Michael Burgess

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, let me remind you why we are here today. We are here today because the President, who signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law in March of 2010, on July 2 of this year decided he was not going to enforce a portion of the law. Unilaterally, the President made the decision, didn't consult with Congress, put it out in a blog post on one of their White House Web sites on July 2. Then 3 days later, on the Friday before the Fourth of July weekend, they came out with a raft of regulations; and buried within that raft of regulations was the fact that, oh, by the way, we're not checking anybody who comes in. We'll rely on self-attestation. They were required to do that because, by not enforcing the employer mandate that was in their law that they signed, by not enforcing the employer mandate, the data would not be collected and, in fact, there was no way to enforce that data. So we simply don't need the data. We'll trust; people are going to be honest. If they come in and say they need a subsidy, of course they need a subsidy. We'll give it to them. And, yeah, at some point, it might even be checked against their IRS records. How are you going to call that back from someone who doesn't have the money anymore because, after all, the dollars and the subsidy don't go to the individual; they go to the insurance company. It's not like that individual went and deposited that in a bank account. It went to their insurance company to buy their health insurance. The money's been spent, the policy has been utilized or not, but that water is under the bridge. I didn't ask for this debate. I didn't ask for the President to sign the health care bill into law, but he did. But then I sure didn't ask him to just delay parts of it. If anything is inconvenient to you, Mr. President, just kind of put it away, put it to the side. All kinds of things have fallen off the Affordable Care Act as it's bucked and burped down the road towards implementation. You may remember the debate about preexisting conditions. What about the Federal preexisting condition program? Anyone who showed up after February 1 of this year to be covered under the Federal preexisting condition program was told, sorry, the window is closed; we're not signing up any more individuals because we're out of money. So they had to wait 11 months until the Elysian Fields of the Affordable Care Act spread out before them. But what are they to do for that 11 months if they've got a diagnosis which is incompatible with life unless they get treatment? But the administration didn't care about that. They simply suspended enrollment to the preexisting condition program. Well, what about the caps on out-of-pocket expenses that an individual could incur during a year? Under the Affordable Care Act there were caps signed in law by the President. Well, the caps were excluded because it's kind of inconvenient, and we don't want to do that anymore. The small business health exchanges are delayed for a year. What else is going to fall off this thing as it lurches towards implementation on January 1? I don't know. But I do know this: we have an opportunity today to vote on a rule that allows the bill to come to the floor that will require that the Department of Health and Human Services, the Inspector General, ensure that those individuals who come and say, hey, I'm eligible for a subsidy, to ensure that they are, in fact, eligible for that subsidy. We fight all the time in committee with money going out the door at the Department of Health and Human Services, the pay-and-chase model. It clearly doesn't work. Medicare and Medicaid, inappropriate payments, inefficient expenditures happen all the time. Let's not make that worse. Let's stop paying the crooks. We have an opportunity today to stop paying the crooks. Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of a critical bill to protect taxpayer dollars from the rampant fraud inevitable in an undertaking as massive as the health insurance overhaul that is known as ObamaCare. I congratulate my colleague from Tennessee (Mrs. Black) for her thoughtful piece of legislation. And for that reason, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. BURGESS. The gentleman from Texas has unlimited speakers in himself; but beyond me, no.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I would remind everyone in the House Chamber that seven times the House has voted to restrict, delay, defund a portion of the Affordable Care Act; seven times those have passed into law and been signed by the President. This is an important effort. This was a massive overtaking of the country's health care system that was passed in not a bipartisan fashion but a single-party vote in March of 2010. The President has decided now even with his own law, he got everything he wanted in the law, he's going to selectively enforce. If we're going to talk about the rule of law, let's talk about the rule of law. The bill rule before us today is a good rule. It ensures that those taxpayer subsidies are going to individuals who are deserving of those subsidies. And for crying out loud, let's stop the crooks. