Michael Burgess

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Paul Broun.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa, Steve King.

Mr. BURGESS. House Resolution 215 provides for a rule to consider the full repeal of the flawed, ill-conceived and inappropriately named Affordable Care Act, a bill whose final language was written by staff on the Senate Finance Committee and the actual legislative text of which received not a single committee hearing or markup in this body. While many hearings and markups were held on other iterations of other health care bills, the legislation that was signed by the President received not a single moment of scrutiny in this House and contained none of the bipartisan amendments that were accepted during the markups of other health care bills, including H.R. 3200, which passed the House but was never considered by the Senate. As such, only a full repeal is acceptable, and that is what this rule provides for. The rule provides for 2 hours of debate, controlled by the Committees on Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Education and the Workforce. Further, the rule self-executes the Bachmann amendment, which provides for a clean repeal of the entire ACA, consistent with the provisions of the opening day rules package of this Congress. The rule further provides the minority one motion to recommit with or without instructions. This approach, a full repeal, will give the House, particularly Members who were not here in the past two Congresses, an opportunity to have an up-or-down vote, an affirmation or a denial, of the Affordable Care Act. Americans should have the freedom to make their own health care decisions. In March of 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was signed into law. It was drafted quickly and behind closed doors at the end of 2009--behind closed doors in the other body, in fact. It included secret deals, loopholes, drafting errors, and allowed entirely new Federal agencies to be created without congressional knowledge or oversight. The bottom line: it was not the way to achieve meaningful reform. In addition, the Supreme Court ruled last June that the law is, in fact, a tax. This is after President Obama continually told the American people that it was not a tax. The health care system in America needs reform, and it needs improvement; but the law that was passed will cost American taxpayers and patients millions of dollars. It will not improve care, and it will not make care more affordable. We need to start fresh and address the issues with commonsense improvements that will focus on the real issues at hand--creating a health care system that is focused on patients instead of payment, quality instead of quantity, affordability instead of cheapness, and innovation instead of stagnation. The first step is eliminating bad legislation that simply does not work and that today stands in the way of any real improvement. That is why, today, I strongly support the repeal of the President's health care law. The President did repeatedly tell us that the penalty associated with the individual mandate was not a tax. It was repeated several times in the run-up to this bill's being signed. In June, the Supreme Court affirmed that the only way that this bill could remain law was that it was, indeed, a tax, and Congress has the infinite power to tax. In fact, Congress can tax morning, noon, and night. It can tax the American people back to the stone age if that's what it wishes, and that's what the Affordable Care Act does. When millions are unemployed, this is, indeed, the last thing we need. It's not just the tax. It's the effect on premiums. Up on the Energy and Commerce Web site this week is a study showing how the Affordable Care Act is going to affect premiums in the individual market, in the small-group market, and in the large-group market; and almost uniformly those premiums are going up, and in some cases they are going up a staggering amount. Last summer, the Supreme Court's decision leaves in place a costly and unworkable health care scheme that is hurting America's families, that is hurting America's workers, that is hurting America's job creators, and that is damaging America's patients. We will all have to live with that ruling. If we do not repeal, then we will have to live with the law as written. The time has come to step up and do the right thing. I urge support of the rule. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. It was, indeed, a very dark day 3 years ago in March when this bill was brought to the House floor, 11 o'clock at night, 11:30 at night, and passed this House of Representatives after members of the Democratic conference, the majority Democratic conference, were lied to by the administration about an executive order to prevent the funding for abortion. That is what tipped the balance. That is what brought those last few wavering votes. How did we get to that point? Well, throughout 2009, throughout the year, the House had, indeed, considered the health care question. My Committee on Energy and Commerce did have a markup on H.R. 3200. They took a lot of amendments. Some amendments I offered; some amendments were bipartisan. All of those amendments that were accepted by the committee at some point evaporated at the opening of day, whatever happened over in the Speaker's Office, and they were gone. The health care bill which the Energy and Commerce Committee passed out at 1,000 pages grew to 2,000 pages in the Speaker's Office, and all the Republican amendments were stripped out. And then what happened? Well, H.R. 3200 died. It is gone. Nobody has ever seen or heard of it since. That was the House health care product. What, in fact, happened was, down at the White House in July of 2009, there were secret meetings that took place. There were six special interest groups that met with the President's folks down at the White House--Nancy-Ann DeParle, Rahm Emanuel's brother. These are the folks that constructed the basis of what has now become known as ObamaCare. The insurance companies don't hate this law. They like this law. Look what has happened to their insurance stock since the law has passed. They have doubled or tripled in value. That is because they had a seat at the table when this thing was crafted, and it was crafted according to their liking. But who really wrote the nuts and bolts of the bill was the staff on the Senate Finance Committee between Thanksgiving and Christmas. H.R. 3590, which passed the floor of this House 3 years ago, was a bill that had never had a single hearing in the House of Representatives. It had never had a markup in a single House committee. H.R. 3590 had passed under suspension in the House of Representatives in July of 2009 as a housing bill. It went over to the Senate to await further action. The further action was an amendment offered by Harry Reid to ``strike all after the enacting clause and insert,'' and the health care language was inserted. It came back over here and languished for 3 months. Nobody read it. Then the Speaker forced it through the House of Representatives a few minutes before midnight on March 18 of 2010. That's why we're having this debate today. Sure, there have been other efforts to repeal this. There was a full repeal in January of 2011, remember? Republicans won 84 House seats, so it was natural to have a repeal vote. After the Supreme Court had their ruling, it was important to reiterate that position. Now we're doing it again. The other repeal votes that have happened, many of them have been bipartisan. The 1099--you guys liked that? Do you want that paperwork requirement to come back? The President signed the 1099 repeal. What about the CLASS Act? You all voted for that. I didn't. The CLASS Act was repealed on the fiscal cliff vote. The President signed it. The repeal votes that have happened in between have been relatively minor in scope, perfecting amendments, if you will. The fact of the matter is you can't perfect this thing. It was a dog at the beginning, and it's a dog at the end. We ought to do the right thing. Let's bring up the bill. Let's pass it. Let's send it over to the Senate.

Mr. BURGESS. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. That's my understanding.

Mr. BURGESS. Well, let me assure the gentleman from Virginia, I can promise you with absolute certainty that there was no favoritism on the part of the Obama administration toward the great State of Texas. If anything, Texas seems to be singled out for special consideration on some other areas. But perhaps it actually relates to the differences in the insurance market and the type of coverage that's sought. I really can't explain that 5 or 6 percent discrepancy. What I can tell you--and, again, this is with dead certainty--that the Obama administration did not--did not--show favoritism to the State of Texas or its Governor Perry.

Mr. BURGESS. Yes, I'll be happy to yield for a question.

Mr. BURGESS. There are going to be double-digit increases. And, of course, as the gentleman is well aware, there are different State mandates that have governed the State-regulated insurance market over time, and that may result in some of the discrepancy that you're seeing.

Mr. BURGESS. If the gentleman will yield?

Mr. BURGESS. It should concern and make nervous every man, woman, and child in this country that the Internal Revenue Service is going to be administering their health care in the future. I think that's an important point that the gentleman has brought up. One other difference, if I may add, between the cost in Texas and the cost in Virginia. Do bear in mind that Texas enacted significant medical liability reform 10 years ago, and we have seen the benefits of that. If there's one thing that was the missing link in the Affordable Care Act, it was where was their commitment to reforming the medical justice system in this country, which we all know tends to drive costs up, and the creation of defensive medicine, which in turn drives costs up. Texas has a 10-year history now of caps on noneconomic damages in medical liability suits. I don't know for certain if that has played a role in the lower premium increase in Texas; but if it has, I'm sure they'll be happy to take credit for it.

Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for yielding and I thank him for holding this hour tonight. It is important that we have this discussion. We're barely 3 weeks from the third anniversary of that late-night congressional session where the Affordable Care Act was passed into law. Those of us who were here at the time will remember that this bill that became law that was voted on late that night never went through our committee. We had a bill that went through our committee, but it never saw the light of day. This was a Senate bill that was bounced back over to the House, and we were forced to pass it without a single hearing, without a markup. It basically just came to us and the majority at the time, the Democratic majority, pushed it through. When you stop and look at what were the American people telling us through the summer of 2009, when we all had those very tense town halls in our district, what were people saying to us? Number one, do not mess up the system that is working well for 65 or 70 percent of us. Number two was, if you're going to do anything at all, can you help us with costs? Well, I think we have the answer to those two questions. Number one, we have messed the system up for the people who were depending upon it, and, the costs are going through the roof. But when you analyze what this new data means, the real thrust of the cost increases are focused on people who buy in the individual market and people who buy in the small group market. All of the rhetoric from the summer of 2009, through the fall of 2009, to the spring of 2010 was we have to make these changes in our insurance policy. Why? Because we have to help these people in the small group market and the individual market. This is where the problems occurred; but, in fact, we have made those problems worse, and they continue to grow in severity day by day. Mr. Chairman, I would also point out, the committee staff on the Energy and Commerce Committee on our Subcommittee on Oversight, has really done an excellent job in compiling this data. We don't get much help from the Department of Health and Human Services. When we say we need information from you about what the cost structure is going to be of this new health care plan, we don't get a lot of help from them. So the committee staff goes out, actually writes to people who will be in charge of administering the plans for people in the small group and the individual market, and then they compile the data. And the data that they compiled is all up on the Energy and Commerce Web site, and it's startling. These are the individuals: the small-group market and the individual market. To be sure, the large-group market will be affected, but not nearly as much as those people in the small-group and individual market. It was those people who ObamaCare was supposed to help in the first place, and we've done them the maximum harm. So a tip of the hat to the Energy and Commerce staff, particularly the staff on the Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee. I think they've done an excellent job in bringing this information to the Congress in a very usable form. Again, I encourage people to look on the Energy and Commerce Web site because this is information that can directly affect you, your family, your business, your children, and literally your health care for the next three decades. I wish this thing had never happened. We are going to have a repeal vote later this week, and I welcome the chance to do that. This is the unfinished business of this Congress, to undo this dreadful law that has been visited upon the land. But in the meantime, we also need to make people aware of how this law is going to affect their lives. It's going to be in a big way: if you like what you have, you can keep it--not so much. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor--not so much. ObamaCare, you're going to pay a lot more to get a lot less.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, the Constitution allows the Congress, specifically the House of Representatives, to hold the purse strings of the Federal Government--not the executive branch, not the Federal agencies. This week, we've heard reports that the Secretary of Health and Human Services has been calling executives from the industries that she regulates asking them to donate money to a group called ``Enroll America,'' a private organization that makes the President's health care law a success by signing individuals up for coverage through exchanges. The Antideficiency Act prohibits the Federal Government departments from making greater expenditures in a fiscal year than those provided by the Congress. So it begs the question: What is the Secretary promising to corporate executives in exchange for their funding of this ACA implementation? This continues the line of questionably ethical conduct by the Secretary all to further the administration's controversial agenda. Let's review: in 2012, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel concluded that Secretary Sebelius violated the Hatch Act by campaigning for President Obama while traveling on official business; then they raided the ACA's Prevention and Public Health Fund; and now she is seeking money from businesses that she regulates to prop up the President's takeover of American health care.