Michael Burgess

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, it seems like the whole of Washington is awaiting the result of a Supreme Court decision in reference to King v. Burwell. Mr. Speaker, let me give you the simple truth. As I see it, the President broke the law. He broke the law, and people are hurting as a consequence. Once this ruling comes down, Congress will be required to put in place mechanisms to keep people from being hurt any further, but the fact of the matter remains that premiums have gone up, deductibles are completely out of sight, leaving many families functionally uninsured. We need to address these problems. Furthermore, power needs to be devolved back to the States. States can do a better job of running their healthcare systems because they are closer to the people that they represent. The fact of the matter is this healthcare law was a big mistake. It is time that it be fixed, and this will be a first step in the road to do so.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Penny Reddell upon her retirement after 38 years of exemplary public service. She earned her first of many degrees at Stephen F. Austin State University in Nacogdoches. From there, she went onto the University of Texas at Tyler to obtain her master's degree before finally earning her doctorate from Baylor University. Dr. Reddell began her education career as a teacher and has capably served in multiple capacities including diagnostician, assistant principal, principal, gifted and talented program consultant, and adjunct college professor. She is retiring from Lewisville ISD as the Associate Superintendent for Learning and Teaching, a position she has held for the last six years. Her areas of responsibilities have included: Strategic Design implementation, Curriculum and Instruction, Special Education, Early Childhood, Literacy Intervention, Program Evaluation, District Grant Writing, Gifted and Talented, Advanced Academics, Assessment and Accountability and Federal Programs, ESL, Dual Language, Bilingual, and World Languages. Dr. Reddell's leadership has had a positive and profound impact on all the programs that she has overseen. As Dr. Reddell retires, her commitment and hard work on behalf of the students and faculty of Lewisville ISD will be greatly missed. After almost four decades as an educator and administrator, Dr. Reddell retires as a professional beloved by her colleagues and leaves an indelible mark to be emulated. It is a privilege to honor such an esteemed constituent in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Quentin Burnett, who is retiring after four decades of public service. After an exemplary career in education, his expertise will be greatly missed. Dr. Burnett earned both his undergraduate and master's degrees from Texas A&M--Commerce, then obtained a doctorate in Educational Leadership from the University of Texas--Austin. Beginning his career as a math teacher, Dr. Burnett then served as a coach and a principal. From there, he became a Texas Education Agency administrator before serving as Superintendent of three school districts: Johnson City, Greenwood, and Argyle ISDs. In addition, he has taught at the highest level of education, as an instructor of graduate finance classes at the University of Texas--Permian Basin as well as at the University of North Texas. At the state level, Dr. Burnett served as a trainer for the Texas Association of School Boards and an officer and past-president of the Texas Association of School Administrators. In 2011, after serving for nine years as the Associate Superintendent for Finance for Birdville ISD, he joined Lewisville ISD as the Chief Financial Officer. As Dr. Burnett retires, his leadership within the education field and dedication to students and teachers will continue to positively impact Lewisville ISD and Denton County. Best wishes to Dr. Burnett as he enters a well-deserved retirement. It is a privilege to serve such an outstanding public servant in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mrs. Carolyn Sims, who is retiring after over 26 years of public service in Tarrant County. The communities where she has served in various positions over her career are better places because of her efforts. For over a decade I had the privilege of working with Mrs. Sims during her tenure. However, her service and commitment began long before we met, and will have a lasting impact beyond her official duties' end. After graduating from the University of North Texas, Carolyn began working at a bank until she shifted to public service in education, as a middle school teacher and then as a school counselor. Mrs. Sims then served as the President of the Colleyville Chamber of Commerce as well as for the Arts Council of Northeast Tarrant County. During the 2003 legislative session, State Representative Vicki Truitt recruited Mrs. Sims to serve as her chief of staff in Austin. After returning to North Texas, Carolyn returned to her education roots and began to work for the Town of Westlake, Westlake Academy Foundation, and then the Northwest ISD Education Foundation. Finally, Carolyn utilized her connections and skills to serve the residents of Northeast Tarrant County as the 3rd Precinct County Administrator