Michael Burgess

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 636 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 Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

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

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to welcome to Washington our guest pastor in the House today, my friend, my mentor, the Reverend John Peter Boonzaaijer. Reverend Boonzaaijer and his family are no stranger to adversity. We just celebrated the 70th anniversary of the landing at D-day, and also this fall will be the 70th anniversary of the Dutch famine. Reverend Boonzaaijer's parents lived in the Netherlands at that time and suffered through that event themselves. Reverend Boonzaaijer was born in Kalamazoo, Michigan. He moved to Texas in 2002, and he has served the north Texas community in many ways. After serving as a teacher, administrator, and assistant rector of a parish school in Tyler, Texas, Reverend Boonzaaijer began a parish revitalization project in Dallas. As part of this, he began a new classical school, The Saint Timothy School. He is a reverend of The Chapel of the Cross, a reformed Episcopal church in Dallas, Texas. Reverend Boonzaaijer teaches upper middle school mathematics and middle school Bible, as well as maintains daily morning and evening prayer with his students, and I understand he prays for the United States Congress daily. He believes a true parish school has the capacity to endow youth with the wisdom of the ages. Because of his devotion to them, Reverend Boonzaaijer's students are capable, knowledgeable, virtuous, and devout. In the gallery today, Reverend Boonzaaijer's wife, Christine; his sons, Nathaniel and Detrick; and his daughter, Annalise, have joined us. We welcome them to the House of Representatives.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the dedicated service of Chief Eric Metzger of the Flower Mound Fire Department. After almost 4 decades in public service, Chief Metzger's exemplary career is coming to an end. Eric Metzger's passion for public service and fire fighting started at a young age; when growing up in Pleasanton, California, his next door neighbor was the Chief of the Oakland Fire Department. His 39-year fire service career began in Wimer, Oregon, where he served as a volunteer firefighter at age 15. He then proceeded to join the Rogue Five Fire Department as a volunteer Lieutenant and served there for the next three years. During the notoriously fire prone west coast summers in Oregon, Chief Metzger served as a Fire Warden for the Oregon State Forestry, and at age 18 he was assigned his own crew and truck. In 1979, he worked with other young firefighters to establish a private-for-profit fire department for the County of Josephine, Oregon. From 1979-1982, he served as a lieutenant in that department. In 1982, he moved to Midland, Texas seeking to expand his career with a ``big city'' fire department where he served for five years. In his free time, he continued his commitment to public service and his profession. Chief Metzger became the charter president of the Greenwood Volunteer Fire Department, spearheading the opening of its initial station in 1985. In 1986, he seized the opportunity to oversee the Fire Prevention Division of the Town of Flower Mound. He was promoted to Chief in 1992 and has capably led the Fire Department for 22 years. The Flower Mound Fire Department's sterling reputation is a reflection of the dedicated, ethical supervision of Chief Metzger. His professional legacy will continue to benefit the citizens and businesses of Flower Mound for years to come. I join his colleagues and the community in commending Flower Mound Fire Chief Eric Metzger for his outstanding record and extend best wishes upon his retirement. It is my privilege to represent the Town of Flower Mound in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mr. BURGESS

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. Reclaiming my time, I would just point out that those conditions the gentleman referenced that might cause a child to be frightened existed 4 years ago, existed 3 years ago, but there has been a dramatic change in the past 2 years. I believe that change is directly attributable to the policies of the administration when they went around the United States Congress to unilaterally alter the United States immigration laws, which specifically, in the Constitution, is a legislative branch requirement. Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of three important bills: H.R. 4800, the Agriculture Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2015; H.R. 4457, America's Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2014; and H.R. 4453, the Permanent S Corporation Built-In Gains Recognition Period Act for 2014. The rule is fair and important for us to move forward on the debate on these pieces of legislation. The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows: An amendment to H. Res. 616 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida At the end of the resolution, add the following new sections: Sec. 4. 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. 4582) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide for the refinancing of certain Federal student loans, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. 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 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. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 4582. The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be debating. Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or control the consideration of the subject before the House being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first recognition.'' The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering the previous question. That Member, because he then controls the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of amendment.'' In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time for debate thereon.'' Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only available tools for those who oppose the Republican majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