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, this past Friday, I visited the town of West, Texas, to see for myself how the investigation of the fertilizer plant explosion is proceeding. The town has suffered incredible losses, but I was impressed by the resilience of the people in West, and it is remarkable how the community has come together after that tragedy. It is at the very beginning stages of collecting the facts and findings into how these events transpired. I have been working closely with the staff on the Energy and Commerce Committee who are looking into the voluminous material on the matter and will continue to oversee the Federal Government's response to this tragedy as the investigation unfolds. I wanted to personally thank Assistant State Fire Marshal Kelly Kistner; the ATF agents who handled the Federal investigation; the FEMA coordinating officer, Kevin Hannes; and the district director for Congressman Bill Flores, Timothy Head. I want to thank each of them for their service to our country and to the community of West. God bless our State.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today regarding my recent absence from the House on Thursday, April 25th and Friday, April 26th. During this time, I attended the opening of the George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas. Because of this absence, I missed several important votes on the House floor, and would like to submit how I would have voted had I been in attendance. The votes were: Rollcall 124, on Agreeing to H. Res. 178, Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 527) to amend the Helium Act to complete the privatization of the Federal helium reserve in a competitive market fashion that ensures stability in the helium markets while protecting the interests of American taxpayers, and for other purposes. I would have voted ``yea''. Rollcall 125, on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 1765, The Reducing Flight Delays Act. I would have voted ``yea''. Rollcall 126, on Agreeing to the Amendment to H.R. 527, the Dent of Pennsylvania Amendment No. 2. I would have voted ``no''. Rollcall 127, on the Motion to Recommit with Instructions to H.R. 527. I would have voted ``no''. Rollcall 128, on Passage of H.R. 527, to Amend the Helium Act. I would have voted ``yea''.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Denton Guyer High School girls soccer team for winning their first Texas 4A State Championship. Winning the state title is an achievement that requires great determination, discipline and teamwork. This team overcame a classification change and a difficult season last year. They set a goal and a mantra that rang true by the end of the season, ``Win State.'' With the hard work of the team and the leadership of Coach Kenny Blevins, they fostered a winning combination that launched them to a state title. I am impressed with this team and these girls. Guyer has begun a soccer tradition of state titles, and I am confident that it will not end with this years' team. This Denton Guyer team is full of talented players and they beat many talented teams in their 28-1-0 season; none more talented than the team they beat in the state final. Highland Park had not lost in 49 games until they faced the Lady Wildcats of Denton Guyer. Scoring in the 14th and 35th minutes of action, Brittany Crabtree and Hannah Alspach led Denton Guyer to a fast start and a lead they would never relinquish, finishing the game with 2-1 victory. I am pleased to join their classmates, teachers, friends and family along with the entire Denton Community in honoring the athletic achievement of the Guyer Lady Wildcats soccer team for winning their first state title. They should also be commended for bringing home the first women's team title in Guyer History. It has been and continues to be my privilege to serve you all in the U.S. House of Representatives. Head Coach: Kenny Blevins; Roster: Mikayla Renfroe, Emily Swihart, Hannah Alspach, Peyton Bucklew, Amber Krinner, Logan McPhail, Asheigh Lyons, Brittany Crabtree, Madison Uk, Sara Finney, Taylor Heaton, Gairy Natividad, Tatianna Hernandez, Alex Ludeman, Hannah Watson, Samantha Sanders, Peyton Draper, Caitlyn Abreu, Telia Young, Megan Stokes, Danielle Deats, Andie Beach, Morgan Thornton, Kaitlyn Caro, Sophie Martin, Alex Kleider.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus). (Mr. ROTHFUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BURGESS. I yield myself 1 minute. You know, on the subject of wasting time, it was 6 or 7 weeks ago that Chairman Pitts sent a letter to the President saying: What are you proposing to do about this? This was not something that was in the plan. You promised something that was different. What are we to tell people who are now calling our committee and asking us how you're going to respond to this? The President chose not to respond to that letter--it's been 6 or 7 weeks--but, boy, it didn't take him 24 hours to turn around a Statement of Administration Policy that said they would veto this bill should it pass the House. That's another reason for me to be for it. But, look, in this Statement of Administration Policy, it says: The Affordable Care Act forces most insurance companies to play by the rules. Well, I think this House has an opportunity today to say to the administration: Play by the rules. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 175 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 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. House Resolution 175 provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 1549. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided by the chair and the ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The rule makes in order two amendments, one Republican, one Democratic, with 10 minutes of debate for each. Further, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying bill. The underlying legislation is a needed piece of relief for the hundreds of thousands of Americans who were promised by their President that they would be covered under the Affordable Care Act's Preexisting Condition Insurance Plan and then were told, as of February 1 of this year, Sorry, we're closed. This is one of the many promises the President made that he has failed to uphold. In response to the President's failed promise, Chairman Joe Pitts introduced H.R. 1549, the Helping Sick Americans Act, to continue to provide insurance for those Americans who are most in need of immediate care. And to pay to give those most vulnerable patients insurance and care, we use the Prevention and Public Health Fund, an allocation of money that should be going to help patients, but it's instead being used for administrative costs to set up the exchanges that won't be online for some time now and for glossy brochures to extol their virtues. The money could be used to help people now, and that's why Republicans are here today. The Affordable Care Act created the new Preexisting Condition Insurance Plan, which was, arguably, duplicative of actions taken by 35 States prior to 2010 that were operating risk pools, that were operating re-insurance programs and served over 200,000 Americans. It has been shown that State-based programs play an important role in lowering costs across markets and then providing coverage options for those with preexisting conditions. In some States, those plans merged with the Federal plan into an existing high-risk pool. In other States, like Texas, the Federal plan operates in parallel to the State's pool. But whether the States merged their pools, adopted a State- administered preexisting plan, or whether the Federal preexisting plan is the only option, this program is the only answer for those who have found themselves unable to purchase insurance on their own because of a medical condition. Shortly after the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the chief actuary for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services estimated that the creation of this program would result in roughly 375,000 gaining coverage in 2010. However, to date, only 107,000 individuals were enrolled in the program as of January 1 of this year. On February 15 of this year, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced to States that the agency was suspending enrollment in the Preexisting Condition Insurance Program. Very little was said of the fact that this program was intended to help individuals with preexisting conditions through the 1st of January of 2014. Despite lower than expected enrollment, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced that it will no longer enroll new individuals in the program, and it will bar States from accepting new applications because of their financial constraints. According to a report from The Washington Post: Tens of thousands of Americans who cannot get health insurance because of preexisting medical problems will be blocked from the program that was actually designed to help them. On March 5, along with Republican leadership and the leadership from the Energy and Commerce Committee, we wrote to the President. We let him know that this was not right. We let him know that, while we may have designed the preexisting pool differently, Republicans have supported risk pools, and that he could easily use funds from other accounts in the Affordable Care Act like the Prevention and Public Health Fund. But so far, the response to our letter from the President is zero. I support prevention activities. As a doctor, I know it's better to keep a person well than to treat an illness; and to anyone across the aisle, we've demonstrated this in the past. If we want to modernize government programs where they have fallen behind private insurers and employers in avoiding disease and getting people more involved in their health care, we're here to talk. But the prevention fund has been used in a haphazard way, with no unified vision and in many ways that are quite questionable, with the mere hope, with the mere aspiration that 10 years from now we can look back and think that we've made a difference. But it's really something I cannot support when we are $17 trillion in debt and sick Americans are being turned away from an insurance coverage that they were promised by the President. As a physician, ensuring those with preexisting conditions have access to quality and affordable health insurance is a priority. As much as I believe that the Affordable Care Act stretched the bounds of constitutionality--and I still do--I was concerned that if the Supreme Court had invalidated the law last summer, those who were in this new Federal preexisting pool would have had the rug pulled out from under them and they could have been barred from merging into their States' pool because of the previously provided coverage. That's why, to ensure that that did not happen, I was prepared to answer that challenge, had it arisen, by introducing