Michael Burgess

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for his participation. The gentlewoman from Minnesota mentioned the effects on the economy, and the effects of this law on the economy are profound. We just passed a budget for the next fiscal year in the House of Representatives. I'm grateful that the budget didn't allow space for the reformation of this health care law, the removal of this health care law. But I think we're also joined by another gentleman from Texas who wanted to speak briefly about some of the economic effects, and I'm happy to yield to my friend, Mr. Gohmert, from Tyler, Texas, to speak on the economic effects.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for yielding and certainly thank him for leading this rule on the floor this afternoon. This is an important vote we're going to have today. The rule that will bring various budgets to the floor is a very fair product. As the gentleman knows, as we sat through the hours of debate in the Rules Committee last night, this is not just the product of the Budget Committee that is coming to the floor. It's not just Chairman Ryan's budget that is coming to the floor. But these are budgets that have been proposed by a number of different groups within the Congress--the Congressional Black Caucus, the Progressive Caucus, the Democratic substitute, the Senate budget is going to be offered as a substitute, where people can vote, and the Republican Study Committee. At the end of all that time, if none of the budgets receive the majority vote in the House of Representatives, then and only then will the product of the Budget Committee be voted on by the entire House. My expectation is that that is the budget that will pass. But our argument here today is not over what is contained within the Budget Committee's product anymore than it is what's contained with the Progressive's budget product. After all, what we're voting on today is the rule that will allow us the ability to debate these differences in philosophy on the floor of this House tomorrow, on C-SPAN, transparent for all the country to see; and they'll able to see the big philosophical differences that exist. We heard in the Rules Committee last night that it's unfair to bring the Senate budget to the floor of the House for a vote because the Senate budget has not been voted on on the floor of the Senate and that obstructionist Republicans in the Senate will keep the Senate from voting; but, actually, that's not true. The Senate, under its own rules, can bring the budget to the floor of the Senate and pass it with a simple majority. That's a 50-plus-1 majority. There's not enough Republicans in the Senate to block that or any other budget. So the discussion that it's unfair to bring the Senate budget to the floor of the House to vote on before the Senate has a chance to vote, the Senate could have voted on their budget at any time. The Senate could have voted last year for a budget. The Senate could have voted the year before for a budget. They chose not to because they did not want to put it out for the American people to see what their core philosophical belief is, which is that you have to raise taxes by a trillion dollars on the American people in order to pass a budget. We hear it time and time again that the greatest antipoverty program in this country is a job. The growth that is provided for in the budget that will be debated upon--and I hope pass tomorrow--we can't discount the importance of that growth. I just came from a hearing in the Energy Subcommittee of Energy and Commerce. We were fortunate to hear from one of the members of the Railroad Commission in Texas. The Railroad Commission doesn't have anything to do with trains anymore. It has all to do with energy. And Commissioner Smitherman from Texas was at the committee hearing, and I asked him a question. I said, In the Ryan budget that we will hear about tomorrow, there is an estimate of $11 billion over the next 10 years that will be paid to the Federal Government because of development of oil and natural gas on Federal lands. I said, I'm from Texas. That number seems a little bit light to me. I would expect the amount of revenue produced on Federal lands from oil and gas production, assuming we don't legislate it out of existence through the Environmental Protection Agency. And he said, In Texas, the 2-year budget figure for oil and gas severance taxes is $7 billion. Well, that would be a significantly greater amount than the $11 billion estimated in the Ryan budget. I asked Mr. Ryan about this last night at the Rules Committee. This is the amount that is allowed under Congressional Budget Office expectations. But, honestly, if we free up the energy that we have available within our own shores, within our own borders, that is a jobs program that would go a long way towards producing that unemployment rate of 5 percent that the gentlelady from Texas just referenced. I know this because in the district that I represent in north Texas, gas production from a geologic formation known as the Barnett shale has yielded significant economic benefits and significant employment as a result. In fact, when the Nation entered into a recession in December of 2007, constituents in my district basically read about it in the newspapers because it wasn't until 12, 13, or 14 months later when the price of natural gas came down so low that we actually felt the recession in Texas. So let's utilize that energy that's at our disposal. Life without energy is cold, brutal, and short. We have the ability to produce energy on our own shores. One of the things where I think we can look to the Ryan budget for leadership is allowing that energy to be produced on Federal lands.