Michael Burgess

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, this is a continuation of the previous amendment. I was advised by the Parliamentarian it had to be split into two parts. So not to belabor the issue because of the lateness of the hour, the first amendment that was just voted on will remove the funding. This removes the language from the bill, the words ``provided that the Secretary of Energy may make available from funds provided under this heading in this act not more than $48 million for the purposes of carrying out domestic and uranium enrichment research development and demonstration activities.'' It is apparently necessary to remove that language as a separate amendment. It could not be included in a single amendment. So this is a continuation of the discussion that we just had. Recognizing the lateness of the hour, I will yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, at a time when the Federal Government is having to make tough, painful choices on how to prioritize taxpayer dollars, this Congress has yet to learn the lessons of the past as to where we waste the most money. In fact yet again this year, as in so many years past, the bill before us insists on throwing good money after bad. It's time to put an end to that wasteful habit. This amendment would strike $48 million from the Nuclear Nonproliferation account, which is an earmark for a bailout to a failing uranium enrichment company, the United States Enrichment Corporation, known as USEC. This $48 million would be put towards deficit reduction. Look, opponents of the amendment are going to claim that this money is necessary, vitally necessary, for national security when, in fact, that could not be further from the truth. In fact, the question of whether the United States Enrichment Corporation is truly necessary for our national security needs is actually being reviewed right now by the Government Accountability Office, which is expected to release a report on both the national security question as well as the economics of sending further taxpayer dollars to the United States Enrichment Corporation. Because the report is pending, it is in the best interests of hard- earned taxpayer dollars that we suspend any further aid to USEC until we have more information as to what the company is doing with the money that it is receiving. Indeed, the United States Enrichment Corporation is so poorly run that, last May, the New York Stock Exchange threatened to delist USEC due to its desperate financial health. Articles over the years have documented USEC's financial woes, including the near-monthly collapse of its stock prices. During the June shareholders meeting just a few weeks ago, 80 percent of USEC's shareholders voted to approve a reverse stock split due to its rock-bottom share prices. It's shocking to most observers that the company has avoided bankruptcy thus far, and it's only done so because of the continued bailout by Congress year after year in the Energy and Water appropriations bill. As if USEC's financial troubles were not enough, just last month the company filed a Federal lawsuit against the United States for more than $38 million. This House is contemplating giving $48 million to USEC; they've got a lawsuit for $38 million. Two decades ago, Congress created, by charter, the United States Enrichment Corporation, believing that USEC could better run the uranium enrichment facilities than the government itself. But by now, it should be intuitively obvious to the casual observer that Congress was wrong. Since its inception, USEC has squandered billions of dollars in Federal bailouts, running its operations to near insolvency because of poor decisions. Yearly, they come to the Congress and the executive branch, hat in hand, begging for millions of dollars in bailouts to continue operation sites that are technologically out of date. It is time that the Federal Government stop the endless bailouts to a failing enterprise. Moreover, USEC has been a bad-faith actor in its negotiations with the uranium mining industry, which provides the needed raw materials to be enriched at these facilities. And what motivation does USEC have to negotiate in good faith with the miners when it knows that if it doesn't get everything it wants from the miners it can simply go to the Department of Energy and receive a handout, time and again, either in the form of a direct cash payment or in the form of spent uranium tails? The Department of Energy has had a longstanding agreement with the uranium mining industry not to dump more than 10 percent of the market's worth of uranium in handouts to USEC at any given time. Yet it has become increasingly clear that the Department of Energy is willing to ignore that agreement and provide any bailout that USEC requests or desires. This betrayal of the mining industry threatens thousands of jobs across the western United States--States like Texas, Nevada, New Mexico, Illinois, and Wyoming, to name a few. Arguments that USEC is the only facility that can supply tritium to the Department of Defense ignores the plain language of the Washington Treaty and the U.S.-India Nuclear Agreement, known as the 123 Agreement. The Department of Energy has in its possession enough highly enriched uranium and tritium to last for 15 years, costing hundreds of millions of dollars less than the continued bailouts that USEC is currently receiving from the country. It is time that Congress stood up against the continual bailouts of a failed business model. Propping up one failed company at the expense of an entire industry is not how we should operate in Congress. Let's end the bailout, let's return the money to the Treasury, let's give the hardworking taxpayer a break. It is time we did the right thing. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I cannot recall a place in the Constitution where it says the House passes a bill, the Senate can't pass it, so the House comes back and tries to find a better bill that maybe the Senate will now take up. Boy, I wish that had happened on that health care stuff back in 2009 and 2010. We would have a lot better world today. But the fact of the matter is, the House has passed the student loan bill and the Senate has the obligation to act. The deadline of July 1 was, in fact, provided to us by a funding cliff that the Democrats enacted back in 2007 when they started this process. The deadline was self-imposed by a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives and a Democratic majority in the Senate. Democrats in the other body are fully aware of that deadline, we are fully aware of that deadline, and they were the ones that let it lapse. The House had done its work. They were fully capable of passing something and sending it back to us so that it could either be passed or adjusted prior to the July 4 recess. In regards to the legislation we are currently considering, we do continue the Republican commitment to maintaining an open and transparent nature to the appropriations process. This rule balances our commitment to energy independence and national security with good stewardship of taxpayer money. I want to, again, commend Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Lowey, Chairman Frelinghuysen, and Ranking Member Kaptur for working together to craft a bill that balances our spending priorities with our concerns over the deficit and our climbing national debt. At this point, I ask for an ``aye'' on the previous question and an ``aye'' on the underlying resolution.

