Michael Burgess

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor McKamy Middle School student London Roberson for her dedication and commitment to helping those affected by heart disease. The 13 year old, who started fundraising in kindergarten, has raised an astounding $55,000 for the American Heart Association through Jump Rope for Heart and Hoops for Heart. London's passion for helping those affected by heart disease started at a young age. After losing a grandfather to a heart attack and witnessing several family members struggle with cardiovascular issues, London jumped into action and began fundraising for the American Heart Association. This month, London and the American Heart Association have organized a students versus teachers basketball game at her Flower Mound middle school that will not only raise funds for those in need, but will increase awareness of this devastating disease. London's compassion for those suffering from heart disease and her commitment to organizing creative and fun ways to raise funds and increase awareness is inspirational and I am proud to represent her and McKamy Middle School in the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor our heroes in blue who serve and protect the North Texas community. The exemplary members of our law enforcement put their lives on the line daily to ensure the safety of our citizens and deserve all of the respect and honor that our nation has to offer. With 135 law enforcement officers lost in 2016 alone, the sacrifices made by these selfless men and women to ensure our safety are more apparent now than ever before. These tragic losses were felt even closer to home when five officers were lost in Dallas just six months ago. I want to express my sincerest gratitude to Police Chiefs Reim, Tackett, Bruce, Wilson, Hargis, Carolla, Kerbow, Perdue, Kowalski, Amyx, Coulon, Watson, Sadler, Johnson, Reynolds, Pauley, Payne, Harrison, Henley, Brooks, Edland, Genova, Howell, Blount, Walthall, Patrick, Fitzgerald, Fowler and Kancel; to Denton County Constable Hammons, Truitt, Raburn, Burch and Boydston; and Tarrant County Sheriff Bill Waybourn and Denton County Sheriff Tracy Murphee. The leadership exhibited by these law enforcement officers and their service to the 26th District of Texas is invaluable and it is my privilege to recognize such an outstanding group.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Juan Ortiz, who is leaving the City of Fort Worth after 18 years of service to assume a new position with the City of Austin. After graduating from the University of North Texas with a degree in Emergency Administration and Disaster Planning, he began his career as a Fort Worth Emergency Management Officer. After four years, he was hired as Emergency Management Coordinator with the City of Corpus Christi. Ortiz returned to Fort Worth in 2003 as Emergency Management Coordinator where he coordinates and supervises emergency management and homeland security operations during natural or man-made emergencies and disasters. One of his primary duties is overseeing a joint city and county Emergency Operations Center (EOC). He coordinated EOC operations in response to multiple natural disasters and large scale public events including Huricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, 2011's record setting winter storm and Super Bowl XLV. In addition to EOC operations, Mr. Ortiz coordinated all of the City of Fort Worth's operations in response to Hurricanes Gustav and Ike in 2008. In his position, Mr. Ortiz has demonstrated a level of professionalism and expertise in emergency management that he has graciously shared with colleagues across the State of Texas and nationally. In 2001, he was recognized by the University of North Texas as a distinguished alumni for his contributions to the emergency management profession. Mr. Ortiz also faithfully served his country for 28 years in the U.S. Coast Guard Reserves, retiring in 2015 as a Chief Petty Officer. Mr. Ortiz has served on several committees and advisory groups including the National Academy of Science Earth and Life Studies Disaster Roundtable, National Research Council's Committee on Disaster Research in the Social Sciences, Center for Biosecurity of UPMC Nuclear Resilience Expert Advisory Group, the North Central Texas Council of Government Regional Emergency Preparedness Advisory Committee, the Dallas/Fort Worth/Arlington Urban Area Security Initiative, Texas Coastal Advisory Team, and as Co-Chair of the Dallas-Fort Worth Collaborative Adaptive Sensing of the Atmosphere Radar Test Bed. He served as Chair of the Tarrant County Local Emergency Planning Committee for the last 6 years. He currently serves as a member of the State of Texas Emergency Management Performance Grant Steering Committee and as chair of the State of Texas Evacuation Transportation Network Working Group. I would like to express my appreciation to Juan Ortiz for his many years of exemplary public service and extend best wishes as he begins a new chapter in his profession.