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, let me just remind my colleagues here on the floor of the House that we are considering House Resolution 339 that provides for consideration of H.R. 2775, the No Subsidies Without Verification Act of 2013. And despite all of the tactics to distract from that debate, that is what the debate centers on today. I would like to point out to my colleagues an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal from today called ``Stopping ObamaCare Fraud.'' I'm going to read a little bit of the opinion piece: Every politician claims to hate fraud in government, and the House of Representatives will have a chance to prove it Wednesday when it votes to close a gigantic hole for potential abuse in the Affordable Care Act. The Health and Human Services Department announced in July that it won't verify individual eligibility for the tens of billion in insurance subsidies that the law will dole out. Americans are supposed to receive those subsidies based on income and only if their employer doesn't provide federally approved health benefits. But until 2015 the rule will be: come on in, the subsidy is fine. Health and Human Services will let applicants ``self attest'' that they are legally eligible. No further questions asked. The new ObamaCare exchanges will also be taking the applicant's word on their projected household income. It seems that what it calls ``operational barriers'' continue to prevent Health and Human Services from checking applications against Internal Revenue Service income data. The administration argues that the fear of later HHS audits will keep applicants honest, though the threat of such checks has hardly prevented other fraud. The Treasury Inspector General estimates that 21 to 25 percent of earned income tax credits go to people who aren't eligible. An equivalent rate of fraud in the Affordable Care Act could mean $250 billion in bad payments in a decade. And does Health and Human Services really plan to claw back overpayments from individual exchange participants? House Republicans by contrast will offer a vote that matters on Tennessee Representative Diane Black's bill to require the administration to have a verification system in place before it hands out subsidies. Democrats have been unusually quiet in their opposition, perhaps because it is hard to justify voting in effect to give Americans subsidies to which they have no legal entitlement. Savings for taxpayers aside, the political merit of the House bill is that it puts a spotlight on a major ObamaCare failure and makes Democrats vote either to fix it or to simply go along with the failure. It also highlights another case in which with the Obama administration is refusing to enforce black- letter law. Republicans are asking that a vast new entitlement be held to the most basic due diligence, or be prudently delayed until it can. If Democrats can't support that vote, voters should know. Again, that was from today's Wall Street Journal Review & Outlook. Mr. Speaker, it's pretty apparent that the administration is only enforcing those parts of the law that it finds in its own best interest, and if something is inconvenient or embarrassing, it suspends the enforcement. 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 Colorado (Mr. Polis), 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 339 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 339 provides for the consideration of H.R. 2775, the No Subsidies Without Verification Act of 2013. This is a critical bill as the Obama administration begins to implement and sign up people for the insurance exchanges in literally less than 3 weeks' time. I am a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Speaker. I can tell you that the Secretary of Health and Human Services appears ill prepared to verify that the people qualifying for the numerous government handouts and subsidies included in the Affordable Care Act actually meet the income requirements for those subsidies. Because fraud and abuse have been rampant in just about every program that is administered by the Department of Health and Human Services, including Medicare and Medicaid, a certified verification system being in place prior to the implementation of the Affordable Care Act is critical. This bill addresses this extreme deficiency in the inappropriately named Affordable Care Act. The rule before us today provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided between the majority and the minority. Further, the rule makes a correction to the underlying bill, clarifying that the Inspector General for Health and Human Services, rather than the Secretary, which is a partisan position, is better equipped to oversee the verification process for the eligibility of subsidies. Finally, the minority is afforded the customary motion to recommit, allowing for yet another opportunity to amend the legislation. H.R. 2775, the No Subsidies Without Verification Act, introduced by Mrs. Black from Tennessee, is an important piece of legislation to protect taxpayer dollars from inappropriate expenditure. With less than 3 weeks until enrollment in the health insurance exchanges and they go live, the Obama administration continues to tinker and twist the dials on the Affordable Care Act, exposing the executive branch's lack of readiness for such a massive and fundamental change of the way health care is delivered and administered in this country. In an effort to save their misguided health care takeover, the administration has significantly scaled back the original scope of the Affordable Care Act--cutting corners and delaying any piece of the legislation which becomes inconvenient or, perhaps, embarrassing to the President. The President has chosen to delay the employer mandate included in the Affordable Care Act; yet has not given that same reprieve to everyday Americans. Why? Why should that be? Because enforcing