Michael Burgess

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who will provide our closing.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4701, the Tick-Borne Disease Research Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014, introduced by Chris Gibson of New York. Lyme disease is the most commonly reported vector-borne illness in the United States. Prior to 2012, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported about 30,000 new cases each year in the United States, with 95 percent of those cases in 13 States concentrated in the Northeast and upper Midwest. The Centers for Disease Control now estimates that around 300,000 people in the United States are diagnosed each year with Lyme disease, making it a substantial public health problem. H.R. 4701 is an important bill that addresses the growing threat of Lyme disease in the United States, it prioritizes Federal research online, and related diseases, and gives patients a seat at the table. The bill would establish a working group at the Department of Health and Human Services that would prepare a report summarizing Federal activities related to Lyme disease, identifying the latest scientific advances and making recommendations to the Secretary and to Congress. It also ensures that the Federal Government consults with patients and physicians in their work on the disease. I would like to thank Mr. Gibson for his hard work and dedication on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4701, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, the Committee on Energy and Commerce has embarked upon an ambitious plan to advance the cures of the 21st century and to make them a reality for today's patients and physicians. I spent, indeed, part of August doing roundtables for the Energy and Commerce Cures initiative. One issue that came up time and again is the potential, the promise of genomic medicine to understand, diagnose, treat, and prevent illness if given the opportunity. The era of precision medicine is at hand, and doctors need to have the tools, the tools to utilize this. One of the tools is known as laboratory developed tests in order to identify best therapies for a specific patient, but burdensome regulation by the Food and Drug Administration of laboratory developed tests would prevent clinical labs from developing tests to respond to public health needs. I actually believe the Food and Drug Administration has no authority to regulate laboratory developed tests, and in fact, if they continue to do this, it will only create more roadblocks, more obstacles on our path to cures. As a physician, I am adamantly opposed to this. This week, the Energy and Commerce Committee will hold a hearing on the future of laboratory developed tests. We must work together to oppose the Food and Drug Administration's proposal, so that the work of medical professionals, which is to heal our patients using all the tools at our disposal, may finally be realized.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Aletha Howell Barsanti, who passed away July 13, 2014. She was a devoted army wife, an exceptional mother and a loyal companion and friend to many. Aletha was a Texas native and was born on September 27, 1920 in Corsicana, Texas. After graduating from high school in the west Texas town of Rankin, she followed her two older sisters, Fleda and Frances, to the University of Texas. While working at her father's law office she met Olinto Mark Barsanti, a career officer in the United States Army. They were married on October 22, 1942 at Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio, Texas. Olinto went on to become a decorated combat veteran of World War II and Korea and also served as the Commanding General of the prestigious 101st Airborne Division in Vietnam. While Olinto served and protected our country, Aletha was an army wife who diligently and lovingly raised their daughter, Bette, on her own. After the General's death in 1973, Aletha settled in Montgomery, Alabama in the late 1970s. There she met Colonel Lonnie Martin, a retired member of the United States Air Force. For the next twenty years she and Lonnie traveled, attended the symphony, golfed and enjoyed retirement with one another. While residing in Montgomery, she also spent much of her time with a group of women who included her in their bridge games and other social activities and made her feel like a Montgomery native. The retired military community also welcomed her. Aletha was a proud member of the Daughters of the American Revolution and the Magna Carta Dames. She will be greatly missed by her family, including her daughter and son-in-law Bette and Bob Sherman of Denton, Texas.