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

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire from the other side as to whether or not they have additional speakers?

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, again, just a bit of a history lesson. In 2007, Democratically-controlled House, Democratically-controlled Senate passed the student loan rates. They built into the law an expiration date of last July. Last July, a 1-year extension was passed. This year, the Republican House passed a responsible extension. The Senate, the other body, needs to do its work. When they do, we're here to talk. I now wish to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton). (Mr. BARTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond. Again, if I recall correctly, the bill that the gentleman from Texas just referenced has only Democratic sponsors. It is not a bipartisan bill. The other body, completely controlled by Democrats in the majority, has within its power to pass a bill, conference with the Republican- passed bill here in the House, and work out the problem. They have failed to do so. The House has done its work. The House-passed bill was received in the Senate on the 3rd of June. It has been there for over a month. The other body certainly has within its power to act. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I want to respond to something that was said in the initial opening by the minority. The student loan bill passed this House over a month ago. It has been sitting in the Senate for the entire month of June. The problem with student loans could have been addressed by the other body. It could have been addressed prior to the July 1 deadline, which was a deadline, after all, that the Democrats had set when they were in the majority. So to say that the House has not done its work is in fact not correct. The House has done its work. We await the other body to act. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. I do feel obligated to point out that the object under discussion currently is the rule that will allow us to debate the energy and water appropriations bill. The rule is an open rule. If the gentleman has disagreements with the language in the underlying bill, it's an open rule. He's free to bring those amendments to the floor, have a full and fair debate, both sides, one opposed, one in support; and the will of the House will prevail. That is the way it should be under an open rule. Let me just state that I have, for the record, amendments that I will be placing before the House. I hope they're accepted, but I will accept the underlying bill even in the absence of those amendments. And I hope the gentleman from Colorado will approach it in a similar spirit. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. House Resolution 288 provides for an open rule for consideration of H.R. 2609, making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for fiscal year 2014. This rule contains the tradition reinstated by the Republican majority in the last Congress that appropriations bills should come to the floor in a manner that allows every Member of the House, both Republican and Democrat, to amend those bills and to have their voices heard. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill, making appropriations for the Department of Energy and the United States Corps of Engineers. The bill provides for $30.4 billion for these agencies, which is $2.9 billion below fiscal year '13 enacted and $4.1 billion below the President's request, at a time of fiscal constraint, when government, like our constituents, must make tough choices on where to smartly spend the money the American taxpayers have trusted it to oversee. The bill provides critical funding for our energy needs, making $450 million available for advanced coal, natural gas, oil and fossil fuel technologies. Moreover, the bill provides $5.5 billion for environmental cleanup activities, funds to safely clean sites contaminated by nuclear weapons production. The underlying bill before us has been carefully crafted by the Appropriations Committee under the leadership of Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Lowey, Subcommittee Chairman Frelinghuysen, and Subcommittee Ranking Member Kaptur. Funding for energy programs is cut by $1.4 billion, while simultaneously prioritizing funds to advance our goal of an all-of-the- above solution to energy independence. Further, the House continues its commitment to achieve a long-term storage facility for nuclear waste, providing support activities in support of the opening of Yucca Mountain, a solution long overdue. The House energy and water bill furthers this majority's commitment to spending taxpayer money wisely, cutting waste and inefficiencies wherever they may be. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the underlying legislation. I encourage 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 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 288 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, last week, the administration once again adjusted the Affordable Care Act in an effort to try to save this takeover of the Nation's health care. On Friday, the latest change was announced: The new health care exchanges will not verify an individual's income for the year as was originally planned. By eliminating the verification requirement, how will the government determine who gets health care subsidies? They're going to use the honor system--because no one would lie about something like that. This will open the exchanges to a staggering amount of potential fraud. It is also clearly a political move. The administration has made it clear that they want as many people as possible to sign up for the exchanges so they can reap the public relations benefits of talking about the popularity of said exchanges. All of this comes at a time when the Federal health programs are already stricken with fraud, and now the administration wants to introduce a new program. This new program is based on self-attestation. Whatever happened to ``trust, but verify''?