the employer mandate was inconvenient. The President announced that he could not implement the CLASS Act portion of the Affordable Care Act. Why? Because it was inconvenient. Now the President simply will not enforce the verification requirements to prevent the fraudulent acceptance of subsidies. Why? Because, again, it is inconvenient. Just 3 months before the exchanges are supposed to go live, on January 1, Health and Human Services decided that on July 5 of this year it would simply accept an applicant's attestation of household income without any certifiable verification. The President's strategy on the health care law is now ``trust; don't verify.'' The Secretary of Health and Human Services has made the opening of the exchanges on October 1 her central priority. However, in facing tight deadlines and daunting workloads, the administration has instead drastically lowered their standards. It's clear from the final rule issued late in the day on July 5, 2013, that the administration will allow any type of flexibility necessary to ensure that their law appears that it is being implemented as planned. Regardless of what you may believe, the administration has been very clear. The rule states explicitly: The exchange may accept the attestation of projected annual household income without further verification for the purposes of the exchange's eligibility determination. The administration is more than comfortable with letting over $1 trillion go out the door without verifying that it's going to the correct individuals. They even state in the final rule: It is an ideal approach to provide flexibility in the case of many verifications. Since it's apparently too much work to verify everyone's income, the administration has determined that it is okay with spending over $1 trillion just based on what individuals think they may make in the next year. Instead of admitting that they won't be ready on time, the administration decided that it will just spend the money anyway. While the constant delaying and changing of the law is worrisome, what should concern all of us the most is what this new change in regulation will do. By eliminating the verification requirement, the only way the government will determine who gets Federal subsidies now is by whoever claims that they, themselves, need the subsidies. Quite frankly, with premiums rising at the rate they are across the country-- and they're set to rise even more for calendar year 2015--it seems like everyone will be telling the Department of Health and Human Services that they need subsidies because, quite frankly, no one will be able to afford the President's health insurance. Maybe then it will be good that no one in the administration is checking to see who might be lying about their household income. While the constant delaying and changing of the law is worrisome, another concern is what this new change in regulation will do. By eliminating the verification requirement, the only way the government will determine who gets Federal subsidies now is by who says they need them. This will open the exchanges to a staggering amount of potential fraud. It's also blatantly political. By doing this, the Obama administration has made it clear they want as many people to sign up for the exchanges as possible no matter their eligibility status. Taxpayers, unfortunately, will be charged with over $1 trillion over the next decade to pay for the exchange subsidies. With over $1 trillion going out the door, shouldn't the American people have the assurance that the government is sending the money to the people who actually need it? All of this is so the President can reap the public relations benefit of talking about the popularity of exchanges, and so he can salvage his failed signature policy initiative. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill. Stand up to this health insurance subsidy fraud. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the illustrious career of Chief Kenneth Brooker of the Flower Mound Police Department as he retires after 40 years of committed service in law enforcement. Over his past 30 years with the Flower Mound Police Department, Chief Brooker has advanced from Patrol Officer to Chief of Police, a leadership position he has held since 1999. During his tenure, as the Town of Flower Mound's population has grown from 4,400 to over 62,000, Chief Brooker has capably overseen the expansion of the police force in accordance with the town's needs. In addition to the growing from 13 employees on staff to its current 86 sworn officers and 82 civilians, the Flower Mound Police Department has achieved accreditation through the Commission on the Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, developed a SWAT team, Citizen's Patrol, Chaplain Corps, School Crossing Guard Program and Junior Police Academy. Under Chief Brooker's direction, the Flower Mound Police Department has been honored nationally for well-designed police vehicles and was recognized as a Webber Seavey Award for Quality in Law Enforcement finalist by the International Association of Chiefs of Police. The Town of Flower Mound has been repeatedly recognized as one of the safest cities in Texas, a phenomenal and challenging feat. Chief Brooker's legacy of honorable service, diligence to duty and inspired leadership will continue to positively influence the Town of Flower Mound and the police department he has supervised over the past 14 years. It is my privilege to commend Flower Mound Police Chief Kenneth Brooker and wish him well in his retirement and to