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 123 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), the ranking member of the Rules Committee, 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 123 provides for a rule to consider two Congressional Review Act resolutions which will undo burdensome and harmful regulations put into place by the Obama administration during the final hours of his Presidency. The rule brings before the House these resolutions so that Congress may remove, through the proper legislative process, rules promulgated by bureaucrats who remain unaccountable to the American people. This process allows those who are accountable--the elected Representatives in the Congress--to fight for their constituents' rights and liberties. House Resolution 123 provides for a closed rule for each of the Congressional Review Act resolutions, both H.J. Res. 43 and H.J. Res. 69, the standard procedure for such resolutions, since the sole purpose of each is to remove a harmful regulation from the Federal Register. The rule allows for 1 hour of debate, equally divided between the majority and the minority leader or their designees, for H.J. Res. 43, and 1 hour of debate, equally divided between the Chair and the ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources, for H.J. Res. 69. On each resolution contained in the rule, the minority is afforded the customary motion to recommit. H.J. Res. 43 is a joint resolution which would repeal the Obama administration's midnight rule that takes away States' ability to direct funding within their own borders to certain healthcare providers that conform to the States' values. In her final days in office, Secretary Mathews Burwell pushed forward a rule that would require States to fund, with public dollars, facilities that perform abortions, potentially against the will of the people of that given State. This flies in the face of the 10th Amendment which grants to States the authority to make such decisions within their borders and to prioritize which healthcare providers should receive funding based on the greatest need in their own communities. Those of us who care about the carefully crafted Federal system which our Founding Fathers set up, which allows different States to operate differently based upon their own values and priorities, recognize the Obama rule for what it is: a power grab by the Federal Government. This is why the House will take up this resolution today--to continue to fight for states' rights--and will repeal this burdensome regulation that ties the hands of every State legislature and ties the hands of every Governor in the Nation. H.J. Res. 69 is a Congressional Review Act resolution to repeal an overreaching regulation by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service which usurps Alaska's ability to manage its own lands within its own borders. Federal law has long recognized that Alaska--that Alaska--and her elected officials are in the best position to make the decisions on what actions to permit on the public lands in that State, whether those lands are Federal, State, or private. Despite this long precedent, codified by Congress in the Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act, the Obama administration moved forward in its waning days with a rule that imposes Federal restrictions on lands that have been, up until the end of the Obama administration, successfully regulated by the State of Alaska. Like H.J. Res. 43, this resolution recognizes the important 10th Amendment protections put in place by the Founding Fathers in our Constitution which protects states' rights to govern within their own borders. The Congressional Review Act is an important tool in maintaining accountability at the Federal level. Its necessity has never been more apparent than over the past few weeks where this Congress has needed to step in and remove burdensome and unbalanced regulations put in place by President Obama and his team just as they were walking out the door. House Republicans today will stand up for the rights of our constituents against an out-of-control Federal bureaucracy. I urge my colleagues to support today's rule and the two underlying Congressional Review Act resolutions. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I do want to point out that H.J. Res. 43 would repeal the Obama administration's rule and allow States to enjoy the freedom and flexibility to distribute title X grant money in a way that serves the needs of their constituents. Just in the way of background, December 16, 2016, the Obama administration finalized a rule that prevents States from eliminating abortion providers from title X grant distributions. Title X is a family planning program authorized in 1970, and was intended to provide family planning services to low-income women. The Obama rule was widely perceived as an attempt by the Obama administration to require States to fund Planned Parenthood, the Nation's largest abortion business. Prior to the Obama administration's rule, States were free to direct their title X funds to healthcare providers that did not participate in abortion. When States had this freedom, they were able to choose to invest in women's health care instead of investing in Big Abortion. States should be able to choose to prioritize family planning funds to health clinics that offer a full range of healthcare services, including family planning, but do not participate in abortion. States can fully support family planning and other health services without funding abortion providers like Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood only comprises 13 percent of approximately 4,100 title X service sites. Redirecting funds away from abortion providers does not reduce funds for the title X program. When States set criteria that eliminates abortion providers from title X distributions, those funds are then directed to other clinics. Eighty-seven percent of current title X service sites are comprised of local health departments, local hospitals, and Federally qualified health centers. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I reference a letter that was sent to Speaker Paul Ryan and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy by a number of sports-related organizations. They say: ``We write representing organizations that collectively include millions of wildlife conservationists . . . wildlife enthusiasts, and wildlife scientists, in strong support of H.J. Res. 49 from Cong. Young of Alaska. . . . Our community exhausted all Executive Branch appeals and remedies urging the FWS to slow down the Proposed Rule, and revise it to reflect a proposal mutually agreed to by the State of Alaska and the FWS; all to no end. It is time for Congress to nullify this final rule.'' They go on to say: ``This final rule boldly preempts the authority of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to manage wildlife for both recreational and subsistence hunting on NWRs, which authority of the state is affirmed by Congress in the Alaska Statehood Act, the Alaska National Interests Land Conservation Act, and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. The FWS final rule was premised on a meeting as a priority the FWS policy on Biological Integrity, Diversity and Environmental Health. . . . Many members of our organizations enjoy Alaska's bounty of fish and wildlife resources and their habitats for unrivaled hunting, fishing and outdoor experiences. The sustainable management of these natural resources needs to be led by the State working in cooperation with the FWS. We urge that you favorably consider H.J. Res. 49 which will restore the jurisdictional state- federal relationship as Congress has previously directed.'' Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter written to the Honorable Sylvia Mathews Burwell signed by 110 Members of the House and Senate to express strong opposition to the Department of Health and Human Services' September 7, 2016, notice of proposed rulemaking titled ``Compliance with Title X Requirements by Project Recipients in Selecting Subrecipients.'' Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, September 23, 2016. Hon. Sylvia Mathews Burwell, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC. Dear Secretary Burwell, We write to express our strong opposition to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) September 7, 2016, notice of proposed rulemaking titled ``Compliance with Title X Requirements by Project Recipients in Selecting Subrecipients.'' Although we appreciate the Department's intent to follow proper regulatory procedure pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, HHS's purpose for engaging in the rulemaking appears on its face to be an attempt to subvert the will of elected representatives. Moreover, apart from the Department's impetus for the notice of proposed rulemaking, we also question whether the Department's stated rationale adequately supports its conclusion that providers with a reproductive health focus are more ``effective'' than other health providers that offer comprehensive care for women and men. Nowhere in the proposed notice of rulemaking does HHS clearly define what it means to provide Title X services in an ``effective'' manner. It does appear to assert that a number of factors--such as the range of contraceptive methods on-site, the number of clients in need of publicly funded family planning services served, and the availability of preconception care--distinguish providers with a reproductive health focus as more ``effective'' and ``high quality'' than other types of providers. However, that list of factors falls far short of all of the attributes and recommendations included in the Centers for Disease Control and Office of Population Affairs report entitled ``Providing Quality Family Planning Services: Recommendations of CDC and the US Office of Population Affairs.'' To further complicate the argument about quality and effectiveness, the data cited in the notice of proposed rulemaking is not adequate for determining patient outcomes. The Department relies heavily on utilization and demographic statistics, but appears to lack hard data regarding actual patient outcomes and need, as the Department does not require grantees to track patients or verify their income. As you know, the issue of inadequate data has previously been raised by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), after the HHS Office of Family Planning in 2007 asked IOM to provide a critical review of the Title X Family