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. We are 6 months and 6 days away from the full weight of the President's takeover of American health care. It's like a train that's careening down the tracks on a collision course with the American economy. Last week, Gallup released a survey of small business owners, and it's even worse than it looks: Almost half of small business owners reported that they have frozen hiring because of the Affordable Care Act. Another 20 percent said that they have already had to lay off workers because of this law. So that's one out of every five small businesses laying off people because of legislation the administration has forced on hardworking Americans. That's a staggering number of people who are going to have to suffer because of the administration's shortsighted policy. The President and his allies are under the faulty impression that educating people about the Affordable Care Act will suddenly make it popular and make it work. The truth is that people are already finding out far too much about this law as it costs them and their family members jobs. We have to continue highlighting the destructive parts of this law before it destroys an already weak economy.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. It is a pleasure to join my friends from Texas on the floor today to honor Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and the work that she did with creating the Spousal IRA. Look, back in the 1990s, I was just a regular guy practicing medicine back home in Texas. What did I know about this stuff? Well, not much. But what I did know was that for the 15 years that I had been in private practice, my wife and I had shared our contribution to our IRAs every year. That meant each of us was able to deposit $1,100 every year into the IRA account. Well, I've got to tell you, it's pretty frustrating to try to save for retirement when every year your contribution is limited to that rather austere amount. So it was a very big day, and I remember that day when we actually both were able to make the full contribution to our IRA accounts, and it was because of the hard work done by Senator Hutchison. She never forgot her constituents back in Texas. She never forgot women--yes, women in the workforce, but also those women who were exercising their option to spend all of their energies raising their children and raising their families. It was a great day for Texas, for Texas constituents when that tax bill was passed, and we are very grateful to Senator Hutchison for her leadership. It is appropriate that we honor her tonight with the naming of the Spousal IRA in her honor.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. I thank you for yielding. I really thank you for bringing this important topic to the floor tonight. Look, we are 6 months and 6 days away from the full-on implementation of the Affordable Care Act. We are 3 months and 6 days away from the open enrollment period of October 1. I just can't help but feel it's like a fast-moving train that's charging down the tracks, moving toward a head-on collision with the American economy, and it's going to be the small business that suffers the devastating effects of that head-on collision. We've had opportunities to talk to the people from the agencies to the extent that they will. I'm worried. I don't see how they can have that Federal hub up and running by October 1 and have it work the way it's intended the very first time, especially if they don't have time to test it before they turn it loose on the American people. I am very worried about what the world is going to look like after January 1. I've got to tell you, from the standpoint of a practicing physician of a small practice--we had five doctors in my practice--well, look. Remember when part D came? Maybe you don't. I was here on January 1 of 2006. It was rough for the first several weeks, but there we were talking about the prescription drug benefit for seniors on Medicare, for maybe 42 million, 45 million people out of 310 million people. We were just talking about the prescription drug benefit, and that was difficult to implement. There were pharmacists all over the country who basically did not get paid for the prescriptions that they filled for 1 month to 6 weeks, but they were able to keep going because they had other prescriptions, they had other business going on in their pharmacies. But this is going to be everything from tonsillectomies, to childhood vaccinations, to ER visits. If the cash flow is disrupted for even just a few weeks, the small businesses, which are medical practices in this country, will have a very difficult time enduring. More importantly--and you all have correctly addressed it--is the 29ers and 49ers in this country, the people who are scared to add one more than 49 people to their employment rolls or the people who've had their hours now cut to 29 hours a week so that they will not require a health care benefit. That wasn't the way it was supposed to work. The gentleman from Kentucky nailed it right off. The people of America in 2009 were saying to us, Whatever you do, don't mess up the system that's working for 65 percent or 70 percent of us. The other thing they said was, If you're going to do anything at all, please help us with costs. And what have we done? Exactly the opposite. We've messed up the entire system, and it's becoming more and more apparent every day. If you don't believe me, wait until a year from now or 16 months from now, and just see how bad it is. The