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

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, first off, I just want to reference something on Speaker John Boehner's Web site. John Boehner took the Speaker's gavel in January of 2011, promising to run a more open U.S. House of Representatives than his predecessor. In the 3\1/2\ years since then, Speaker Boehner has made good on that pledge by allowing more amendments and a steady stream of ``open rules,'' while the Democratic-controlled United States Senate, under Majority Leader Harry Reid, has gone in the other direction. One congressional expert calls open rules, which allow Members to freely offer amendments of essentially any nature during the consideration of a given bill, ``essential for fair consideration of legislation on the House floor. Under Boehner's leadership, Members on both sides of the aisle have been allowed to offer significantly more amendments, and the House has operated under far more open rules than were allowed under the previous Democratic- controlled House. The final years of the Pelosi-run House were a tour de force in closed government. During the final 2 years of Representative Pelosi's time as Speaker, the House never considered a single bill under an open rule. Some Members of Congress served their entire House careers under Speaker Pelosi without ever operating under an open rule. Mr. Speaker, on the issue of so-called immigration reform, the administration has done more to distance and set back any policy in that direction. Why do I say that? The reason is the unintended effects of their policies to send a message worldwide to those that come here by any method possible, and we will not prosecute, we will not send you back. As a consequence, we have got an issue on the border of our State in Texas that is, at the same time, both heartbreaking and frightening, with underage children literally being shoved across the border. Mr. Speaker, what does it say when an 8-year-old child can cross our border illegally? Who else is getting in, if 8-year-olds are able to come across this porous border that the administration has opened up?