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, it was 3 years ago tomorrow night that the President's affordable health care law, or bill, was pushed through this House of Representatives. On Friday, in CQ Healthbeat, an article was published where the Department of Health and Human Services acknowledges that come October 1 there is ``some possibility'' that States will not be able to launch their health care exchanges. Mr. Speaker, we're 6 months away, and the insurance exchanges are the very centerpiece of the functioning of this health care law, and they're essential for the President's law to operate. The Federal Government has spent 3 years, well over $3 billion, assisting the States in implementing these exchanges; but the administration is now left only with the hope that it is ``not a Third World experience.'' A Third World experience. It doesn't end there. Henry Chao, a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services official overseeing the exchange technology, said in the same article when discussing back-up plans should the exchanges not be operable come October, ``We are having discussions, but they are not fully baked yet.'' October is just around the corner. ``Not fully baked yet'' doesn't even sound like it's in the oven.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, well, here we are. The Affordable Care Act is going to be 3 years old in just a few days, and we're continuing to uncover things within the law that nobody knew about. Remember all the stuff that was sold to the public because it was going to be ``free''? But we all know nothing is free, so how do you pay for it? Well, it turns out there's going to be tax on insurance companies and taxes on employers which, guess what? That's going to be passed on to the employees and the beneficiaries. The deadline is quickly approaching and plans are submitting their bids, but they're faced with no choice but to raise costs. In response to the rate increases, the Federal Government is attempting to limit higher premiums by something they call rate review. But anytime you treat only the symptom of a disease and not the underlying cause, you're going to end up with something you didn't expect. Continued regulatory pressure--continued pressure on employers and continued pressure on insurance plans--is going to result in actually further increasing rates. The government is attempting to control the market. But we all know this market is one the government cannot control, and the end result is that we'll all suffer. Let's face it. Instead of ``if you like what you have, you can keep it,'' what they really meant to say was ``you're going to pay a lot more to get a lot less.''

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. This is an important bill that we are considering today. It's not a perfect bill. It's not the bill that I would write if I had the power to write the bill. But it's an important bill. And as a conservative, I'm going to support the rule and I'm going to support the bill. Mr. Cole already referenced that the most important thing that's happening this morning is the savings that began last Friday are locked in in the continuing resolution. These are savings that have been anticipated for years, delayed for months, and finally arrived last Friday. The market responded yesterday with an all-time high. It's time to let those savings work their magic on the American economy. It does allow the Department of Defense the flexibility that they asked for to be able to manage their business with the reduced level of funding. And I think protecting our soldiers and protecting the pay of our soldiers is one of the highest constitutional functions of this body and one that we should take seriously. I believe this bill does that. This bill also protects funding for our veterans, which is also important. I know a lot of people on my side are concerned because the President's Affordable Care Act, the President's government takeover of health care, is not damaged in this exchange. In truth, some of the funding for implementation is reduced because it's kept at last year's levels and it is affected by the savings in the sequester. But to those on my side who would say it doesn't go far enough in restricting the Affordable Care Act, I would say that we are going to get opportunities to fight that fight--multiple opportunities--in the few short weeks ahead. Where will they come? They will come in our budget. They will come in the appropriations bill. The appropriations bills, in the House, at least, will be run in an open fashion. There will be open appropriations bills. And in Labor-HHS there will be ample opportunity to demand of the Federal agencies involved with implementation that they share with us the data about how this thing is supposed to start October 1, when they have really been very reticent to share anything. Speaking of reticent to share anything, how about the administration, which hid the ball before election day on all these rules that have now come forward since November 6? No wonder the Governors were reluctant to accept the exchanges. No wonder the Governors have held off in some States