Michael Burgess

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 173 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Benishek).

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, we have no additional speakers at this time. I am prepared to close after the gentleman closes.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Today's rule provides for the consideration of legislation addressing the pernicious sustainable growth rate formula, the most threatening issue in Medicare, risking patient access to care for our seniors. As I close, I would like to note that each committee's work is represented in H.R. 2. The base policy of H.R. 2 has the backing of the House and Senate negotiators and of all three committees of jurisdiction. I certainly want to thank the Speaker and the minority leader and their staffs for building off of the policy work accomplished by the committees to present a political pathway forward for this bipartisan bill. I thank the chairmen and ranking members of the House Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means, as well as of the Senate Finance Committee, for coming together for our Nation's doctors and seniors. I must note Chairman Upton, Chairman Pitts, Chairman Ryan, Chairman Brady, and former Chairman Camp, as well as Ranking Members Pallone, Gene Green, Sander Levin, Jim McDermott, and former Ranking Member Henry Waxman. I would also like to thank all of the staffs who have worked on this issue--who have labored on this issue--for years. I know I will miss some people, but I do want to mention a few at the committee level who have dedicated themselves to getting us here today.

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

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health on Energy and Commerce. Mr. Speaker, I omitted one of the people that should have been thanked earlier in my remarks from the House Legislative Counsel, Michelle Vanek, who worked so hard on the language that is before us today. Mr. Speaker, a year ago I came to this floor, we had a similar vote, and I talked about how important it was to send a positive message, because last year it was the key that would get us through the door. Well, guess what, Mr. Speaker. This year, not only will the key get us through the door; we are going to knock the darned door down. We do need a strong vote today. We saw it evidenced on the rule. I urge all of my colleagues to get behind this legislation. It may not have been everything you want, it may not have been what you would have done if you had done it by yourself, but this is a collaborative body. This is the work of a collaborative body. Now we need to send it over to the world's greatest deliberative body. Let them deliberate for only a short period of time because of the thunderous approval that has come from the people's House. Mr. Speaker, it is time to end the SGR. Let us never speak of this issue again.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes for the purpose of a response. Talking about job creation is well and good, but we should also concern ourselves about job erosion and job loss. I don't know if the EPA is the number one Federal agency involved in job erosion and job loss, but it is right up there. If you talk to anyone at home in your district about what is the Federal agency that is responsible for more job destruction, the EPA, if not at the top of the list, is right behind some of the others. What we are about today is to regulate the regulator. It is not even to regulate the regulator, just have the regulator disclose to us what information upon which they are relying to make those regulations. Why does the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act matter? Because the Science Advisory Board plays a critical role in reviewing the scientific information that forms the foundation of costly EPA regulations. What is the cost of those EPA regulations, Mr. Speaker? The cost is jobs. The work we are doing today is important. I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of the rule and in favor of the underlying legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute for the purpose of a response. I appreciate the comments on the Export-Import Bank. I would point out to the body that today's rule has under consideration bills dealing with regulating the Environmental Protection Agency. The House did pass an extension of the Export-Import Bank charter last December that follows through until June of this year. There will be ample opportunity for us to have this debate and engage in debate as, indeed, people of this country want us to do. Today is not the time for that debate. Today is the day for deciding whether or not this body will further regulate the EPA. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. I yield myself an additional 2 minutes just to speak briefly on the substance of H.R. 1030, the Secret Science Reform Act. This is a bill that requires the Environmental Protection Agency to base its regulations on science, not only on science, but science that is available to the public and subject to independent verification. Who could be against that? That is part of the scientific process. That is part of scientific inquiry. You balance things, propose a theory; someone proposes an alternate; you get the data, collect the evidence, do the studies, do the experiments, make that generally available, and come to a conclusion. This is a transparency bill. The administration ran on the concept of transparency. We are simply trying to help them fulfill that obligation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes for the purpose of response. Mr. Speaker, I remind the body that there was an election held in November of last year, and the results of that election are now part of history. Prior to that election, it is true, there were bills passed in the House of Representatives that were submitted to the Senate for action, and basically nothing happened. The then-Senate majority leader had made a decision that he was going to prevent any legislation from passing, he was going to prevent his Members from having to take a vote that might be construed as difficult, and he was certainly going to prevent the President from being in a position of having to veto any legislation. I would just remind people that the process is the House and Senate each pass their bills; they agree in a conference committee to any differences. If that conference report is passed by both Houses, indeed, it is submitted to the White House for action, and that action may, indeed, be a veto. But you know what, Mr. Speaker? That veto is actually an important part of the process. Right now people are unaware of where the President is on several issues because he has simply never had to render a decision; it has always been a full stop over at the Senate majority leader's desk. The American people spoke loudly last November that they did not want that process to continue. Now, one may successfully argue that in 2012 the American people voted for divided government, but in 2014 they said: You know, that is not working out so well for us, and we are willing to give the Senate, to return a voice to the Senate. We are now giving the Senate an opportunity. These bills were both passed last year. The gentleman from Florida knows that very well. We had this very same argument on the floor of the House last fall. Both bills essentially died in the Senate. It is my hope now that we will give the Senate yet another opportunity. It is a new day, new Senators, new majority leader. Let them have a chance to act.