for Commissioner Gary Fickes. Over the course of her career, Carolyn has been recognized multiple times for her significant contributions to the North Texas community. In 1994, she received the Women's Award for Business by the Women's Shelter Legacy. In 1995, she received recognition from the Northeast Leadership Forum as the ``Outstanding Community Volunteer''. Adding to her accolades, the Star Telegram named Mrs. Sims the 1999 ``Woman of the Year'', while the Business Press named her the ``Most Influential Woman'' the same year. As Carolyn retires, her community service and dedicated work will be greatly missed. During her service of over 26 years, spanning from school board to chief of staff, Carolyn habitually placed others ahead of herself. It is my privilege to honor such an outstanding citizen in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chairman, this is an amendment to add an additional $4 million to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's operations and research. Madam Chair, at the beginning of this Congress, I took the gavel of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade. This was the gavel previously held by our good friend, Chairman Lee Terry. There was some unfinished business as this Congress started, and one of the biggest issues left over from the previous Congress was the issue of airbag energetic deployments and ruptures, and the subsequent recall of those airbags. There was a hearing done in December right at the end of the last Congress, and it seemed like there was no activity from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. But just 2 weeks ago, they announced a recall of 34 million vehicles. The recall massively expanded. And the manufacturer of the airbags, Takata, finally admitted that six of their manufacturing designs were indeed defective. Takata has identified 11 auto manufacturers that use the defective air bag inflators. Again, 34 million vehicles have been subject to this recall. And this may not be the end. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Takata have not identified what is the cause of these energetic disruptions of the air bag inflators. Yesterday, the Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade Subcommittee held a hearing to receive an update on the situation. Among the witnesses was the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Dr. Mark Rosekind. Dr. Rosekind took over the Administration just weeks after the subcommittee's Takata hearing in December. During yesterday's hearing, one of the themes we heard repeatedly from Administrator Rosekind was that NHTSA would have been better able to identify and mandate recalls had they had more resources. It is a refrain we are used to hearing here in Congress. His argument was that with more money, the agency could save more lives. I will take him at his word on that. For fiscal year 2016, Congress is proposing funding the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration operations and research, the account responsible for the policing of the safety of auto manufacturers' products, at $150 million. This indeed is an increase of $20 million from fiscal year 2015, and for that I am extremely grateful. In the interest of good faith, however, from the new chairman of the subcommittee to the new Administrator of NHTSA, I want to take one more step and offer an additional $4 million to this account to provide NHTSA with the resources it needs to ensure that more lives are not disrupted by these defects. It is my hope that NHTSA can use this additional funding to find a permanent solution to the problem. The Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade Subcommittee is closely watching and awaiting the release of a report by NHTSA's inspector general on their Office of Defects Investigation. We hope it will be released soon. The offset comes from the Department of Transportation Office of the Secretary for salaries and expenses. This seems like an extremely worthwhile investment, and I urge the subcommittee's adoption of my amendment. Again, I want to thank the subcommittee for hearing my amendment. I certainly want to congratulate the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee. I think they have done good work on this. I urge adoption of the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), the chairman of the full committee.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, at this point I am prepared to yield back, but I do want to thank the chairman of the full committee for hearing our amendment this evening. I also want to thank him for what I know is a significant amount of work and challenge to get this bill to the floor. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to its speedy passage tomorrow, and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the recognition. My amendment today reflects the frustration that many in Congress have felt for some time over the Department of Defense's lack of real progress on being able to produce a full accounting of where the money that has been given to them over the years has been spent. In 1990, Congress passed the Chief Financial Officers Act requiring every department and every agency in the Federal Government to produce verifiable financial statements which could be fully audited. To date, each major agency has been able to complete this task except one--the Department of Defense--and Congress has allowed the Department of Defense to continue to not comply with this law for now going on 25 years. It is time for that to end. While the Department of Defense might claim it has taken steps toward completing an audit, purportedly to be accomplished by 2017, Congress has little verifiable proof that this will actually occur. The amendment that I offer today with Barbara Lee of California asks the Department of Defense to rank--in order from most ready to be audited to least ready to be audited--every entity within the Department which is required to provide financial statements for the overall efforts of the departmentwide audit. Congress needs to know which offices within the Department of Defense are making significant strides toward this goal and which offices are not. The amendment requires no additional analysis, no additional explanation, simply a list. If Congress is serious about exercising its oversight role through the power of the purse, then this is the least we should expect the Department to provide to Congress, a pulse-check to show Members where the audit truly stands. Ms. Lee, Ms. Schakowsky, and I are not the only ones who have been concerned about the Pentagon's lack of progress in this arena. In 2013, the Government Accountability Office--Congress' eyes and ears on the ground for keeping the Federal Government accountable--stated that it could not complete an audit of the entire Federal Government because the Department of Defense could not produce verifiable documents. The GAO stated at the time: ``The main obstacles to a GAO opinion on the accrual-based consolidated financial statements were: serious financial management problems at the Department of Defense that made its financial statements unauditable.'' A GAO source was reported to have stated that the Pentagon routinely postponed meetings at the last minute with GAO pertaining to the audit. This is unacceptable, and the body should not accept it. Besides being necessary for the proper separation of powers role that Congress continues to assert in overseeing how taxpayer money is spent, this amendment represents good governance. It is for this reason that our amendment today is endorsed by the Americans for Tax Reform, Taxpayers for Common Sense, and the National Taxpayers Union. Mr. Chairman, Congress must stand up for taxpayers and tell the Pentagon that it must justify how it spends every dollar that it is given. Congress has been complacent for too long on this issue. With today's vote perhaps that will end. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Thornberry and his staff for working with my office on this. I look forward to working on this issue as the deadline approaches, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 254) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, this is National Police Week, and I did want to rise in recognition of the brave law enforcement officers of the police department in Garland, Texas. Mr. Speaker, just a little over a week ago, May 3, two heavily armed assailants opened fire outside an event at the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, Texas. Thankfully, some of Texas' finest police officers were on hand to protect the innocent lives inside. Traffic police and SWAT officers from the Garland Police Department did their job. They subdued these two would-be mass murderers before they were able to take a life. To date, these heroes remain unnamed, but we cannot overlook their bravery and their willingness to put their lives on the line to protect ours. They kept this crisis from becoming a tragedy, and they averted what likely could have been the largest mass casualty situation north Texas has ever seen. Mr. Speaker, I extend to the Garland Police Department my sincerest appreciation for their service and their bravery. These heroes deserve our deepest appreciation for their selfless preservation of human life.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that actually maintains current law. Since its passage in 2007, I have heard from tens of thousands of constituents about how the language in the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act will take away consumer choice when deciding what lightbulb to use in your home. In fact, they are right. While the government has passed energy efficiency standards in other realms over the years, they have never jumped so far and lowered standards so drastically. It is to a point where technology is still years away from making lightbulbs that are compliant with the law at a price point that the average American can afford. Opponents to my amendment will claim that the 2007 language does not ban the incandescent bulb. That is true. It bans the sales of the 100- watt, the 60-watt, and the 45-watt bulbs. The replacement bulbs are far from economically efficient, even if they are energy efficient. A family living paycheck to paycheck can't afford to replace every bulb in their house at even $5 a bulb. The economics of the lightbulb mandate are only part of the story. With the extreme expansion of Federal powers undertaken by