from accepting the Medicaid expansion. Because they weren't told what the deal would be until after the President's election was reassured. That's pretty disingenuous of the administration to run things that way, and I believe they should be held to account. And more importantly, in the 6 months between now and October 1, when every American who wants to buy in the exchange is supposed to be able to go to their computer and buy on the exchange, I don't believe they can actually build that system in the time required, regardless of how much money we give them. It is important to hold those agencies accountable. Our committee work will do that. As an oversight committee on the authorization side, we will continue to do that. And I think that's important work. So I ask conservatives to join me in that fight as we go forward. Let's fight this on the budget, let's fight it on our open rules in the appropriations process. Today, it's an important bill. Not a perfect bill, but it's an important bill. It protects our soldiers. It protects our veterans. And it locks in those savings for the long-suffering American taxpayer that they have waited for for so long. I urge support of the rule and support of the underlying bill.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, the Affordable Care Act was passed now almost 3 years ago, and the Affordable Care Act was going to lower costs. And why wouldn't you like it? You get free stuff. Well, how do you pay for that free stuff? It turns out five new taxes were started on January of this year. What are they, and who do they affect? Well, there's a big tax on medical devices. Now everyone talks about wanting to encourage American investment, encourage American manufacturing. But with this tax we're encouraging manufacturers to go offshore. Flexible spending accounts are now limited. Who's affected by flexible spending accounts? Well, people with predictable recurrent medical expenses who might want to set some of those dollars aside and pay for them with pretax dollars. Those amounts are now limited, so people with chronic illnesses, families with special needs children are going to be affected. There's a surtax on investment income. The economy's trying to recover. Why would we tax investment income? Itemized deductions are now going to be limited for people who itemize their deductions. So who is affected by that? People with the highest medical expenses. And then finally, the Medicare payroll tax hike. Might sound like a good idea. Medicare might need more money, but this money doesn't go to Medicare. This money goes to fund new programs. Look, 3 years ago we were all told, if you like what you have, you can keep it. If you like your insurance, you can keep it. If you like your doctor, you can keep him or her. Turns out, what we should have been hearing is, you're going to pay a lot more to get a lot less.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, the Affordable Care Act becomes more apparent every day that goes by, and the problems that are contained therein. Indeed, the President's takeover of health care is delivering more chaos to our health care system. We have 26 States that are not going to be participating in State exchanges, so a Federal exchange will be set up in those States. The complex eligibility process that citizens will have to go through, the exchange of personal information with Federal agencies that they are going to be required to provide, is truly staggering. Once an individual submits an application to an exchange, the information is then shared with Health and Human Services, the Social Security Administration, the Department of Homeland Security, the Treasury Department, and the IRS. Enrollees will not only have to submit all of their information when they first enroll, but they will have to resubmit every year. The President's law intends that exchanges will be ready by October 1. Let me tell you, the five Federal agencies that are involved in this are not forthcoming with the information that they're, in fact, on track. And, in fact, the informatics piece, the information piece that is supposed to be ready when this is all switched on in October is likely not to be ready. There was a better way to do this. Republicans had better ideas. Governors had better ideas. The administration simply would not listen.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, we are here tonight to honor Congressman Sam Johnson. It's also appropriate to take a moment and send our thoughts and prayers to Congressman Johnson's family during a difficult time that they're going through right now. As we've heard tonight, Congressman Johnson is a decorated war hero. During his 29-year service in the United States Air Force, Congressman Johnson flew in 62 combat missions in the Korean War and 25 missions in the Vietnam War. He endured almost 7 years as a prisoner of war in Hanoi, with a majority spent in solitary confinement, after being captured in North Vietnam. Congressman Johnson persevered through this dreadful experience, returned to the United States and was reunited with his wife and three children on February 12, 1973. This week marks the 40th anniversary of his release, and we celebrate his achievements and the sacrifice for his country. In fact, 10 years ago this week, I gave what was my first speech on the House floor honoring then Sam Johnson's 30th anniversary of freedom, and at that time his wife, Shirley, was