Planning Program. In addition to finding ``no clear, evidence-based process for establishing or revising program priorities and guidelines,'' IOM stated the following in its May 2009 Report Brief: ``The committee concludes that the program does not collect all the data needed to monitor and evaluate its impact. Therefore, the committee proposes a comprehensive framework to evaluate the program and assess how well clinics meet the family planning needs of the program's clients. The committee concludes that additional data will be needed in the areas of client needs, structure, process, and outcomes in order to assess the program's overall progress.'' We welcome evidence that this recommendation has been fully adopted, but are unaware of any clear evidence confirming that to be the case. If HHS cannot clearly define an ``effective'' or ``high quality'' provider, it is unclear to us how state and local project grantees are supposed to do so in order to comply with this proposed rule. It is also therefore unclear how HHS will be able to accurately determine in every case whether state or local project recipients--who are generally closer to and more familiar with subrecipients and the patient base in their geographical region--have considered inappropriate criteria in evaluating subrecipients. Rarely do the American people benefit when the federal government attempts to substitute its judgment for that of state or local governments--particularly when the criteria used to inform that judgment are unclear, and that judgment is not supported by coherent and impartial facts. Finally, if HHS is going to assert the authority to adapt its rules in order to address changing circumstances, we implore HHS to consider the recent general shift in health care policy toward comprehensive care. As HHS states on its website, in addition to assisting individuals and couples in planning and spacing births, part of the mission of Title X is to contribute to ``improved health for women and infants.'' HHS's suggestion that subrecipients like federally qualified health centers--which provide greater preventive and primary health care services than providers with a reproductive health focus--are per se less ``effective'' than providers with a reproductive health focus does not comport with that stated mission. We urge HHS to reconsider this overreaching and ill- supported rule. We will continue to closely monitor this proposed rulemaking, and intend to submit this letter as a formal comment. We look forward to a detailed response from your Department. Sincerely, Joni K. Ernst, United States Senator. Diane Black, United States Congressman. Senators Roy Blunt (R-MO), John Boozman (R-AR), Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Steve Daines (R-MT), Mike Enzi (R-WY), Deb Fischer (R-NE), James Inhofe (R-OK), James Lankford (R-OK), Mike Lee (R-UT), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Jim Risch (R-ID), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Ben Sasse (R-NE), Tim Scott (R-SC), David Vitter (R-LA). In addition, Congressman Robert Aderholt (R-AL), Rick Allen (R-GA), Brian Babin (R-TX), Lou Barletta (R-PA), Andy Barr (R-KY), Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Charles Boustany, Jr. (R-LA), Kevin Brady (R-TX), Michael Burgess (R-TX), Earl ``Buddy'' Carter (R-GA), Tom Cole (R- OK), Chris Collins (R-NY), Doug Collins (R-GA), Mike Conaway (R-TX), Ron DeSantis (R-FL), Scott DesJarlais (R-TN), Jeff Duncan (R-SC), John Duncan, Jr. (R-TN). Stephen Fincher (R-TN), Chuck Fleischmann (R-TN), John Fleming, (R-LA), Bill Flores (R-TX), Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE), Virginia Foxx (R-NC), Trent Franks (R-AZ), Bob Gibbs (R-OH), Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Paul Gosar (R-AZ), Trey Gowdy (R-SC), Tom Graves (R-GA), Glenn Grothman (R-WI), Andy Harris (R-MD), Vicky Hartzler (R-MO), Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), Jody Hice (R- GA), Tim Huelskamp (R-KS), Bill Huizenga (R-MI), Randy Hultgren (R-IL), Lynn Jenkins (R-KS). Bill Johnson (R-OH), Sam Johnson (R-TX), Walter Jones (R- NC), Mike Kelly (R-PA), Trent Kelly (R-MS), Steve King (R- IA), Doug LaMalfa (R-CA), Doug Lamborn (R-CO), Robert E. Latta (R-OH), Daniel Lipinski (D-IL), Barry Loudermilk (R- GA), Mia Love (R-UT), Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO), Kenny Marchant (R-TX), Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC), John Moolenaar (R-MI), Markwayne Mullin (R- OK), Randy Neugebauer (R-TX), Pete Olson (R-TX). Steven Palazzo (R-MS), Gary Palmer (AL), Steve Pearce (R- NM), Collin Peterson (D-MN), Robert Pittenger (R-NC), Joe Pitts (R-PA), Ted Poe (R-TX), Bill Posey (R-FL), Tom Price (R-GA), John Ratcliffe (R-TX), Martha Roby (R-AL), Phil Roe (R-TN), Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Peter Roskam (R-IL), Keith Rothfus (R-PA), David Rouzer (R-NC), Steve Scalise (R-LA), Austin Scott (R-GA). James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-WI), Pete Sessions (R-TX), John Shimkus (R-IL), Adrian Smith (R-NE), Chris Smith (R-NJ), Ann Wagner (R-MO), Tim Walberg (R-MI), Randy Weber (R-TX), Brad Wenstrup (R-OH), Joe Wilson (R-SC), Kevin Yoder (R-KS), and Ted Yoho (R-FL).