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 1 minute for the purpose of a response. In the 111th Congress, the final 2 years of Representative Pelosi's time as Speaker, 2009 to 2010, this House never considered a single bill under an open rule. Let me state that again: 2009 to 2010, the 111th Congress, Speaker Pelosi was Speaker, the House never considered a single bill under an open rule. Mr. Speaker, I would submit, that is the definition of a closed process. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 616 provides for consideration of three important bills. The first, H.R. 4800, the Agriculture Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2015, will ensure continued operations for those Federal agencies responsible for monitoring the health and safety of our food and drug supplies. H.R. 4457, America's Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2014, and H.R. 4453, the Permanent S Corporation Built-in Gains Recognition Period Act of 2014, are two critical pieces of tax legislation that will give certainty to the small business community, making permanent two pieces of our Tax Code which Congress has had to continually renew annually for decades. Making these tax credits permanent will allow businesses to look out for more than a year ahead and to actually evaluate their economic situations, allowing for those businesses to make staffing and investment decisions for the long term rather than just the short term. The rule before us today provides for a modified open rule for H.R. 4800. This allows all Members to offer any amendments to the bill that they may choose. The Speaker is committed to completing as many appropriations bills under regular order as possible. The rule before us formalizes the same unanimous consent agreement that was entered into during the consideration of the CJS appropriations bill, which streamlines the debate, providing for 10 minutes of debate on every amendment offered on the bill. However, in no way does this rule restrict Members from offering any and all amendments to the underlying bill. The rule further provides for the consideration of both H.R. 4457, America's Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2014, and H.R. 4453, the Permanent S Corporation Built-in Gains Recognition Period Act of 2014, both under a closed rule. By bringing these two bills here today, Members will be allowed to debate the policy of each of these tax provisions individually rather than as a single omnibus tax extender legislation hurriedly passed at the end of the year that would not allow Members to weigh in on each separate extender as this process does. H.R. 4800, the Agriculture and Related Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2015, provides almost $21 billion for the department agencies funded in the bill. This is funded at the same level as fiscal year 2014 and $457 million above the President's request. The bill provides critical funding for agricultural research; animal and plant health; conservation programs; the Farm Service Agency; rural development, including infrastructure and food safety inspection; the Food and Drug Administration; the Commodity Futures Trading Commission; and the food and nutrition programs, including child nutrition, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and WIC, the program for women, infants, and children. Of particular importance to the work I have been involved with on the Energy and Commerce Committee, the agriculture appropriations bill provides over $2.5 billion in funding to the Food and Drug Administration. In addition, the bill allows for the collection of user fees cumulatively, amounting to overall discretionary funding of $4.5 billion in the FDA. These dollars serve an important mission. From drug and device approval to food safety, the Food and Drug Administration is at the regulatory forefront of protecting the Nation's health, but it also acts as the doorway for new treatments and cures. From basic research to cutting-edge treatments, America has led the way in opening new fields of discovery and taking medicine to boundaries that I could not have imagined during my medical training or career, yet we have barely scratched the surface of medical breakthroughs that are over the horizon. And believe it or not, there are only hundreds of treatments for diseases that afflict us and thousands still without any treatment at all, let alone a cure. Will the United States continue to be the home for the latest inventions? If the answer to that is yes, the Food and Drug Administration will be a key part of the future. Patients and innovators are on the front lines in the fight against diseases like Alzheimer's and cancer, yet their voices are not always heard. Bureaucratic rules have stood in the way of innovation. Some estimates show that medical devices may be approved almost 4 years earlier in Europe than in the U.S. In 2012, the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology recommended ``encouraging innovation'' as part of the FDA's mission statement in order to ensure that the FDA understood its role in helping new innovative treatments reach patients. However, the true impact of the medical device, pharmaceutical, biologic, and generic drug industries in the United States is that they are partners in providing our physicians and practitioners with the tools that they need to prevent disease and alleviate human suffering. The Food and Drug Administration must have the infrastructure and programs in place to ensure all innovations are dealt with in a fashion that ensures safety for the patient, as well as a straightforward and predictable and streamlined approval process. The Food and Drug Administration can continue to streamline the approval process of single-molecule drugs with which they have the most regulatory experience, but if we can't handle the fundamentals, then we have got a big problem. Congress has taken several bipartisan actions in the last few years to break down the barriers to health innovation, and the Food and Drug Administration will and has seen changes as a result. The funding provided will continue to move these reforms along, but as report language notes, there is a great deal of work that remains to be done. For the good of patients and to retain our global leadership and the economic benefits that come with it, it is time to breathe new life into the life sciences sector. As a physician, I understand the importance of ensuring that the government has the resources to lead to the next generation of treatments in the 21st century while also ensuring that those treatments are safe and effective. The bill will ensure that the Food and Drug Administration has the scientific and medical expertise that they need when reviewing products utilizing emerging science by providing adequate resources in a challenging fiscal environment. After the successful passage of the farm bill this year, the next step in