with us in the gallery. When Sam came home, he undertook a duty to continuously support and protect every man and woman who risks his life fighting for the United States of America. This was a motivation for his decision to run for office, and it is a true statement to the character and virtues that he gained from his service to this country. In thinking about Shirley, every summer, she does a fashion show in Frisco, Texas. Sam is my neighbor to the east from the congressional district that I represent. Shirley does a fashion show, the proceeds of which go to provide scholarships for kids in the area--true dedication to community service. We are all so honored to have Sam and Shirley in our lives. Thank you, Congressman Johnson. Thank you for being my friend and my mentor, for providing me expertise when I ran for the House and when I arrived at the House. You continue to provide mentorship to me today.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize 40 years of service by Community Christian Action (CCA) to North Texans in need. CCA was founded February 22, 1973 when seven members of the Bible study group at St. Philip's Catholic Church in Lewisville committed to spreading God's word by helping those less fortunate. This faith-based non-profit organization started learning about poverty and ways to improve peoples' lives through their local church congregations. Over 35 years later, CCA has expanded their outreach of help with the support of volunteers, families, churches and local businesses to 42 communities throughout Collin, Dallas, Denton, Tarrant, and Wise counties. With 150 employees and more than 2,500 volunteers, the ministry strives to give families in crisis the education and training they need to become self-sufficient while offering a safe haven of food, shelter, medical care, and spiritual support. In one year, CCA assists more than 12,000 individuals. They distribute more than $1.4 million of food, provide more than 4,000 low- income patients health care in their center each year, and offer educational and vocational training programs that more than 1,660 people participate in annually. CCA ensures that more than 57,000 lunches are delivered to kids during the summer, and that 2,900 children get to experience each holiday season with Christmas toys. It is my honor to recognize Community Christian Action and their efforts to help North Texans.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the dedication of the State of Texas' Historical Commission with the placement of an Official Texas Historical Marker on behalf of the African American Community of Quakertown. In the early 1880s, Quakertown emerged as a thriving African American community in the heart of Denton, TX. Quakertown flourished through 1920, its growth due in part to its location near the city square and the opportunities it provided for African Americans. The community was bounded by Withers Street on the north, Oakland Avenue on the west, Bell Avenue on the east, and by Cottonwood and Pecan Creeks on the South. Although many residents worked for businesses on the nearby city square, at the College of Industrial Arts (now Texas Woman's University), and as servants for white households, Quakertown prospered as a self-supporting community. Several churches, a physician's office, lodges, restaurants, and small businesses joined homes to line the streets of the community. The neighborhood school, the Fred Douglass School, burned in Sep. 1913 and was rebuilt along Wye Street in Southeast Denton in 1916, foreshadowing events to come. By 1920, the proximity of Quakertown to the growing College of Industrial Arts and the civic-minded interests of Denton's white residents threatened the future of Quakertown. Many believed that it was in the best interest of the College and the Denton community to transform Quakertown into a city park. In Apr. 1921, with little input from its residents, the City voted 367 to 240 in favor of a bond to purchase Quakertown. More than 60 families lost their homes. The majority of the displaced residents relocated to southeast Denton on 21 acres of land, platted as Solomon Hill, sold to them by rancher Albert L. Miles. Others, including many Quakertown Community leaders, chose to leave Denton altogether. By Feb. 1923, Quakertown had disappeared in the midst of the new park's construction. The Texas Historical Marker commemorating the site was approved by and paid for by the Texas Historical Commission as one of a select group of applications made each year to recognize undertold stories. The selection was a result of a successful 2010 application by the Denton County Historical Commission, supported through the efforts of the Denton Public Library and the Denton Parks and Recreation Department. It is my honor to recognize these organizations and the efforts of the individuals involved and to represent Denton County and the City of Denton in the House of Representatives.