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

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. BURGESS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of two critical Congressional Review Act resolutions to repeal burdensome Federal regulations dropped on the doorstep of the American people in the waning hours of the Obama administration. The rules the House will be voting to repeal today would infringe upon states' rights to govern themselves within their own borders and would impose new Federal requirements and oversight in contravention of the 10th Amendment. This is why removing these regulations is critical. It is critical to maintaining the proper State-Federal balance that our Founding Fathers so carefully crafted in our Constitution. I thank Representative Diane Black and Representative Don Young for their work on these pieces of legislation to protect states' rights. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the two underlying resolutions.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged concurrent resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Sheila Stephens, who is retiring from public service after 44 years with the City of Keller. Ms. Stephens started working for the city in 1972 as an assistant to the Water Department Manager. At that time, there were only 1,500 residents and 25 people employed by the city. She was appointed by the city council to be city secretary in 1977. During her 39 years in the position, Ms. Stephens demonstrated a level of professionalism and expertise in municipal government that she has exhibited with colleagues in the City of Keller as well as in other municipalities. During her tenure, the City of Keller's population has grown to over 44,000 people and city staff has expanded to 300 people to serve the needs of the community. In her almost four decades with the city, Ms. Stephens supervised 76 elections, recorded countless meetings, documented 2,900 deaths and 100 births in addition to fulfilling 2,960 open records requests. She has faithfully served under 12 mayors and 12 city managers providing needed continuity and depth. Current Keller Mayor Mark Matthews declared December 30, 2016 as ``Sheila Stephens Day'' to thank Sheila for the hard work and time she dedicated to her community. I would like to express my appreciation for the 44 years of exemplary service Sheila Stephens gave to our community and extend best wishes upon her retirement. It is my privilege to represent the residents of Keller in the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize The Texas Prayer Caucus and the first ``Call to Prayer Day'' that will be held Monday, February 6, 2017 on the steps of the Texas Capitol in Austin. State Director Debbie Terry, Chairman Scott Sanford and Vice Chairman Matt Krause have organized the event to bring the Texas Legislative Prayer Caucus into a network of 30 other states in an officially registered, members-only, bipartisan, bicameral caucus for lawmakers committed to action in prayer and the protection of religious liberties. Recognizing the role of our Creator in government and society, the Prayer Caucus ``Call to Prayer Day'' is an admirable demonstration of the rights outlined by our country's founding fathers in the First Amendment of our Bill of Rights ensuring the ``free exercise'' of religion and speech as well as ``the right of the people to peaceably assemble.'' I commend the Texas Prayer Caucus and their commitment to lift up our country, state and government leaders in prayer.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the memory of Detective Jerry Walker of Little Elm, Texas. Detective Walker was lost in the line of duty last week when he responded to an emergency call that involved an active shooter. This great loss has cast a shadow of sadness over our close-knit community. This is the first time in the city's history that we have lost an officer in the line of duty. Detective Walker was a dedicated member of our police force and community. He was a husband, a father, a mentor, and a friend to many. I had the privilege of meeting Detective Walker when he was on duty at one of my townhall meetings in the summer of 2014. His dedication to protecting the residents of Little Elm was evident in all that he did. Dallas Cowboys' wide receiver Cole Beasley sums up this loss precisely saying: ``We lost a good one.'' Our town of Little Elm continues to mourn the loss of one of our heroes. His service to our community will not be forgotten. I extend my deepest sympathy to Detective Walker's family and will continue to keep them in my prayers.

Mr. BURGESS

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

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

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 302) to provide protections for certain sports medicine professionals who provide certain medical services in a secondary State.

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 in the Record on the bill.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).

Mr. BURGESS

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