessee in Knoxville in 1962. Long before he led First State Bank, Mr. Ball began his working life measuring cotton crops straight out of college. After a full year of such work, he decided he needed a change. The only requirement for his next job, according to his daughter Allison, was that it be indoors, so Mr. Ball accepted a banking job in Atlanta and embarked on a banking career that would endure more than 30 years. To Mr. Ball, his legacy was important. According to his son David, ``His legacy was not the material things he gained; his legacy was his children and grandchildren, and he made sure [they] knew that.'' Mr. Ball was an accomplished and influential banker, but more importantly, he was a loving and dedicated parent and grandparent. He will be greatly missed. I include in the Record an article that appeared in The Denton Record-Chronicle. Lamar Ball, Former Exec at First State Bank, Dies at Age 76 (Jenna Duncan, Staff Writer) Lamar Ball, a devoted father, grandfather and a staple in the Denton banking community, died Sunday after a battle with myelodysplastic syndrome, a blood disorder that can lead to cancer. He was 76. Ball was known in Denton for saving First State Bank. He started in October 1989 as chairman and CEO and quickly stopped the bank from losing money and facing closure. He brought in investor Carl Pohlad, who at the time owned the major league baseball team Minnesota Twins, and rebuilt the company, former colleagues said. ``His mission was to raise capital to quite frankly save the bank and he did, so in my mind he saved First State Bank of Texas,'' said Bill Bonds, who served as chief financial officer under Ball. ``He was a visionary. He told me one time that he loved to create worth. His greatest skill was finding or taking something that was broken and turning it into something valuable.'' The Tennessee native graduated from the University of Tennessee in Knoxville in 1962 and immediately got a job measuring cotton crops. His daughter, Allison Bertorelli, said his only specifications for what he wanted in his first job was that it would be indoors. The next year, Ball switched to banking with a job in Atlanta and continued in the industry for more than 30 years. One phrase he took to heart and would often repeat was, ``I might not be the smartest guy in the room, but I work harder than anyone in the room,'' said Glenn Monroe, a family friend turned colleague at First State in Denton. He was a fan of 6 a.m. meetings and didn't like doing check-ins with employees on a regular basis. A lot of times, Ball was also the smartest man in the room, Monroe said. ``You won't meet too many bankers at the executive level who are willing to make decisions and live with them,'' Monroe said. ``He was willing to listen to all of the information, listen to your input, and he'd make a decision. That would be it. If the decision wasn't the greatest one, he never came back on anyone else.'' A main reason Ball was able to build capital at First State was through acquiring smaller community banks in the area, then helping make them more profitable. By the time he left in the late 1990s, the bank had more than quadrupled its assets. From there, he went on to invest and lead Smart Start, a company that creates alcohol detection technology for cars, and invested in other companies. He worked a lot of late nights, his children said, but he made sure he could always coach a sports team for one of five children and never missed a game, Bertorelli said. He also loved the phrase ``Heck of a deal'' whenever one of his kids came to him with a tale of success. Later in life, he continued that dedication to family with his 11 grandchildren. Each photo of him with one of grandchildren reveals a large, toothy grin with Ball's ears sticking out, his son, David Ball, said. ``His legacy was a big deal to him,'' David Ball said. ``His legacy was not the material things he gained; his legacy was his children and grandchildren, and he made sure we knew that.'' Ball is survived by his wife, Barbara Ball, his five children, a stepchild and 11 grandchildren. Visitation will be from 6 to 8 p.m. Wednesday at Bill DeBerry Funeral Directors, 2025 W. University Drive. Funeral service will be at 11 a.m. Thursday at St. Andrew Presbyterian Church, 300 W. Oak St. in Denton.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Randy Reid, Superintendent of Schools at Keller Independent School District (ISD). Dr. Reid is retiring after thirty-four years of public service in Texas. Dr. Reid received a bachelor's degree from Baylor University and a master's degree and Doctorate in Education Administration from Texas A&M University at Commerce. After completing his own education, Dr. Reid began his career in public service as a teacher in Richardson ISD. Over the next 24 years, he advanced from teacher to coach to Assistant Superintendent of Richardson ISD. Before assuming the helm of Keller ISD in 2012, Dr. Reid served as the Superintendent of Celina ISD and Tyler ISD. While serving as superintendent, Dr. Reid oversaw the passage of a $169.5 million bond package which funded four new campuses in the District. This expansion included Keller's first campus solely devoted to Career and Technological Education coursework, the cutting-edge Keller Center for Advanced Learning. While serving as a catalyst for academic success in his own district, Dr. Reid has also advocated for the advancement of quality education throughout the state of Texas. Dr. Red currently serves as President of the Texas Fast Growth School Coalition, a group of more than fifty of the fastest-growing Texas school districts. In addition, he is active member of the University Interscholastic League (UIL) Waiver Review Board, the Texas Association of School Administrators, and the Future Ready Superintendents Leadership Institute. For the past five years, Dr. Reid has been a dedicated community leader in the greater Keller area. I salute Dr. Reid for his exemplary career and extend my best wishes upon his retirement. It is an honor to represent the students, families, teachers and staff of Keller ISD in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to