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. This is an important discussion that we're having today, and I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and to vote for the underlying bill that follows. Look, the President is going to be here talking to us next week. He'll deliver his State of the Union address. He will do so without a plan on the table. There will be no budget. We will not know about the proposals that are put forward as to whether or not they're reasonable in the context of outlays and allocations. We just simply don't know. The underlying bill that is being discussed today is that, when the President does submit that plan, when the administration does submit that plan, if that plan does not come into balance within a reasonable period of time--10 years, I think, any American would say would be a reasonable period of time--give us an idea as to when you think that will happen. After all, when there was a campaign being run in 2008, the Presidential candidate for the Democrats said that he'd cut the deficit in half in 4 years, and we're still waiting. We would like to see the plan that is going to achieve these goals. We're also hearing a lot of talk today about the sequester. It's not the purpose of this legislation to deal with the sequester. We did have reconciliation bills on the floor of this House in May and then again in December. We had a bill dealing with the expiration of the Tax Codes right before the August recess. So there were opportunities to talk about the fiscal cliff. I, for one, felt that the delay in the sequester on January 1 was not in the country's best interest. These were the cuts that the Congress promised to the American people. When the debt limit was raised in August of 2011, this was the promise that was made, and it was a promise that was made by the President. It was proposed by people within the administration. The bill was signed into law by the President. The President cannot now come back and retroactively veto a bill that has already been signed. This is settled law, and these are cuts on which the American people are depending. They're depending on us to keep our word. It's very difficult to cut spending. It's very difficult to cut the budget. Every line in the Federal budget has a constituency. Every line in every appropriations bill has a constituency somewhere that cares deeply about that language being retained. So, when all else fails, an across-the-board cut may be the only way that you can ever achieve that spending restraint. Now, I understand that the White House does not agree with the Republican House that there is a spending problem. They think it's a revenue problem. Well, great. Put that in writing. Put it in the budget. Tell us when that revenue that you wish to achieve will bring this budget into balance. I, for one, don't think it's possible, but I would like to see the academic exercise of their at least trying to get it to balance at some point in the future. Then, finally, Mr. Speaker, may I just say--and I hate to give a history lesson--when the Republicans were in the minority in this House, there was a very large bill that was passed, and it was called the Affordable Care Act. This was a bill that did not receive a hearing in the House of Representatives. To be sure, H.R. 3200 had received a markup in a hearing in the House, but H.R. 3590, although it had a House bill number, was not a House bill. It was a housing bill that passed the House of Representatives in July of 2009 and went over to the Senate. It was completely changed in the Senate Finance Committee, and this was the bill that came to the House of Representatives on which we had to vote in a very short period of time. No amendments were allowed. It was a very closed process. I was in the Rules Committee that night. I remember the ranking member being there, and the good ideas that I thought I brought forward were all excluded from discussion. So don't lecture me about the process that this bill was rushed and didn't have a hearing. For heaven's sake, we have a bill that is now signed law that will cost $2.6 trillion over the next 10 years that never had a hearing in this House. That's the travesty, and that's why we have to deal with spending.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of the fallen crewmembers of the Essex-class carrier U.S.S. Franklin, Mr. Omer D. Simms, a Seaman First Class. On March 19, 1945, the U.S.S Franklin was instantly hit by a Japanese bomb that killed, wounded, and trapped many crew members on board. Mr. Simms, one of the confined men, heroically put his comrades' life before his own by creating a hatch for them escape. Letting the twelve other men go before him, Mr. Simms never made it to safety. Instead, he tragically lost his life on the U.S.S. Franklin from a second bomb that hit the ship while the other crewmembers' lives were saved. I am proud to honor Mr. Omer D. Simms' service aboard the U.S.S. Franklin and the ultimate sacrifice he made for this country.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, 2013, brand-new year, brand-new Congress. But what's this year also bringing? How about some brand-new taxes under the Affordable Care Act. There is a medical device tax that started on January 1 of 2.3 percent on gross sales. This means some of our smallest companies, medical start-up companies, are going to pay a tax not on profits but their gross receipts. The flexible spending account that many families rely upon to pay for recurring expenses with pre-tax dollars, especially those families with special needs children, those are now capped at $2,500. Investment income, a surtax of 3.8 percent for people who earn above a certain level. Taxes on medical deductions, it rises from a 7.5 percent reduction to 10 percent on adjusted gross income. That means our sickest constituents are going to be paying more taxes. And then, finally, the Medicare payroll tax hike. For the first time, individuals who earn investment income are going to be paying a payroll tax of .9 percent. There will be an additional .9 percent on other income as well. Let's be honest, the Affordable Care Act benefits are still over a year away, but boy, you got a big tax bill January 1.