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Margaret Edge Chalfant for a noteworthy career dedicated to the advancement of the arts. After almost a decade as Executive Director of the Greater Denton Arts Council (GDAC), Ms. Chalfant is retiring from her distinguished service at the helm of the non-profit organization. Margaret Chalfant's successful leadership at the GDAC began in 2005; in that same year, she was selected to attend the Women's Leadership Summit in Washington, DC. During her GDAC tenure, she has expanded and enhanced its permanent collection, upgraded and updated the physical facilities, and highlighted the importance of the arts through education outreach to students from the elementary level through college. She instituted an After School Arts program for Denton ISD schools, hosted An Artistic Discovery--the 26th Congressional district's annual high school art contest, and collaborated with the University of North Texas and Texas Woman's University to initiate the Getting Started with the Arts program. Throughout her career she has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to the arts, as well as engaging in multiple civic activities to benefit the Denton community and the North Texas region. The sterling reputation of the Greater Denton Arts Council is a reflection of the outstanding administration of Ms. Chalfant, and her professional legacy will continue to benefit the citizens of Denton for years to come. I join her colleagues and the community in commending the Greater Denton Arts Council's Executive Director, Margaret Edge Chalfant, for her outstanding record and extend best wishes upon her retirement. It is my privilege to represent the City of Denton in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Lake Dallas High School who will be celebrating their 50th football season this year. The Fighting Falcons have played 494 games in their illustrious time with a winning record of 260-226-8. They have appeared in the playoffs 18 times throughout their victorious history. I am proud to say that in 2002, Lake Dallas introduced a new football facility in Corinth that now holds 6,000 spectators. In 2008, Lake Dallas and Sherman scored 115 points in one game to tie a state record. Impressively, the Fighting Falcons have also had notable college and NFL players. These include Dusty Dvoracek, James Franklin, Justin Hill, Graysen Schantz, Chase Baine, Daryl Williams, Dontonio Jordan, and Dalyn Williams. On behalf of the 26th Congressional District, I offer my sincere congratulations to the Lake Dallas High School Fighting Falcons on their 50 years of teamwork, success and greatness. I wish them a bright future.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my chairman for yielding me the time. There are plenty of places in the Affordable Care Act where it is full of drafting errors and stuff that, quite frankly, just wasn't quite ready for prime time, but, Mr. Speaker, there is no ambiguity over this issue. When the President delayed the institution of the employer mandate on July 2, 2013, it couldn't have been clearer. Let me give you an example. The effective date for the individual mandate as written in law, and this is for the individual mandate: The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years ending after December 31, 2013. Pretty clear. ``Shall apply.'' Seems straightforward. The effective date for the employer mandate, section 1514 of the law, effective date: The amendments made by this section shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013. It really does seem straightforward. There is no ambiguity there. I would just ask the question: Is there a list of laws that must be followed and those that may or may not be followed depending upon whatever the will of the President is that day? I would remind my colleagues the words of Abraham Lincoln: The best way to end a bad law is to enforce it strictly. We should do the same.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), chairman of the full committee.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 594) to reauthorize and extend the Paul D. Wellstone Muscular Dystrophy Community Assistance, Research, and Education Amendments of 2008, as amended.

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 in the Record on the bill.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, thank you for the recognition to discuss this bipartisan, bicameral legislation that was introduced with Mr. Engel of New York, H.R. 594, the Muscular Dystrophy Community Assistance, Research and Education Amendments of 2014, or the MD CARE Act. H.R. 594 has 113 bipartisan cosponsors. This bill makes targeted updates and improvements to legislation first passed by Congress in 2001 and then reauthorized in 2008. In each instance, these bills, including H.R. 594, have passed both subcommittee and full committee on voice votes and passed overwhelmingly on the floor under suspension, a trend I hope we can continue today. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is supported by the totality of the muscular dystrophy community with over 20 organizations writing letters of support, including the Muscular Dystrophy Association and the Parent Project Muscular Dystrophy. In short, the underlying law is a success story. Since its enactment, this law has successfully targeted limited Federal resources to improve clinical care across the muscular dystrophies. Muscular dystrophy is not a single disease. It is a group of genetic disorders characterized by progressive weakness and the loss of voluntary muscles that control movement. Muscular dystrophy affects hundreds of thousands of children and adults throughout the United States and worldwide. Some forms of muscular dystrophy are seen in infancy or childhood, while others may not appear until adulthood. The extent of muscle weakness, as well as rate of progression, varies based on where among a spectrum of muscular dystrophies a patient falls. Since 2001, this law has successfully changed the lives of families impacted by all forms of muscular dystrophy. It has coordinated and focused Federal biomedical research on nine