other thing is we didn't do anything to help with cost. If anything, we've made it worse. By ratcheting up the demand side, not increasing the number of providers, we've guaranteed that prices are going to go up not just next year and not just the year after that, but for every foreseeable year in the future. And I know that's hard for people to estimate. I know the Congressional Budget Office can't give us a figure on that. Just do the arithmetic yourself in your head, on the back of an envelope and you'll be able to see that we are headed for a significant disaster. It's all well and good for me to criticize the administration and the way they've implemented this, but I've got to ask: Where are our Democratic colleagues? Where are the solutions that they're offering? Clearly we should do something to help the small business owner who is having to restrict employment hours to 29 hours a week. Surely we should do something to help that. Where are the solutions from the other side? They're nonexistent. We should do something to help that small employer who wants to grow beyond 49 employees, but is now frightened to do so. Where are our Democratic counterparts? Where are the people from the agencies coming to our committee and talking to us about how this might be managed or maintained? Why aren't they talking to us about their contingency plans? You know they've got them. You know they're over there at the Department of Health and Human Services right now talking about what if the Federal hub doesn't work, what if it doesn't work the way it was intended. We'll have to have a way of narrowing the scope, of confining the number of people we bring into this new ObamaCare environment. But they won't talk to us about that. The Democrats won't come forward with a solution. We're doing what we can to bring people's attention to this very important topic. To some it may be complaining; but if you don't think about it, you can't prepare. And If you're not prepared, it is the unprepared person who is really going to suffer in this new environment that, again, is created in 6 months and 6 days. I do thank the gentlelady for bringing this topic to the floor tonight. I think it is important that we continue to talk about it and we continue to talk about our ideas and our solutions. There are many out there. And people need to assess for themselves how they will be best served in this new environment that's brought by the administration, or perhaps it's not too late or perhaps there are some things we can do to alter that course, to move it off that center of destruction where it's aimed right now. I thank the gentlelady for having this tonight.

Mr. BURGESS. You know, you're in a medical family. I know because I hear it everywhere I go. Physicians all across the country are concerned. They don't know what they're getting into, and they don't know what the world will look like. As a consequence, like anyone else, they are reluctant to make those big decisions, they're reluctant to hire a partner, buy a new piece of equipment, open a branch office. They are like everyone else: they are in that hunker-down mode where so many small businesses have been for the last 4\1/2\ years. But without expanding the provider core, without expanding the health care manpower, you can pretty much predict that there is going to be a price spike because you know you're ratcheting up demand by increasing coverage, and at the same time you're not providing for areas where those people can be seen. What's really unfortunate, by some of the means with which coverage has been expanded, we already know that there are places in this country where it is hard to get a new patient appointment if you're a Medicaid patient. The reimbursement rate is so abysmally low that a provider can't possibly keep their doors open if they accept those levels of payment. As a consequence, they don't. What are those patients going to do? They do what they've always done and go to the emergency room, which is the highest cost point of contact care that you can have. So instead of solving a problem that every Democrat here talked about 4\1/2\ years ago, we've doubled down and made it worse. Again, as a consequence, the cost of care is going to go up and providers are going to drop out just because the frustration is going to get so high that it will simply not be worthwhile to continue in practice, or you'll go work in a practice environment where you simply don't have to put in the number of hours that you would in a solo or small-group practice. But we've really selected against those practitioners, those men and women who go to work every day early before the sun comes up and they work until after the sun goes down taking care of their patients. We're actually self-selecting against that very type of individual that we all knew, we all grew up with, we all look to as our leaders in the medical profession. It will be very difficult for those people to endure. We'll look to academic medical centers, perhaps to hospitals, perhaps to the government itself for that leadership, but it's not going to be the same thing.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I would just say, Members, you know your districts. Some of you do have food deserts, whether you be in rural or urban areas. This is important. We want people to spend those food stamp dollars wisely. This gives them an opportunity to do so. This is not a Democrat or Republican issue. This is a commonsense, good health issue. We should defeat the Schweikert amendment.