represent the Town of Flower Mound in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the exemplary career of Col. Charles Jackson who recently retired from his position as Assistant Vice President for Facilities at the University of North Texas (UNT) in Denton, Texas. For over a decade, he has competently overseen the rapid growth of new construction and renovation of numerous campus buildings. Prior to his work at UNT, Col. Jackson spent the majority of his career serving his country on active duty with the United States Air Force (USAF). As a registered professional engineer and member of the Association of Physical Plant Administrators, Col. Jackson has distinguished himself as an accomplished military and civilian engineer through his successful direction of numerous projects and developments, domestically and abroad. Col. Jackson received a B.A. in civil engineering from the U.S. Air Force Academy and a M.A. in engineering/facilities from the Air Force Institute of Technology. He served as the commander of the 7th Engineering Squadron at Carswell Air Force Base at Fort Worth, Texas. His civil engineer leadership positions include duty assignments stateside in Colorado, Texas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma and overseas in Japan, Germany and Belgium. Col. Jackson dedicated 30 years of his life as a civil engineer in the Air Force and achieved the rank of Colonel upon his retirement in May 1998. Following his departure from the Air Force, Col. Jackson began employment at UNT as Facilities Maintenance Manager and was selected for his current position in 2005. Since 2000, the UNT campus has rapidly expanded to accommodate the growing number of incoming students. Col. Jackson has overseen the construction of four residence halls, seven major buildings and additional renovation projects. His proudest accomplishments include the Library Mall, the Net Zero Energy Lab, and the recent completion of the SMART project which will have a long-term beneficial impact for the UNT campus. Col. Jackson acted as a vital proponent of this project that will save the University over $3 million in utility and operation costs annually and ensure reliable systems to support UNT into the future. The SMART project recently received a Green Ribbon Award in the infrastructure category from the U.S. Green Building Council North Texas as the best example of the implementation of sustainable infrastructure design, construction or management practices. On a personal level, I am grateful to Col. Jackson for his advice and expertise as a member of my Service Academy Board. As a USAF Academy graduate and higher education representative, Col. Jackson's role was to comprehensively screen and interview high school and college applicants wishing to receive a congressional nomination and to advise me upon the selection of qualified service academy candidates. I join his family, friends and colleagues in congratulating Col. Charles Jackson upon his exemplary service to our community, state and Nation and extend my warmest wishes upon a well-earned retirement. His positive contributions and dedicated efforts will continue to enhance the University of North Texas for years to come, and I am privileged to represent the University of North Texas in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the distinguished career of Maribel P. Chavez. After committing 31 years to public service with the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), Mrs. Chavez retires as Fort Worth District Engineer. During her tenure, Mrs. Chavez has worked collaboratively with local, state, and federal partners to streamline and implement innovative projects in the Fort Worth District. Her oversight of the combined $3 billion DFW Connector and North Tarrant Express projects reflects her ability to manage complex regional highway projects through environmental clearance and construction. Mrs. Chavez was diligent on smaller projects that were no less complex, but every bit as important to Tarrant County communities. Her cooperative effort with the City of Fort Worth to complete the long- awaited widening of East Rosedale, improvements at the Hwy. 287 and Berry St. interchange, and assistance to facilitate completion of Fort Worth's new Veterans Outpatient Clinic on Interstate 20 underscore her commitment and responsiveness. Mrs. Chavez's career was also notable as she was the first female engineer hired by TxDOT and the first female TxDOT District Engineer. Additionally, she has been recognized for her many achievements including Woman of the Year by the Dallas-Fort Worth Chapter of the Women's Transportation Seminar, Preservation Leadership Award by Historic Fort Worth, Inc., and by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram for her guidance on the DFW Connector Project. Her invaluable contribution to my annual Transportation Summits will be sincerely missed. It is my privilege to commend Maribel P. Chavez and wish her well in retirement. Her work will stand as a monument to her dedication for years to come.