President Obama and the Democrats in Congress during the first 2 years of the Obama administration, Americans have woken up to just how far the Constitution's Commerce Clause has been manipulated from its original intent. The lightbulb mandate is a perfect example of this. The Commerce Clause was intended by our Founding Fathers to be a limitation on Federal authority, not a catchall nod to allow for any topic to be regulated by Washington; indeed, it is clear that the Founding Fathers never intended this clause to be used to allow the Federal Government to regulate and pass mandates on consumer products that do not pose a risk to human health or safety. This Congress must be on the side of consumers and consumer choice. If new, energy-efficient lightbulbs save money and are better for the environment, we should trust the American people to make that choice on their own and move to these bulbs. We should not be forcing these lightbulbs on the American public. The bottom line is the Federal Government has no business taking away the freedom of Americans to choose what bulb to put in their homes. I will add that, recently, the lightbulb manufacturers in this country have claimed that, because of the stopgap provision in the 2007 law, if we continue to prevent the Department of Energy from promulgating rules pursuant to these provisions, the manufacturers will be forced to stop manufacturing compliant incandescent bulbs. This is actually an argument to repeal the 2007 language in its entirety, not to allow it to be implemented. We should not allow a stopgap trigger in the law to extort us into passing bad policy and moving forward. This exact amendment has been accepted for the past 3 years by a voice vote and has been included in the annual appropriations legislation signed into law by the President each year since its first inclusion. It allows consumers to continue to have a choice and to have a say about what they will put in their homes. It is common sense. Mr. Chairman, I should add that I have had conversations with my good friend, Mr. Jordan from Ohio, on this amendment. I understand that there have been discussions about changes to the language in order to balance both the philosophical belief that this is the wrong policy for our country and the pragmatic belief that we should do no harm to the livelihoods of our constituents. I continue to offer, as I did last July, to sit down with Mr. Jordan or anyone else to see if compromise language can be achieved prior to the end of the fiscal year, but in the meantime, I offer this amendment to the body.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, I would just observe, at the end of calendar year 2007, the commentator George Will observed the United States Congress had two jobs: deliver the mail and defend the border. It had done neither. But what it had done was ban the incandescent bulb, perhaps the greatest invention ever invented by an American inventor. This is a commonsense amendment. It deserves passage. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, it has been more than 5 years since the 2009 shooting in Fort Hood, Texas. The whole country was shocked by this senseless activity. Finally, earlier this month, the 47 soldiers and surviving family members of this tragic event did receive Purple Heart medals for their sacrifice, and they will be provided with every benefit that this commendation obliges. Following the shooting back in 2009, I went to Fort Hood. I met with the families of loved ones of this attack's victims. I saw firsthand the devastation and the sacrifice. None of them--none of them--should have had to wait this long for the recognition. Although the delay can never be made right, I am relieved that these families and victims have finally received the recognition for their sacrifice. Mr. Speaker, Senator Cornyn from my State of Texas, Representative Carter, and Representative Roger Williams put a lot of effort into this, but I also need to recognize the thousands of constituents--not just in Texas, but across the country--who phoned, emailed, and sent letters asking that this omission be made right. I am happy to say and acknowledge that through their efforts, it finally has been.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, April 1, just a few days ago, most people don't realize it, but the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reduced physician reimbursement for Medicare patients by 21 percent. This occurred as a matter of law. This is a deadline that we have been up against before, a drama that we have seen played out in this House multiple times during my tenure here. This time, it is different because the House of Representatives, right before the end of March, chose to act and passed, by a vote of 392 individuals, to repeal this formula that crops up every year and threatens our Medicare patients and those that provide care for them. This bill is sitting over in the other body. The Chaplain talked about this being a season for renewal, and indeed, it is. It is my hope that in the other body that spirit of renewal will take hold, and they will take up and pass the bill that passed this House with an overwhelming majority some 2 weeks ago. It is time to do it. The other body can act.