forms of muscular dystrophy, developed epidemiologic data, and created patient care guidelines. Here is the good news: it has made a real difference. Since 2001, there have been 67 clinical trials of drugs or therapies for muscular dystrophy, and many can be traced to the basic research efforts stemming from this law. In Duchenne muscular dystrophy alone, children are living 10 years longer, and many are now entering young adulthood. However, as we often heard, sometimes the law does not keep pace with science and medicine. For example, when the original law was written, those children who are now going into adulthood would not have been able to look forward to such a favorable timeline. It does not make sense that we have developed care guidelines that have helped these patients live longer and then stop when they turn 18. This bill will address these issues with small, targeted updates to current law. Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear about this. This bill creates no new programs, this bill creates no increases of authorizations of appropriations, nor does it create additional authorizations of appropriations. It simply proposes a small set of improvements intended to ensure that the program is focusing on the most critical areas that funding being provided today reflects current scientific and medical knowledge. The bill is fiscally responsible because it makes the needed update in law to ensure that any money that is spent is not held back by an outdated statute. I would like to thank Chairmen Upton and Pitts, as well as Ranking Members Waxman and Pallone for their help. I also want to thank the staff on both sides of the dais in the committee and the Capitol for their work in getting this bill to this point. Specifically, I want to thank Clay Alspach, Katie Novaria, and Brenda Destro with the Energy and Commerce majority, and Hannah Green with the minority; from Mr. Engel's staff, Mark Iozzi and Heidi Ross, who negotiated with my staff in good faith from day one; and on my staff, I particularly want to thank my deputy chief of staff J.P. Paluskiewicz who led negotiations, as well as Katie Allen and my former staffer, Sarah Johnson. This bill is bipartisan. It has a history of consensus. It is fiscally responsible and will benefit all Americans suffering from muscular dystrophy. I urge everyone to support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, let me close by saying this is a good bill, and I urge all Members to support it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows now, there is a crisis on the Texas border. And what is the proximate cause of that crisis? It was the President's decision to defer adjudication for childhood arrivals a little over 2 years ago. When the President issued his memorandum, stating that deferred adjudication was now possible, the floodgates opened. To make that call was irresponsible. But once again, we heard evidence this weekend that the President is, again, thinking of overstepping his authority. Mr. Speaker, this would only throw gasoline on a fire. We need legislation that will allow for more sensible solutions to be put in place. The executive overreach effectively called for no-holds-barred at the border and has caused great strain on our system. No one but the President has the power to remedy this legislation. By issuing the order 2 years ago, the President opened the floodgates. It is up to him to quench the bleeding.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, breaking news. This morning the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld a challenge to the ObamaCare health insurance subsidies being granted in Federal exchanges. So what does this mean? The Affordable Care Act was written so that tax subsidies for insurance premiums were only allowed in State-based exchanges. But so far, 14 of the 50 States have set up State-based exchanges. Many others, including Texas, are in Federal fallback exchanges. Today's ruling said that these States are getting subsidies illegally. This means that 7\1/2\ million people could potentially owe the Federal Government thousands of dollars that they would have to pay back. Mr. Speaker, this law was a disaster from the start. It was a rough draft written in a Senate committee, came over here and was rubberstamped by the House, and then it went to rulemaking at the Federal agency. So is it really any surprise that it is being dialed back by the courts? Between this and the Hobby Lobby decision 2 weeks ago, it is clear that the drafting was all wrong, and 7\1/2\ million people are now paying the consequences.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, let me try to take some of these points in order that we have heard over the last 45 minutes. The gentleman talks about tax reform. I hope that means that he is prepared to join me on H.R. 1040, a measure that would provide a flat tax to the citizens of the United States. There is no more egregious function that most of us have to deal with every year than dealing with the IRS. Unfortunately, because of the actions of the administration, the IRS now stands in ill favor with a majority of Americans. The President, himself, promised in 2013 that he would get to the bottom of the problems in the IRS and that he would get them corrected. I believe that he should. This is the agency with which we all have to deal every year. No one likes the taxman, but it is