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the exemplary career of Col. Charles Jackson who recently retired from his position as Assistant Vice President for Facilities at the University of North Texas (UNT) in Denton, Texas. For over a decade, he has competently overseen the rapid growth of new construction and renovation of numerous campus buildings. Prior to his work at UNT, Col. Jackson spent the majority of his career serving his country on active duty with the United States Air Force (USAF). As a registered professional engineer and member of the Association of Physical Plant Administrators, Col. Jackson has distinguished himself as an accomplished military and civilian engineer through his successful direction of numerous projects and developments, domestically and abroad. Col. Jackson received a B.A. in civil engineering from the U.S. Air Force Academy and a M.A. in engineering/facilities from the Air Force Institute of Technology. He served as the commander of the 7th Engineering Squadron at Carswell Air Force Base at Fort Worth, Texas. His civil engineer leadership positions include duty assignments stateside in Colorado, Texas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma and overseas in Japan, Germany and Belgium. Col. Jackson dedicated 30 years of his life as a civil engineer in the Air Force and achieved the rank of Colonel upon his retirement in May 1998. Following his departure from the Air Force, Col. Jackson began employment at UNT as Facilities Maintenance Manager and was selected for his current position in 2005. Since 2000, the UNT campus has rapidly expanded to accommodate the growing number of incoming students. Col. Jackson has overseen the construction of four residence halls, seven major buildings and additional renovation projects. His proudest accomplishments include the Library Mall, the Net Zero Energy Lab, and the recent completion of the SMART project which will have a long-term beneficial impact for the UNT campus. Col. Jackson acted as a vital proponent of this project that will save the University over $3 million in utility and operation costs annually and ensure reliable systems to support UNT into the future. The SMART project recently received a Green Ribbon Award in the infrastructure category from the U.S. Green Building Council North Texas as the best example of the implementation of sustainable infrastructure design, construction or management practices. On a personal level, I am grateful to Col. Jackson for his advice and expertise as a member of my Service Academy Board. As a USAF Academy graduate and higher education representative, Col. Jackson's role was to comprehensively screen and interview high school and college applicants wishing to receive a congressional nomination and to advise me upon the selection of qualified service academy candidates. I join his family, friends and colleagues in congratulating Col. Charles Jackson upon his exemplary service to our community, state and nation and extend my warmest wishes upon a well-earned retirement. His positive contributions and dedicated efforts will continue to enhance The University of North Texas for years to come, and I am privileged to represent the University of North Texas in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, how do Yucca Mountain, Iran Contra, and the Vietnam War relate to the Affordable Care Act? All of those represent legislative limitations of funding to counter decisions made by the executive branch. In each instance, Congress used its authority provided under the Constitution to place limits on Presidential decisions. We need to use those constitutional powers again. The Affordable Care Act is lurching toward an uncertain start and is dramatically different than what was signed into law over 3 years ago. Gone are the CLASS Act and the 1099 business activity reporting requirement. What about the Federal preexisting program? It hasn't accepted a new patient since February of this year. How unfair is it that the large corporations in this country received an 11th-hour Presidential exemption and Members of Congress receive a subsidy? None of this is available to the average American. I look at all of this and I ask: What tools are available to prevent this disaster? And the answer is provided in the historical record when previous Congresses used the one trump card they have available. All that is required is the courage and the clarity of vision to alter history.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the United Way of Denton County and its 62 years of service. The mission of the United Way of Denton County is to improve lives in Denton County by mobilizing community resources to address the critical issues of education, income, and health in people's everyday lives. The organization's hard work has taken on many challenges from the 90,000 individuals that don't know where their next meal will come from to the high rate of high school dropouts to the more than 8,000 children under the age of 5 that live in poverty. United Way has built programs to tackle these problems, and it has made a significant difference in the lives of many people in Denton County. They have mobilized volunteers to mentor children, provided effective training for parents and caregivers, and assisted in supplying critical needs, such as food, clothing, and school supplies. Over the past year, through its Volunteer Income Tax Assistance Program, 612 Federal Tax returns have been prepared, free of charge, for low income Denton County households. Their work returned over $1 million to the community and saved families $137,000 in tax preparation fees. In one day alone, the organization's food bank collected more than 40,000 pounds of food donations. They have also rallied community based and faith based organizations to work together to implement Bank On Denton County, a program to provide cost effective financial services to underserved communities. All totaled, United Way of Denton County volunteers donated more than 19,200 hours this year, valued at more than $425,000 to help more than 55,000 people in Denton County. Additionally, donors gave $2,068,024 to the United Way of Denton County to support its mission this year alone. The United Way of Denton County has an incredible positive effect on the community. It is my pleasure to recognize its 62 years of service to the community, and I am privileged to represent the United Way of Denton County in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on H.R. 2754. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2754) to amend the Hobby Protection Act to make unlawful the provision of assistance or support in violation of that Act, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2754, the Collectible Coin Protection Act, is a simple bill with a simple purpose: to equip honest merchants and collectors as well as the Federal Government with the tools needed to fight a new wave of counterfeit coins and currency. In recent years, the United States Government has taken extraordinary steps to make it difficult to counterfeit U.S. currency. Think how the $20 bill and other denominations have been redesigned over the last decade. As new bills become more difficult to counterfeit, some criminals have turned to counterfeiting rare specimens of older currency, which have none of the security features that we now recognize. Others have invested in counterfeiting rare coins. Some people have gone to great lengths to create realistic fakes--using modern design software and 3-D laser printers to make extremely close replicas, and even purchasing the old equipment used by the mint to strike the original coins. As you might have guessed, most of the counterfeits are coming from China--where else? The criminals have also cleverly taken advantage of the certification system used by collectors to assure authenticity, and they've turned it on its head. Grading services, also called collectibles certification services, evaluate the authenticity and condition of a rare coin and then put it into a special holder called a slab, encapsulating it together with a description of the coin and its condition. The slab is designed to protect the coin, but it also protects the integrity of the grading. If the slab is tampered with, the grading is voided. Some counterfeiters have now realized they can counterfeit the slab and the certificate as well. This has the advantage of making it harder to examine the coin since dealers are reluctant to break open the slab to examine the coin more closely unless they are absolutely certain that it is a fake. H.R. 2754, the Collectible Coin Protection Act, amends the Hobby Protection Act to deal with these new problems. Under existing law, it is unlawful to make in the United States or to import into the United States an imitation coin or other numismatic item unless it is plainly and permanently marked with the word ``copy.'' The Federal Trade Commission has the authority to enforce the Act, and there is also a provision allowing private individuals to enjoin violations or to recover damages for violations that affect them. H.R. 2754 extends the current law in three ways. It makes it unlawful to sell, as well as manufacture or import, the counterfeit coin that is not marked with the word ``copy.'' Second, the bill makes it unlawful to provide substantial support or assistance to a manufacturer, importer or seller if the person providing assistance knows or should have known that the manufacturer, importer or seller is engaged in any act or practice that violates the Hobby Protection Act. Third, the bill provides additional remedies for violations that involve unauthorized use of registered trademarks belonging to a grading service. The additional remedies are the same that are usually provided for under the Trademark Act. Mr. Speaker, this bill has no cost to the taxpayer. It should deter some of the counterfeiting practices that are now rampant in the marketplace and provide additional tools to deal with unrepentant dealers who go ahead with their schemes to defraud consumers. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, many of us were surprised on July 2 when the administration unilaterally suspended the employer mandate in the Affordable Care Act. Since there were going to be no reporting requirements under the employer mandate, how were people going to be judged as eligible for benefits under the Affordable Care Act? Well, we would simply take their word for it. ``Self-attestation'' became the watchword and buzzword in the administration. Last Thursday, again, people were surprised that the Department of Health and Human Services' Inspector General's Office is going to lose 20 percent of its staff between now and 2015. Well, wait a minute. We are going to a system of self-reporting, self-attestation, but we are cutting the staff of the office who is going to see that the funds are properly spent. Oh, by the way, all the while, we are going to be increasing the funding for the so-called navigators, people who are going to sign people up for the Affordable Care Act under their own self-attestation. It seems like we are going in the wrong direction here. We do need to keep an eye on these funds. They could go out the door inappropriately. We owe it to the taxpayer to be more vigilant.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2094) to amend the Public Health Service Act to increase the preference given, in awarding certain asthma-related grants, to certain States (those allowing trained school personnel to administer epinephrine and meeting other related requirements).