Mr. BURGESS

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, House Resolution 173 provides for consideration of H.R. 2, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015, under a closed rule, reflecting the careful, intricate, bipartisan negotiations which brought this legislation to the floor. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided among the chairs and ranking members of the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means. As is customary, the rule allows the minority to offer a motion to recommit on the bill. Finally, the rule provides for the customary district work period authority. This bill, H.R. 2, resolves an issue that many of us have worked on for our entire congressional careers. This bill reflects years of bipartisan work, work across committees, and even work across the Capitol with the other body. We brought together Members of all ideological groups, as well as diverse outside groups. We coalesced around a policy that will help patients, help doctors, help providers to get out from under the constant threat of payment cuts under the Medicare sustainable growth rate formula. Everyone agrees that Medicare's sustainable growth formula has got to go. Today, we are considering a bill to realistically accomplish that goal. The SGR formula was enacted as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 in an attempt to restrain Federal spending in Medicare part B. We now know that that is not working. The SGR consists of expenditure targets which apply a growth rate designed to bring spending in line. Since 2002, the SGR formula has resulted in a reduction in physician reimbursement rates. However, even though Congress has consistently passed legislation to override the formula, these patches have resulted in hundreds of billions of spent funds that could have gone to improving the Medicare system. If Congress were to let the formula continue, physicians would face a 21 percent reduction in reimbursement rates on April 1. The sustainable growth rate's unrealistic assumptions of spending inefficiency have plagued the healthcare profession and our Medicare beneficiaries for over 13 years. The bill before us repeals the sustainable growth rate formula, avoiding potentially devastating across-the-board cuts slated to go into effect next week. We do so at a cost lower than what Congress has already spent or is likely to spend over the next 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office has found that enacting H.R. 2 will cost less than if we patched this formula over the next 10 years. The bill before us today provides 5 years of payment transition. It allows improved beneficiary access and allows medicine to concentrate on moving to broad adoption of quality reporting and, most importantly, allows Congress to move past the distraction of the SGR formula and to begin identifying Medicare reforms that can further benefit our citizens. This will also allow providers the time to develop and test quality measures and clinical practice improvement activities, which will be used for performance assessment during phase II. During the stability period, physicians will receive annual increases of one half of 1 percent. It seems small, but it is above what has been provided over the past several years. The quality measures are implemented in what is called the Merit- Based Incentive Payment System. That will be evidence-based and developed through a transparent process that values input from provider groups. Quality reporting will measure providers against their peers rather than a one-size-fits-all generic standard. Providers will also self-determine their measures. The bill consolidates three reporting programs into this incentive payment system, easing administrative burdens and furthering the congressionally established goals of quality, resource use, and meaningful use. This new reimbursement structure ensures continued access to high- quality care while providing physicians with certainty and security in their reimbursements. They will be aware of the benchmark they are competing against and, unlike current law, all penalties assessed on those not meeting the benchmark will go to those who do, keeping the dollars in the Medicare system. Provider standards will be developed by professional organizations in conjunction with existing programs and will incorporate ongoing feedback to physicians, further ensuring that optimal care is provided to the patient. Realtime feedback will be gained through registries and performance data. Physicians will be encouraged to participate in the process through data reporting. For eligible professionals who choose to opt out of the fee-for-service program, alternative payment models will be available. These alternative payment models may include a patient-centered medical home, whether they are in primary or specialty care, bundled care, or episodes of care. Qualifying practices that move a significant amount of their patients into these alternative payment models could see a 5 percent quality bonus. By encouraging alternative payment models and care coordination, this legislation will foster and facilitate innovation. It is important to note that while taking these important steps toward ensuring quality care, the bill specifically states that these quality measures are not creating a Federal right of action or a legal standard of care. Mr. Speaker, from beginning to end, this bill is about access: access for our seniors, access for those who utilize the Nation's 9,000 community health centers, and, very importantly, the over 8 million children who receive their care at some point during the year through the Children's Health Insurance Program. The bill also addresses health programs that have become known as ``extenders.'' Most are extended for 2 years under the bill. By resolving the SGR, Congress will have the ability to commit itself to working through these policies in the future. The bill also puts into place important structural reforms to Medicare that are the first steps toward starting the Medicare program on a really long-term trajectory towards fiscal stability. The bill is consistent in its themes throughout: payment stability; reduce and streamline the administrative burden; increase predictability and provider's interactions with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; build transparency into systems; encourage innovation of delivery of services; and keep providers in the driver's seat. Most importantly, we provide access to care for our Nation's patients. America's providers agree: ``The American Osteopathic Association views this bipartisan legislation as a clear and definitive approach toward comprehensive reforms in our health care system for children, seniors, and our Nation's physicians.'' Here is one from the American Academy of Family Physicians: ``This legislation is the result of bipartisan negotiations that have produced legislative responses to some of our Nation's most pressing health care issues.'' America's Essential Hospitals praised this bill, stating: ``This legislation represents the first truly bipartisan major health care legislation in years. Please do not let this opportunity pass you by--approve H.R. 2 as swiftly as possible.'' This is just a small sampling of the close to 800 organizations spanning the political spectrum who have come together to endorse this bill. From primary care, to specialists, to surgeons, to organized nursing, our Nation's hospitals, and everyone in between, they have supported this policy. For that reason, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bills. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming).

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining?

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Mimi Walters).

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the 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