that process is to fund those programs. H.R. 4800 achieves that goal. And I will add, I was disappointed to see that the Healthy Food Financing Initiative, to bring grocery stores and fresh food to underserved communities, was not funded in this appropriations bill even after the House resoundingly defeated an amendment to strip the program from the farm bill, showing that this body overwhelmingly supports this initiative. I understand that an amendment to fix this oversight will be offered during consideration of the bill, and I hope that something can be worked out. The two tax bills before us today are, again, critical to give small businesses stability and the ability to look beyond the end of each calendar year in making decisions for their companies. Extending these provisions today will be a boost to our economy. H.R. 4457, America's Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2014, would make permanent a provision within the Tax Code that allows annual investments of depreciable business property up to $500,000 to be expensed. Further, computer software and rules for the expensing of qualified real property--leasehold improvement, restaurant and retail improvement property--can also be written off as well. The present tax system harms investment in many ways. One of the most important is that, unlike other expenses, businesses must deduct capital expenses--such as for business equipment--over many years rather than the year the expense is incurred. This raises the cost of capital and reduces investment. H.R. 4457 would go a long way to reverse this trend. Likewise, the other two tax extenders that we are voting on today deal with S corporations or pass-through corporations. These corporations elect not to pay any Federal corporate taxes and, instead, pass corporate income, losses, and deductions and credits through to their shareholders. H.R. 4453, the Permanent S Corporation Built-in Gains Recognition Period Act of 2014, makes permanent an expired tax break that would enable businesses set up S corporations to shrink the window that they have to hold built-in gains from 10 years to 5. H.R. 4454, the Permanent S Corporation Charitable Contributions Act of 2014, would make permanent the tax rule requiring an adjustment to the basis of a shareholder's stock in an S corporation if the corporation makes tax-deductible charitable donations. Recently, the House passed a permanent tax credit for corporate research and development. Sixty-two Democrats voted against the measure. Their reasoning, as far as I can tell, was not against the policy, but it was the fact that the measure was not offset. However, offsets are something in Congress that we need when we are creating new programs or allocating money not previously appropriated, essentially making the American people pay more in taxes. Offsets are unnecessary and not needed when, in fact, we are shielding the American people from being taxed. Moreover, we heard last night in the Rules Committee, and I suspect we will hear it again today on the floor, about the fact that the two tax-related bills before us today in this rule are not offset. Congress only needs to pay for tax credits if one subscribes to the belief that all money in the country--all money in the country--belongs first to the government rather than the people. I reject this mind-set. Congress does not need to justify or offset not taking more money from the American people; Congress needs to justify and pay for policies that take money from the American people. Indeed, every member of the Rules Committee on the minority side has voted at least three times to extend these very provisions without having any sort of offset. President Obama, himself, signed those three extensions of these provisions into law, all done without offsets. Senator Wyden, who has been working on a larger tax extender bill in the Senate has included the same PAYGO language that is included in these bills before us in this legislation. To make hay about this issue, which is truly much ado about nothing, is to play politics with taxpayers and our economy, and the Republican majority in this House will not play along. In the absence of a larger, comprehensive tax reform package, permanent extenders like these are common sense. They bring back stability and certainty to businesses that are constantly waiting at the end of every calendar year to see if Congress will retroactively act to provide that tax relief. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, 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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 616 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BURGESS. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the dedicated service of Chief Ross Chadwick of the Denton Fire Department. After more than 40 years in public service, Chief Chadwick's illustrious career is coming to an end. Ross Chadwick started his 43-year fire service career in southern California, where he rose through the ranks to Fire Chief. After 25 years in California, including 12 as chief, he relocated to Texas and took the helm as Fire Chief in Denton, Texas where he has served for the last 18 years. His commitment to excellence has led him to attain bachelor's degrees in Fire Science and Public Administration, and a Masters in Public Administration. He served as a Firefighter Association President for several years as well as their lead negotiator in collective bargaining. The Denton Fire Department's fine reputation is a reflection of the dedicated, ethical supervision of Chief Chadwick. His professional legacy will continue to benefit the citizens and businesses of Denton for years to come. I join his colleagues and the community in commending Denton Fire Chief Ross Chadwick for his sterling record and extend best wishes upon his retirement. It is my privilege to represent the City of Denton in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, imagine you have a medical emergency, you show up at the emergency department of your hospital, and you are treated in the waiting room. That is exactly what is happening in hospitals all over America. Overcrowding has become a reality. A recent report by the American College of Emergency Medicine showed that more than half of all ER doctors have reported this trend. It is ironic that the main pillar of the Affordable Care Act, which was an increase in patients' access to care, is exactly the opposite of what is happening. We are having a hearing on Thursday in the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health. I am looking forward to it. We will discuss the impact of the President's health care law on access to health care. It is my sincere hope that the administration is cooperative and forthcoming as we investigate yet another aspect of the Affordable Care Act that instead of helping is hurting patients, doctors, and hospitals and putting a strain on our system.