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

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support and urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 2094, the School Access to Emergency Epinephrine Act. Mr. Speaker, according to the CDC, one out of every 13 children has a food allergy and that rate is rising. Some of these children can experience a severe allergic reaction known as anaphylaxis that can be deadly unless a medication called ``epinephrine'' is promptly administered. Studies also show that 16 percent to 18 percent of children with food allergies have had allergic reactions while in school. If those reactions are severe, school personnel should be ready to effectively manage students with known allergies and to be prepared for emergencies. In 2004, Congress passed legislation to encourage States to allow children with known food allergies to bring their medication to school; however, there are many children who do not know that they have a serious food allergy, and they continue to be at risk. Currently, less than half of the States have legislation concerning the stocking of epinephrine in schools. Even in these States with legislation, there is a broad range of different provisions about who can administer the epinephrine. Keeping a stock of nonstudent-specific epinephrine in schools is a lifesaving measure and should be implemented nationwide. H.R. 2094, the School Access to Emergency Epinephrine Act, is an important step to protect children who do not know that they are at risk for anaphylaxis. The bill would amend the Public Health Service Act to allow a preference in awarding asthma grants to States that prevent school personnel to administer epinephrine to a student in an emergency. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. Phil Roe.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, as a physician, a parent and grandparent, I share the same fears that we have heard discussed this evening. I am worried that schools may not be prepared to act quickly in an emergency. I am pleased to support this legislation. I urge everyone on the floor to vote in favor of H.R. 2094. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, we all know, in order for this economy to flourish, energy has to be available and energy has to be affordable. Unfortunately, the situation we've seen in recent years is anything but that. The Department of Energy was created back in the 1970s in response to the Arab oil embargo. The Department of Energy was created to deal with the situation of scarcity. Unfortunately, the Department of Energy has not evolved since that time. And where do we find ourselves today? We find ourselves right on the threshold, right on the horizon of America being an energy exporter, again, for the first time in a couple of decades. That's a huge change. Has the Department of Energy changed and kept pace with the reality that is going on in development of energy in State lands, private lands, and, yes, some Federal lands? Have they kept pace with the development within the industry? I submit they have not. I submit that they have been an impediment. Yes, I'd be happy to work on improving where the Department of Energy could be, in fact, a facilitator rather than an obstruction for developing energy for our economy. Because we know without available and affordable energy, the promise that the economy can create the number of jobs that it needs to create--not just to replace those jobs that have been lost, but all of those people who are getting to the age where they expect a job to be there for them--and without that energy production, it's not going happen. Now, I do want to talk about the other bill that's before us today, Dr. Cassidy's bill, H.R. 1582. Let's think about this for a minute. The Congress works its will on a bill. It becomes law. That law then goes to the regulatory agency. They work their will on the bill. And we all know the story. A thousand-page bill here on the floor of the House can generate 10,000 pages of regulation in the Federal Register. I don't know about you, Mr. Speaker, but it's hard to discipline myself to wake up every morning and read what was written in the Federal Register the day before. The American people who are out there creating and producing certainly don't have time to do that. But when these rules are then visited upon the people, what happens then? Well, they just simply have to accept the effect of those rules. Congress did that a couple of years ago. They are not playing in that arena any longer. Here's what Dr. Cassidy says. He says that before promulgating a final rule that would impose an aggregate cost of $1 billion on the American people, the Administrator of the EPA has to consult with the Secretary of Energy. This seems like a logical and straightforward maneuver. In fact, we will talk about the REINS Act in the weeks to come. And they have to come back to Congress and get us to either say ``yes'' or ``no'' on that regulation that is going to have such a profound effect on the American people. Mr. Speaker, I've been in business before. I've made investments before. I know very well if someone comes to investors with a cash call and says you're going to have to pony up a lot more money here, the very least that the investor expects at that point is a pro forma, a profit and loss sheet, or some reasonable expectation that there can be a return on investment. You say, Wait a minute, nobody's coming to the American people with a cash call. Well, it's called April 15. And it is a cash call. And we owe them that scrutiny. The Congress owes them that scrutiny; the Department of Energy owes them that scrutiny. I would assert we owe them an up-or-down vote on those regulations that are going to have such a profound effect on the economy. Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of two critical bills ensuring that the American people are not further penalized by out-of-control policies coming out of the Environmental Protection Agency. Consumers need relief, it is clear. For that reason, I urge an ``aye'' vote on the previous question, an ``aye'' vote on the rule, and an ``aye'' vote on the two underlying bills. The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows: An amendment to H. Res. 315 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida At the end of the resolution, add the following new sections: Sec. 3. 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. 2070) to protect consumers from price-gouging of gasoline and other fuels, 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 and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 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. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 2070.