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 the balance of the time. First off, I want to bring us back to the issue at hand today; that, is the rule for consideration of H.R. 1029 and H.R. 1030. H.R. 1029 protects jobs by helping to ensure that important scientific advice is balanced and unbiased. The bill promotes public participation and encourages the Science Advisory Board to draw on State and private sector expertise, fairly simple concepts. H.R. 1030 is a transparency bill that simply asks the EPA to show its work before implementing regulations that cost billions of dollars and destroy jobs. Transparency and reproducibility are basic tenets of science. Costly environmental regulations should only be based on data that are available to independent scientists and to the public. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, if the EPA has nothing to hide, then there is no good reason to keep this data from the American people. Finally, Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of the two important bills to provide for an open and transparent rulemaking at the Environmental Protection Agency. I certainly thank the authors for their thoughtful legislation. I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying bills.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 138 provides for the consideration of two important pieces of legislation to create a more transparent and accountable Environmental Protection Agency, one that works in an open manner for all of America. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate for each of the bills contained within the rule. Further, amendments were made in order for each bill, for a total of six amendments from Members of both parties. Mr. Speaker, the first bill contained in this rule, H.R. 1029, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2015, brings greater accountability and oversight to the Board of appointed advisers which the EPA uses to review the scientific basis for its official actions. Created in the late 1970s, the Science Advisory Board was intended to be a check on the EPA in order to ensure that the Agency's math and statistics were all in order before it promulgated rules or regulations. In fact, the original authorization for the Board made clear that the Science Advisory Board was to report to both the Environmental Protection Agency and to Congress on its findings. However, over the course of the past several decades since its inception, the Science Advisory Board has become little more than a rubberstamp for whatever the EPA Administrator wishes to accomplish. With the Board members being handpicked by the Administrator, they are likely being chosen primarily on the basis that they hold the same view of the environmental world as whoever the head of the EPA is at any given time. The bill before us would provide for a more balanced representation on the Science Advisory Board, setting out parameters regarding whom the Administrator can choose and ensuring that State and local governments have representation on the Board so the Board is not comprised solely of environmental activists, as has been the case for some time now. Indeed, current regulations exclude industry experts from serving on the Science Advisory Board but not officials from environmental advocacy groups--in other words, special interests. These new regulations are necessary to ensure against any appearance of impropriety on the Science Advisory Board. This legislation becomes even more critical when one considers that the numerous regulations currently being considered by the Environmental Protection Agency could have enormous impacts on the Nation's economy. From proposed carbon regulations to the ratcheting down of ozone regulations, the Science Advisory Board has been tasked with reviewing the science that will back up some of the most expensive rules in the history of the Environmental Protection Agency. It is critical that the American people have confidence that the Federal Government is doing what is justified. The fear is that, absent significant reforms to the Environmental Protection Agency's process, this simply will not be the case. The second bill contained in this rule, H.R. 1030, the Secret Science Reform Act, is also intended to make the Environmental Protection Agency's rulemaking process more transparent. This was at one time a goal of the current administration's. We seem to have lost that somewhere along the way. The legislation states that the Environmental Protection Agency may take official action on an environmental regulation only if it has identified all of the scientific and technical information upon which it has based its decision, and these must be publicly available studies that can be independently peer reviewed. This would bring the EPA's process in line with how many scientific journals operate when they publish peer-reviewed studies. Further, the bill is prospective, and it will not interfere with any enacted rules or regulations by the Environmental Protection Agency. To address concerns expressed during the Science Committee's consideration of the bill, the legislation spells out that nothing in these requirements would jeopardize