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the City of Highland Village as they celebrate their 50th Anniversary as an incorporated city. Highland Village was voted into existence by approximately 100 residents on February 14, 1963, with 53 supporting votes and seven opposed. Over the subsequent 50 years the 5.5 square-mile city has transitioned from a small population and weekenders from Dallas to the lakeside community that is now home for almost 16,000 permanent residents. Highland Village has a long history that includes its role as a hideout in the 1870s for the notorious highwayman, Sam Bass, who was drawn to the privacy of the trees and hills that are unique to much of north Texas. The same natural beauty that attracted the infamous also beckoned wealthy Dallasites seeking respite from the city. The growth continued and development by groups such as Mobil Land Development Corporation transformed the small, rural town into a suburban city in the 1970s. It eventually became a Home Rule City in 1986 as its population surpassed 5,000. Residential expansion led to improvements in infrastructure and economic growth. Diversification of the community's revenue base through commercial development led to the city's current vibrant retail market. Roadway improvements to FM 407 and the extension of FM 2499 as a major north south route which will eventually connect DFW Airport with Denton residents has also fostered the community's prosperity. Managing its growth in a conservatively fiscal manner, Highland Village prioritized services that would enhance and preserve the quality of life for residents. As a result, current residents enjoy living in a municipality identified as the ``Safest City in Texas'', with full-time fire and emergency services, an extensive system of community trails and membership in the Denton County Transportation Authority with nearby rail connectivity to the international commerce hub of Dallas. As Highland Village celebrates their 50th anniversary, I salute the unique community that I and my family have also known as home. It is my privilege today to represent the City of Highland Village and its residents in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Guyer High School Wildcats of Denton, Texas upon their first state football title. Winning the Class 4A state championship takes great determination, discipline, and team work. The long hours of practice over many months helped the Wildcats win many games on the way to the state championship. I am impressed by the Wildcats' work ethic and skill, and know that they will continue to represent their high school well. The Guyer football team has a talented and dedicated head coach, John Walsh, who to my understanding told the team the state title was theirs from the beginning. Jerrod Heard, the school's junior quarterback, seemed to believe his coach. During the state championship game, he lead the Wildcats to victory from behind with assistance from defensive end Conor Allen who forced a fumble towards the end of the game and from Ellis Jefferson with two touchdown throws, one for a 71- yard touchdown. I am pleased to join their classmates, teachers, friends, family and the Denton community in honoring the athletic achievement of the Guyer Wildcats' football team for winning their first state championship. It is my privilege to serve you all in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, our country is facing a crisis. I'm not talking about the made-for-TV crisis that's going on right now over the fiscal cliff. I'm talking about the deficit. The national debt now stands at $16 trillion. At the end of this President's next term it will be close to $22 trillion. Both parties bear the blame for this. Both branches of the legislative branch bear the responsibility, multiple administrations. And just as everyone was involved in the creation of this problem, we need all hands on deck for a solution. But unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be so. Mr. Speaker, growth is critical. The last quarter of this year likely will see growth at 1.2 to 1.3 percent. That's not going to cut it. As long as we continue to push a tax policy that punishes success rather than provides for a pro-growth strategy, we will never grow our way out of this problem. And then on the spending side, when are we going to have the open congressional hearings where we focus on the waste, the favoritism, the duplication that occurs in our Federal agencies? It's far past time for us to focus on those areas and allow the public in and allow the public to see how their money is being spent. Failure to act on the deficit will likely rend the very fabric of our Republic. I, for one, do not want to see that happen.