legislation prior to the Court's decision to provide States with the financial backing to decide how best to provide coverage for this population through some type of risk pool, reinsurance, or other innovative method. I will also note that unlike many of the complaints that the Preexisting Condition Insurance Program has faced, that bill, as well as the bill that we are considering today, did not require those with preexisting conditions to jump through hoops or to remain uninsured for 6 months before being eligible for coverage. On the other hand, instead of making sick Americans a priority, the administration is telling them to just give us 10 more months. Well, what a striking comparison. There are always stories of those who have done the right thing and insured themselves and then, for whatever reason--falling on bad luck or hard times--have fallen out of the system, usually because of a job loss, they get a medical diagnosis, and when their employment status changes, they find themselves forever locked out of coverage. Those were the stories that people thought of when they did say they wanted something done about this issue. I might add that when the Affordable Care Act was passed, the administration and congressional Democrats vastly oversold this concept. We were told time and again there were 8 to 12 to 15 million people wandering the country with some type of preexisting condition that were excluded from coverage. It's interesting that now, here we are 3 years later, spending $5 billion and they've enrolled a hundred thousand people in the program. But it's a hundred thousand people with a very compelling story. We were told by the American people they wanted us to fix this problem, they didn't want us to screw up the rest of the country's health care, and they wanted some help on cost. But, unfortunately, we failed on every one of those counts. Since the administration has cut off enrollment, how many people have signed into or aged into the 6-month exclusion that would otherwise be able to sign up? The fact is we don't know. But we had a hearing 4 weeks ago where we heard from some of these people. They do have compelling stories. How many were awaiting coverage but are now told, especially in States where the Federal preexisting program is the only option, you just wait until 2014. So do the best you can with what you've got between now and then. I will admit that many of the current State-based programs are underfunded and lacking the ability to meet their needs. It is costly to deal with this population of patients. I was prepared in the bill that I offered last summer to authorize $30 billion to provide coverage. House Republicans supported $25 billion in our substitute to the Affordable Care Act back in November of 2009. H.R. 1549 will redirect $3.5 billion from the Prevention and Public Health Fund and then eliminate the fund in 2016. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that, unlike the authors of the Affordable Care Act, we have provided enough funding to meet the needs of the program through the end of the year, while ultimately reducing the deficit. Furthermore, once the ``train wreck'' of failed implementation occurs, the amendment that Mr. Pitts plans to offer would provide an escape valve for Americans with a preexisting condition by providing States with a block grant to fund State high- risk pools. The majority is serious about funding these programs and dealing with the issue, and those cost are a drop in the bucket as to what the Affordable Care Act will cost our country in the future. But those efforts recognize that for those who do need insurance and are truly uninsurable in the market, it will be costly but we will make the decisions that set our priorities straight. Where the President's response was to tell the people tough luck, not to prepare for needing more money or transfer funds out of other parts of the Affordable Care Act or to look for efficiencies or mismanagement in the preexisting condition program or even approach Congress for funding, dead silence from the administration. Well, here Republicans will lead and ensure that we help sick Americans now. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. I will go as long as the gentlelady wants, but I guess I have no more speakers other than myself.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. The last Congress we had this debate over and over again, which obviously culminated with the significant findings in our Committee on Energy and Commerce on what happened with the energy company called Solyndra. The moneys that were pushed out the door by the Department of Energy in the first 4 years of the Obama administration, those moneys were poorly spent and unwisely invested. And what did we get for that investment? More debt. Here we are faced with a condition in the Prevention Fund where these dollars are going to be pushed out the door hiring navigators. Remember, part of the Affordable Care Act was to absolutely remove insurance agents and brokers from the environment, and now we're going to populate the environment with these navigators that are going to help sell people health insurance, and they're going to be paid for out of the Department of Health and Human Services with the prevention fund. It doesn't sound like prevention to me. I think we ought to prevent that from happening. 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.