any privacy concerns with scientific studies. The CDC successfully makes its studies available. It redacts personal information, and it does not expose any test subject's personal information. The EPA should have no problem similarly complying with these requirements. Mr. Speaker, Americans are waking up to how much of the United States economy the EPA is attempting to regulate--from carbon dioxide to ozone--and people are rightly anxious over how these new and, in some cases, unprecedented rules will affect some consumers' wallets. It is reasonable and expeditious to ensure that the science that the EPA relies upon to craft its regulations simply be transparent and simply be available for all to see and not for just that select group of industry insiders that the EPA deems worthy to see its work products. Even the congressional committees that are charged with the legitimate oversight of the Environmental Protection Agency's actions have had difficulty in obtaining basic scientific justifications for the actions taken by the EPA over the last few years. The bills before us today will begin the process of making the Environmental Protection Agency accountable to the very constituency that it claims to protect-- the American people. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 138 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I want to remind Members we are talking about the EPA today, a job-destroying agency. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out many people nowadays are familiar with what is called the golden hour, that first hour that occurs after a traumatic injury where the ability to save life and limb is vastly increased if a person can be delivered to a center within that golden hour's time. It is imperative to reauthorize these programs. They are critically needed for our citizens. Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote on the bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House today will consider two bills relating to Federal support for trauma care. These bills have both passed the Energy and Commerce Committee at the subcommittee and full committee levels on voice votes. Trauma is the leading cause of death under the age of 65. It is expensive, costing over $400 billion per year, third only to heart disease and cancer. It affects individuals of all ages--35 million Americans annually, or one person every 15 minutes. Over many years, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green) and I have worked closely on this issue to update the law and ensure the reauthorization of crucial trauma grant programs occurs. As a result of this coordination, today we will be voting on two bills that continue our long bipartisan record of support for efforts to shore up the Nation's trauma systems and centers. The Access to Life-Saving Trauma Care for All Americans Act, H.R. 647, will authorize two grant programs, which will expire this year, that provide critically needed Federal funding to help cover uncompensated costs in trauma centers, support core mission trauma services, provide emergency funding to trauma centers, and address trauma center physician shortages in order to ensure the future availability of trauma care for all our citizens. Trauma can happen at any time to anyone. It can happen to a family in a highway crash or a gunshot victim or a construction worker who is injured at the worksite. Trauma centers must be available for all victims of traumatic injury. Getting a trauma victim to a trauma center right away is the first step in saving that person's life. These bills draw support from the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, the American Association of Orthopedic Surgeons, the American Burn Association, the American College of Emergency Physicians, the American College of Surgeons, the American Trauma Society, the Congress of Neurological Surgeons, the Association of Critical Care Transport, the American Heart Association, the American Stroke Association, Emergency Nurses Association, Society of Trauma Nurses, the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma, Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma, National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians, the Orthopedic Trauma Association, and the Trauma Center Association of America. I strongly urge the House to support both of these bills. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I would just point out the gentleman's name is J.P. Paluskiewicz, and we do, indeed, thank him for his efforts on the bill. I have no more speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time to close.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the cost estimate prepared by the Congressional Budget Office for H.R. 639. U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC, March 16, 2015. Hon. Fred Upton, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 639, the Improving Regulatory Transparency for New Medical Therapies Act. If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Julia Christensen. Sincerely, Douglas W. Elmendorf. Enclosure.

Mr. BURGESS

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 materials into the Record on the bill.