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Judge Carmen Rivera- Worley. Judge Rivera-Worley has served as District Judge for the 16th District Court in Denton County, Texas for the past nine years. Judge Rivera-Worley received a Bachelor's Degree from Texas A&M University in 1977. She also received a Master's Degree from Texas Tech University in 1978. In addition to those degrees, Judge Rivera-Worley proved her commitment to higher-education by earning her Jurisprudence Doctorate from the University of Texas School of Law in 1982. These numerous degrees have allowed Judge Rivera-Worley to extend her knowledge and continually serve the citizens of Denton and Val Verde counties. Judge Rivera-Worley has extensive experience in practicing law. Before her current position as District Judge, the Honorable Rivera- Worley held several positions as an attorney in Denton County and Val Verde County. She previously served in Denton County's Criminal District Attorney's Office as the Assistant Criminal District Attorney/ Chief of Civil Division from 1992-2003. Also, she served as Val Verde County Attorney from 1987-1992. Prior to that position, she was Val Verde County Assistant Attorney from 1985 to 1987. Judge Rivera-Worley also played an active role in numerous professional associations. These include the Denton County Bar Association and The Texas State Bar Association, particularly in the following sections: Construction Law Section, Government Lawyer Section, and Labor and Employment Section. In addition, she held many positions in the Texas District and County Attorney's Association. In the Texas District and County Attorney's Association, she was a member of the Board of Directors, the Long Range Planning Committee for Publications, the Editorial Board, and the Legislative Committee. Also, she served as the Chair of the Civil Committee of the Association, and was also a member of the Governor's Prosecution Advisory Committee on Punishment Standards Commission, and was a speaker at conferences on local government and purchasing for the Texas Association of Counties and Texas Purchasing Association. Beyond her professional experience, Judge Rivera-Worley has proven her commitment to the community by working with civic organizations and charities in the region. She is currently an associate of the Denton Independent School District's Bond Progress Committee and of the Denton Christian Preschool Board of Directors and Nominations Committee. Judge Rivera-Worley has also devoted her time to the Trinity United Methodist Church by being a member of the Board of Trustees and of the Council on Ministries. She was also the Chair of the Youth Ministries Committee for the church. Even with her already outstanding track record of leading her community, Judge Rivera-Worley found the time to serve as a member of the Minority Access Committee at Ann's Haven Hospice. She also played a significant role in the Denton Chapter of the League of United Latin American Citizens, and was also named Trustee of the Sarah E. Worley Educational Foundation Trust. Judge Rivera-Worley is a very active member in her community and has a true passion for helping others. As she retires, she will leave a legacy of excellence in the 16th District Court of Denton County and will not be forgotten. I am pleased to recognize Judge Rivera-Worley and am privileged to represent Denton County in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I also want to start by thanking our chairman, Chairman Upton, Mr. Waxman, the ranking member, Mr. Rogers, as well as our staff, Clay Alspach with the majority staff, for all their help in assuring that this bill, H.R. 6672, came to the floor. In an emergency we need all hands on deck. In the aftermath of an attack, natural disaster, or pandemic, we need to be assured that there is an adequate supply of countermeasures to meet our Nation's needs. This program has also proven itself effective and deserves to be reauthorized and strengthened, as this bill does. Our Nation will never reach the surge capacity it needs without utilizing all personnel in our health care workforce. The committee has worked with me to ensure maximum capacity by correcting an oversight in the original law and now clarifies that dentists and dental facilities have the opportunity to be included in the first responder framework by incorporating earlier legislation, H.R. 570. Dentists are willing and trained to support the medical and public health response to a disaster, and this legislation allows States the option of incorporating dentists into their disaster response framework. In addition, the legislation expands on a long-held priority for me by strengthening our Nation's commitment to trauma care and its continued necessity in the aftermath of a disaster. We're fortunate to have the bill on the floor today to ensure that our national disaster response framework has the maximum available resources. I urge the Senate to take up this legislation.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. I yield myself 1 minute. The dean of the House described the amount of CFC released into the atmosphere as a ``piddling'' amount. Actually, the Food and Drug Administration has quantitated ``piddling'' for us in the Federal Register of November 19, 2008. They describe that as less than 0.1 percent of the total 1986 global production of CFCs. For the purpose of edification of the body, I did want to provide that information as to a definition of piddling. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this bill.