Mr. BURGESS

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

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is similar to one that I brought to the floor of the House 2 years ago. During that 2 years, there has been a lot of discussion about the use of unmanned aircraft, commonly referred to as drones, in the U.S. national airspace. The constitutional protections that are important to so many of us can be infringed upon without constant vigilance to prevent abuse of such drones. Until recently, it was believed that the use of drones in the United States airspace was limited to surveillance. That is no longer the case. To date, at least 17 police departments and sheriffs' offices across the country have filed certificates of authorization with the FAA to be able to use a drone. Police chiefs and sheriffs in districts around the country have applied to the FAA for a certificate of authorization to use a drone in the national airspace. Some departments might be using the drones for surveillance. However, others have announced their intention to take the drones they are currently using and attach a weapons platform to patrol their jurisdictions. Further, over the past few years, the Obama administration's policy regarding drones has been cryptic. For instance, it is still not clear whether the President believes that he has the authority to kill an American citizen on American soil. This amendment would put an end to that ambiguity. This amendment does not affect the use of armed drones in a war zone. Armed drones have been used with precision and success to seek out the enemy hiding in places where ground troops would have difficulty going. But placing an unmanned drone over the skies of the United States is not only ill-advised, it flies in the face of the sincerely-held constitutional protections that we all hold dear. This amendment would prevent the Secretary of Transportation and the head of the FAA from approving any application to use an unmanned aircraft in the national airspace for the purpose of arming or weaponizing that aircraft. It does not affect surveillance. It does not affect weaponized drones being used outside the United States airspace in a war zone. In my opinion, this is a road that we should not travel. It is a classic example of the oft-used quote by Benjamin Franklin: ``Those who would give up liberty to purchase safety may deserve neither liberty nor safety.'' It is an important provision, and I encourage the chairman of the subcommittee to consider it to allow it to come to a vote. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Point of Order

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard on the point of order.