imperative that the American people have the confidence in the agency that is tasked with collecting their taxes. On the issue of the VA, it is in conference. We will hear from them. Is the VA going to require a higher appropriation than we gave a few weeks ago? Perhaps. But I would also like to see the new administrator, the new Secretary of the VA be able to discharge people from his employment if they have, in fact, acted in bad faith. I must have missed the firings that have occurred at the VA amongst the Senior Executive Service. I am not even talking about political appointees. I am talking about people who are lifers within the VA who seem perfectly content to continue business as usual. You are not going to fix that problem if you just pump more taxpayer money into the system. I wouldn't disagree that more money may be necessary at the VA, but we do have to fix the problem that is endemic in the agency if we don't expect the same result to be clearly evident in 2 or 3 years' time. Let me just talk briefly about the issue that came up about the Supreme Court decision. Unlike Mr. Nadler, I was not here in 1993 and 1994. I was not part of the Congress that passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, but many of the same people who wrote and voted for and defended the Affordable Care Act, the cast of characters is remarkably similar. In fact, the gentleman from New York, Senator Schumer, when he was a Member of the House, was, I believe, the lead sponsor of that, and he is now in the Senate. The majority leader in the Senate was a ``yes'' vote on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. So this is a law that was written by Democratic sponsors in a Democratic-controlled House, signed by a Democratic President. How could they not know? How could they not know of its existence when they were writing the Affordable Care Act?

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 670 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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

Mr. BURGESS. Let me continue with this thought, and if there is time, I will consider yielding to the gentlewoman from Texas. Now, while they were crafting the Affordable Care Act, they were fully cognizant of the same restrictions they had written into law in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Supreme Court simply looked at the facts and said that a Federal agency--in this case, the Department of Health and Human Services--in a rulemaking activity cannot negate a law that was passed by the people's representatives in the Congress. I think that is as it should be. If there was anything, there were drafting errors in the Affordable Care Act. I have spoken about that time and again. But why weren't the same people who were tasked with writing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, why weren't they watchful while they were writing their own health care law? Now, let's talk for just a minute about the Hobby Lobby decision. The first thing--and it is important to stress this--no FDA-approved contraceptive that was available to women before the decision is unavailable after the decision. The Court simply said that the government cannot force a citizen to violate his or her religious beliefs paying for medicine that a citizen believes takes a life. No employer before or after Hobby Lobby can prevent a woman from purchasing any contraceptive that is currently available. We also heard criticism from the minority that the House was doing other things than doing its work. I would just point out that the House is doing its work. Forty jobs bills have passed this House and are sitting, waiting for activity over in the Senate. And we saw how quickly the SKILLS Act, after the Senate renamed it and it came back to the House, how quickly it got to the President's desk. So the fact that the bills are over there waiting is a problem of the other body. It is not a problem of the House. The House has been doing its work. Yesterday we passed the Financial Services Appropriations bill. Mr. Speaker, I would ask rhetorically: When was the last time that the House passed the Financial Services Appropriations bill? It was 2007, the first year that the Democrats had taken over the majority. We haven't seen an appropriations bill for Financial Services in--what?--5 years' time. This was a landmark achievement yesterday. Let's look for just a moment at the number of amendments that have been heard under open rules. On appropriations bills this year, we are through seven appropriations bills as we sit here in the middle of July. That is a significant achievement in and of itself. There have been 395 amendments heard to appropriations bills. That hardly sounds like a closed process. There have been 210 Republican amendments, 185 Democratic amendments, and that was exclusive of yesterday's passed appropriations bill. So I don't think you can rationally make the argument that the House is not doing its work and that, as we go through the appropriations process, it is not open. I have some other things that I want to say about the deficit, but I will be happy to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I need to reclaim my time. Mr. Speaker, slippery slopes work both ways, and those people who are worried about laws that would require the ending of life are worried about that slippery slope as well. I would just reiterate the point: no contraceptive that was previously available is now unavailable because of the Hobby Lobby decision. If there are problems in the way the law was written, I would remind people it was a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President who signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and it was a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President that signed the Affordable Care Act. They perhaps should have taken better care in writing their law. We had the hearing yesterday in the Rules Committee about the President taking care that the laws are faithfully executed. Perhaps we ought to have a faithful writing of the laws, as well. Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for consideration of the America Gives More Act of 2014, making permanent the tax deductions for charitable contributions to food banks and conservation easements, and allowing for tax-free IRA deductions. It is a sound public policy, and I am certainly grateful to my colleague from New York (Mr. Reed) for writing this legislation, which will have a positive impact on the countless charities in this country which provide such critical services to our neighbors in need. The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows: An Amendment to H. Res. 670 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida At the end of the resolution, add the following new sections: Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5051) to ensure that employers cannot interfere in their employees' birth control and other health care decisions. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill. Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 5051.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 670 provides for the consideration of a package of tax deductions for charitable contributions to organizations in the form of excess food inventory and conservation easements, as well as authorizing tax-free distributions from individual retirement accounts, lowering the excise tax on private foundations, and extending the date by which taxpayers can make charitable contributions to be considered for a tax deduction. This is a package of policies, each of which has been supported by the overwhelming majorities of both parties. The rule before us today provides for a closed rule for H.R. 4719, which is the standard rule for tax bills. Of course, the minority will have its customary motion to recommit. This is a straightforward rule. H.R. 4719, the America Gives More Act of 2014, will benefit the countless numbers of Americans who rely on and utilize charitable organizations in communities throughout the country. A great incentive for many Americans to contribute to those organizations or to contribute in a greater capacity than they otherwise might are the tax deductions that have been made available by the Federal Government. Congress, long ago, decided it was sound public policy to incentivize charitable giving, encouraging citizens to open their pocketbooks and lend a hand to those less fortunate--and Americans are a generous people. Moreover and importantly, today's bill makes these tax provisions permanent so that Americans will not have to worry from year to year whether the tax deductions on which they have come to rely will be available to them that year. Recently, the House passed a permanent tax credit for corporate research and development. There were 62 Democrats who voted against the measure. Their reasoning, as far as I can tell, was not against the policy but of maintaining that the measure was not paid for. However, pay-fors are something in Congress that we need when we are creating new programs or are allocating money not previously appropriated, essentially making the American people pay more in taxes. The offsets are unnecessary and not needed when we are actually shielding the American people from having their money taken in the first place in the form of a tax. Moreover, we heard on Tuesday night while in the Rules Committee markup of today's rule--and I suspect we will hear some about it today--the fact that the two tax-related bills before us today in the rule are not paid for. Congress only needs to pay for a tax credit if one subscribes to the belief that all money in our country belongs first to the government, then to the people. I reject this mindset. Congress does not need to justify or pay for not taking more money from the American people. Congress needs to justify and, thus, pay for policies that take money from the American people. Mr. Speaker, even if you did subscribe to the notion that all money in this country, first and foremost, belongs to the government and that the government has to pay for allowing Americans to keep their money, the exact provisions contained in the America Gives More Act have traditionally not been offset, and Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee, on the Rules Committee, and Democratic leadership have often voted in favor of these same provisions in un-offset legislation in previous years. In the absence of a larger, comprehensive tax reform package, permanent extenders like these make sense. They bring back stability and certainty to businesses that are constantly having to wait to see if Congress will, in fact, act. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill. 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 reserve the balance of my time.