continue support for this week's focus on combating human trafficking. Some of the people most vulnerable to trafficking are unaccompanied alien children who cross our southern border. These children are oftentimes released to sponsors or relatives, and sometimes they simply disappear. Once released, unaccompanied alien children receive one follow-up phone call, and many are never contacted, leaving them potentially vulnerable to trafficking. No child should fall into the hands of traffickers because of our lack of surveillance. When I was in practice as a physician, if I ever suspected that a child had been abused, I was required by law to notify authorities. We should require no less of our Federal agencies. Today, I am asking the Office of Refugee Resettlement to redouble their efforts to make certain these children never end up in the care of the wrong people. I also want to take this opportunity to thank our Denton County sheriff, Tracy Murphree. Just last weekend, they conducted a significant human trafficking operation that led to 11 arrests. I am grateful for them and for all law enforcement officials for taking the steps to end this abuse.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support for Taiwan's participation in the World Health Organization (WHO). For nearly a decade, Taiwan has participated as an invited observer at the World Health Assembly, the annual forum for the WHO. This invitation arrived late last year, due to political opposition to democratically-elected President Tsai Ing-wen. This year, no invitation was sent at all. Public health should be a politics-free issue and the WHO, a leading actor in reacting to global health crises, should remain a neutral, independent body which does not only serve the interest of any specific country. As our world becomes increasingly connected and travel times to places around the globe are decreasing, communicable diseases have spread at an ever increasing pace. With its modem, world-class health system, Taiwan has been a leader in disease prevention, surveillance, quarantine, and treatment. It has been a key ally in the fights against many diseases, including SARS, avian flu, and Zika. Taiwan has shared its expertise and resources with people in South East Asia, and around the world. Mr. Speaker, the World Health Assembly is an important event with worldwide attendance where global health policy is determined. Taiwan's medical expertise should be well represented. I encourage the administration to continue to help Taiwan's inclusion in the World Health Assembly and work together with their Taiwanese counterparts to strengthen the bilateral cooperation on health.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, how did we get to this point? The Affordable Care Act is simply not working for the American people. It is limiting choices. It is raising costs. It is leaving millions without access to care. And unfortunately, these are not just talking points but very real issues affecting very real Americans. The Affordable Care Act has left the individual market in shambles and has driven insurers away from offering coverage. Now, we are seeing one-third of all counties in the United States of America with only a single insurer. And among the plans that have chosen to remain in these markets, there have been widespread, double-digit premium increases. In Texas, premiums have jumped 29 percent a year, on average, from 2014 to 2017. The markets are in difficulty. They are failing to live up to the promise made 7 years ago, that Americans would be able to receive ``affordable care.'' As we knew then, and we still know now, this was an empty promise and has priced over 19 million Americans out of the market. What is worse, these individuals are forced to pay the individual mandate penalty or seek a hardship exemption because of the cost to purchase and use their health insurance. Mr. Speaker, 11 months ago, Speaker Ryan released the Better Way plan to save the Nation's healthcare system and to bring relief to the American people. This plan, which served as the blueprint for the American Health Care Act, laid out policies to stabilize the markets damaged by the Affordable Care Act, repeal the burdensome Affordable Care Act taxes and mandates that have hindered innovation and limited access to care. So let's take a look at what the American Health Care Act does. First and foremost, the American Health Care Act provides immediate relief to the State insurance markets. As Republicans, we know that one-size-fits-all works for no one, and certainly did not work for the individual markets. The States should have the flexibility to support their insurance markets and ensure that plans can continue to provide options for coverage. To do this, we relax two of the more egregious market regulations that were imposed under the Affordable Care Act: the mandate that premiums cannot vary for younger and older Americans by more than a 3- to-1 ratio and the mandate creating fixed actuarial values for plans. The mandate limiting a plan's ability to set premiums by age has driven up the cost of coverage for younger and healthier Americans and, subsequently, pushed them away from seeking coverage by the millions. Of the over 19 million Americans who have sidestepped the individual market, it is estimated that as many as 45 percent of these individuals are under the age of 35. Without these younger Americans seeking coverage, the markets have plunged, as insurers have hiked up premiums year after year to compensate for unhealthy risk pools. To change this, there is relaxation of the 5-to-1 ratio. It will lower premium costs and provide necessary opportunities to stabilize markets. We also give States the option, the choice to go higher or go lower, which honors the spirit of federalism. Additionally, we are repealing the actuarial values mandate to provide insurers with additional flexibility to offer more coverage options. The requirement for insurers to offer specified Bronze, Silver, and Gold level tiers has limited consumer choice, driving even more individuals away from seeking coverage and further contributing to the collapse of the healthcare markets. To further supplement these efforts, we are establishing the Patient and State Stability Fund. This fund provides States access to a total of over $140 billion over 10 years to promote innovative solutions to lower costs and increase access to health care for their unique patient populations. Mr. Speaker, the goal is simple, to provide States with maximum flexibility in how they address the cost of care for their citizens. The American Health Care Act provides States with options for how to use funds, including providing financial assistance for high-cost individuals, incentivizing insurer participation in those markets, reducing the cost of insurance, promoting access to preventive services, and reducing out-of-pocket costs for patients. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that a combination of the Stability Fund and other proconsumer changes would reduce premiums by 10 percent below current projections of 2026. We want patients to have access to high-quality, affordably priced health coverage. The Patient and State Stability Fund can help States lower costs and can increase access to high quality health care for their citizens. In addition to supporting the insurance markets, the American Health Care Act creates needed reforms to the Medicaid program itself. Without any changes, the current Medicaid expansion is expected to cost $1 trillion in 10 years' time--$1 trillion a year in 10 years' time. Medicaid needs reform so that States can continue to provide coverage to children, people with disabilities, and other vulnerable groups, the very populations that this safety net program was created to serve. To address these concerns, the American Health Care Act first phases out the Medicaid expansion, not traditional Medicaid but Medicaid expansion. The expansion has hurt State budgets and limited States' abilities to ensure that resources will continue to be available for the vulnerable populations for which Medicaid was designed. By phasing out expansion, we are providing States with greater budget autonomy. Additionally, our bill helps further bend the Medicaid cost curve by shifting the program toward a per beneficiary allotment. Per beneficiary allotments set limits on the annual growth for per capita expenditures for which the States will receive matching funds from the Federal Government. Per beneficiary allotments create greater fiscal accountability and ensure that the program can continue to exist for years to come. This is not a new idea. This was an idea put forward by President Bill Clinton and, at one time, supported by every Democratic Member of the Senate in 1995. Second, the American Health Care Act increases the amount of flexibility that States have in managing their Medicaid program. The bill scales back the Affordable Care Act mandates that have limited a State's ability to tailor plans toward the needs of beneficiaries. States can and States should be trusted to effectively manage the needs of their Medicaid beneficiaries. The American Health Care Act will allow them to do so. Additionally, the American Health Care Act furthers the goal of providing the States with greater flexibility in managing their Medicaid programs by providing States with the option to implement two additional opportunities: work requirements and block grants for Medicaid. When the Affordable Care Act was being debated, some of the most consistent complaints that we heard throughout the discussion came from Governors and State representatives expressing concerns about the negative consequences that they saw on the horizon. This time around, we chose to engage our State counterparts in the discussion and listen to their input as we designed the bill; and at the top of their list was a desire to see the work requirements built into the Medicaid and the expansion populations, and the opportunity to work with Medicaid as a block grant. Republicans trust that States know what works for their respective populations, and we are not going to stand in the way of States seeking to design Medicaid programs that work for them. Finally, the American Health Care Act provides additional resources to bolster State safety net providers. The bill provides increases to the Community Health Center Fund, offers enhanced funding to support the safety net providers in States that did not expand Medicaid, and ends the cuts to Disproportionate Share Hospital payments, cuts that are going to occur under current law on October 1 of this year. We are committed to ensuring that our local providers can continue to deliver lifesaving care and that the American Health Care Act turns this commitment into action. For the millions of Americans in rural and medically underserved areas, these actions will provide needed relief that was undercut by the Affordable Care Act and will allow these Americans to continue to have access to care. Moving forward, together, these efforts will provide meaningful reform and relief for the States and for the individuals seeking health care. We are stabilizing the markets, reforming Medicaid in the most substantive and consequential way in its 52-year history, and ensuring that all Americans can maintain access to care through local safety net providers. We do recognize there is still more work to be done in health care, and that is why we only consider the American Health Care Act to be the beginning. It is the key that gets us through the door into additional health reform. From here, we will work with Secretary Price at the Department of Health and Human Services to further deregulate the marketplace and increase consumer choice in the healthcare markets, and we will enhance the American Health Care Act with additional legislative efforts to further the goal of lowering healthcare costs. Mr. Speaker, this should be a very exciting time in health care. With all of the knowledge that has been gained over the years in the practice of medicine, I am humbled to be here today speaking in support of this legislation. It will begin the much-awaited process of unwinding the Affordable Care Act and will finally return patients to the center of health care.