Mr. BURGESS. With all affection and reverence for the chairman of the subcommittee, this issue has remained unresolved for the last 2 years. It was unresolved in the FAA reauthorization that passed the House 2 years ago. It has been unresolved in rulemaking by the agency. This is an opportunity, through the limitation amendment in the appropriations bill, to prevent the type of activity that I described in the offering memorandum. I think it is appropriate. I think the time is now for us to take this action for the protection of our citizens.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Doug Hawthorne, who is stepping down as chief executive officer of Texas Health Resources after 44 years of outstanding service to the communities of North Texas. Hawthorne played a vital role in 1997 with the merger of Presbyterian Healthcare Resources, Harris Methodist Health System and Arlington Memorial Hospital. He created the Texas Health Resources health care system, which has grown to become one of the largest faith- based, not-for-profit health care systems in the nation under his leadership. Hawthorne received many awards and recognition for his work. He was named to Modern Healthcare magazine's annual list of the 100 Most Influential People in Healthcare in 2012 and 2013 after being on the list six times in prior years. As a physician, I can say that his dedication and commitment have been instrumental in transforming the delivery of healthcare in North Texas. He is truly deserving of recognition for his exceptional work, and I wish him all the best on his next endeavor. I am proud to represent him in Congress.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a person very important to our district. Ann Stuart, Ph.D., personifies the American dream that education is access to opportunity. She was born as an only child into a middle class family of loving parents, Frank and Laura Stuart. They were determined to make possible for their child a college education, so she completed her Bachelor's degree in Education at the University of Florida, her Master's in English at the University of Kentucky, and her Ph.D. in English at Southern Illinois University. Ann began her teaching career first as a middle school teacher, then taught high school, and later became a tenured Professor of English at the university level. She is a published scholar in the field of English Literature and technical communication. Her administrative career began as Dean of Arts and Sciences at East Stroudsburg University in Pennsylvania. She then became Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs at Alma College in Michigan followed by the Presidency of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute's Graduate School in Connecticut. Dr. Stuart was named Chancellor and President of Texas Woman's University in 1999 and still currently serves in that position. Her administrative leadership during her time at TWU has brought transformational change: Enrollment has grown by 80%. TWU has produced during her tenure more than 20,000 graduates in critical fields. The university has received national recognition for its quality, value and diversity. Dr. Stuart has raised more than $220 million for facilities, scholarships and faculty development and led the implementation of advanced technology and teaching tools that mirror the workplace and improve learning. She led the construction of new facilities that position TWU at the forefront of workplace development. The TWU Institute of Health Sciences-Houston Center (2006)--located in the renowned Texas Medical Center--was built at no cost to the state. The TWU T. Boone Pickens Institute of Health Sciences-Dallas Center (2011)--located in the heart of the Southwestern Medical District--brings together to one location health care programs previously located at separate sites enabling TWU to emphasize the team approach to patient care. The Ann Stuart Science Complex in Denton (2011), which doubled the university's science laboratory and classroom space, is helping meet the state's need for skilled professionals in the STEM fields (science, technology, engineering and mathematics). TWU students are high achievers in their academic fields and are successful graduates in critical professions that return value to this state and its citizens. Through her vision, innovation and leadership, TWU is well- positioned for a strong future. Business and community leaders throughout the state and members of the legislature call upon her and her administration to serve as experts on boards and to testify on issues critical to higher education. Dr. Stuart will leave a lasting legacy as a private citizen at TWU, in Denton, and in Dallas. She and her late husband Ray Poliakoff, who were first generation graduates of higher education, both said often it was their education that enabled them to pursue the opportunities that enriched their lives. To honor Ray's memory and their shared commitment to providing educational opportunities for young people, Chancellor Stuart has established and funded the following at TWU: The Ann Stuart and Ray R. Poliakoff endowed scholarship for undergraduate students with high academic achievement and financial need, The Chancellor's Alumni Excellence Award, through a 20-year program of funding, annually brings exceptional graduates back to the university to share their expertise with faculty and students, The Ann Stuart and Ray R. Poliakoff Celebration of Science Series, through a commitment of two decades of funding, provides the opportunity for the TWU Departments of Biology and Chemistry/ Biochemistry to develop a sustained program of promoting and celebrating the wonders, truths, and mysteries of science. In Denton, Dr. Stuart in her husband's memory, made a lead gift for the construction of a new Animal Care and Adoption Center. She also underwrites a weekly adoption program for dogs and cats from the current shelter. As a private citizen in Dallas, Dr. Stuart provided funds for a courtyard garden at the Dallas Arboretum and Botanical Garden. Furthermore, she has made a multi-year commitment to a dog therapy program at Baylor Scott & White Health as well as an animal nutrition program at the Dallas Zoo. Additionally, she has given a sustained gift of funding to KERA programming. Dr. Stuart exemplifies the profile of those selected for the Texas Women's Hall of Fame. She clearly has improved the institution she now leads while at the same time contributed to the larger discussion of improving higher education in the state of Texas. Through board appointments, legislative and Coordinating Board involvement and workforce impact, her service clearly has benefitted the state of Texas.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, the disturbing news from General Motors in the recall case continues. In the past few days, we have learned that internal emails were sent telling General Motors employees to avoid using certain words, words like ``problem,'' words like ``safety.'' This raises questions about what GM knew and when they knew it. But Mr. Speaker, it also raises questions about the National Highway Safety Traffic Administration: What did they know and when did they know it? From our committee work, we know that over the last decade, NHTSA had occasions to open up formal investigations into the recalled GM cars, but decided to do nothing. How could the Nation's watchdog on highway safety see the problem but do nothing? The committee's investigation will continue. We have questions to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that were submitted at the last hearing. They need to be forthcoming. America deserves answers.