Mr. BURGESS. I yield myself 1 minute. I would point out that the FDA has not retracted the use of racemic epinephrine for the short-term use of a rescue inhaler in the treatment of an acute asthmatic attack. That just simply has not happened. Then to say that Congress is now seeking to overrule the FDA is preposterous because those are not the facts on the table right now. A regulatory earmark? Come on, give me a break. I would welcome other companies into the marketplace that wanted to create a low-cost, effective, convenient treatment for asthmatics who need acute respiratory relief when their standard meds, when their meds that they take on a chronic basis, either are not working or when, for whatever reason, a flare-up has occurred. Look, I'm an asthma patient--I'm on asthma medicine--but in the product information provided to patients on the long-term medicine is a statement that this is not intended as a rescue device for an acute attack. For that, you need something that was previously available over the counter. I've got to tell you that I was astounded by the elitism by the EPA at the table in front of us when they told us that they know better than America's asthma patients. Come on. This is the land of liberty. Let's give patients the devices they need to manage their illnesses. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. I yield myself 1 minute. The ranking member spoke of a group called the Alliance for Sensible Atmospheric Policy. I wish this were sensible, Madam Speaker. This is the most nonsensical thing I have ever encountered. Look, America's asthma patients are not blowing a hole in the ozone above Antarctica. I get the fact that Mr. Waxman and I have to give up our hair spray. I get that. Too much CFCs. You've got it. I get the fact that our underarm deodorant had too many CFCs and we had to have a different propellant. But we're talking about an effective treatment for a very vulnerable group of patients--2 o'clock in the morning, someone who has asthma who might have run out of their medicine, or maybe they encountered something that caused their airways to react, what choice do they now have? They go to the emergency room, spend $1,500 for a breathing treatment. This is not something that was held behind the counter by the pharmacist. This was out on the open shelf available to anyone at any hour of the day or night. Asthma patients need access to this type of medication. I would welcome the fact that other companies would want to create a low-cost, available product for asthmatics to use as a rescue inhaler. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. If advocating for America's asthmatic patients is a special interest group, guilty as charged. But, Madam Speaker, we have heard so much stuff today that it's almost difficult to refute every point that's been brought up. Look, we heard from the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee that the FDA had deemed the active pharmaceutical ingredient in Primatene Mist to be dangerous. What is the active ingredient in Primatene Mist? It's racemic epinephrine. We heard from the gentlelady from Florida that a product manufactured in her district was a good product and was available. What's the active pharmaceutical in Asthmanefrin? Racemic epinephrine. It's exactly the same product. The difference, of course, is the propellant, and that's the object of our discussion here today. Now, I will tell you, as an asthmatic patient, there are things that I know work better for me than others. I'm willing to go along with a lot of stuff from the EPA, but I will just tell you, the replacement propellant that is available in albuterol inhalers does not work nearly as well as CFC. You don't have to believe me. Go to the Facebook page that has been developed by asthma sufferers who, one after the other, will delineate why CFC worked for them when HFA-containing products do not. Now, what about Asthmanefrin? There is no propellant. It is delivered because of an ultrasonic nebulizer, a unique approach and one that, quite frankly, I welcome. But let me stress, Madam Speaker, although this product, Asthmanefrin, is available without a physician's prescription, it's not generally available over the counter, and I know this because of my own experience. Number 1, I had to call several pharmacies back in Texas before I found a Walmart that carried it. After finishing some event late at night in Fort Worth, I stopped by the Walmart near my home that I had already talked to that I knew they had the product there. I went in, but the pharmacy was closed. The pharmacist was gone. Now, you can buy a vast panoply of almost anything else over the counter in the pharmacy, off the pharmacy shelves at Walmart--in fact, you used to be able to pick up two Primatene Mist inhalers for $30 before January 1 of this year--but no Asthmanefrin was available. When I questioned why, they said that is something that has to be dispensed by the pharmacist. In other words, it's behind the counter, not over the counter. What does that mean as a functional issue? If an asthmatic patient woke up at 2 that morning and said, Oh, my golly, I should have never ridden that horse, I should have never petted that cat, I guess the mountain cedar bloomed down by Waco because now I've got a snoutful and I cannot breathe, and they go down to the Walmart, the Walmart's open, the store's lit up, the shelves are full of product, but Asthmanefrin is not available to that patient. They'll have to come back at 9 in the morning when the pharmacist is on duty that can dispense the product to them. Now, I would also point out that there is a cost differential between Asthmanefrin and Primatene Mist. We've heard a lot about costs and profits and who we're helping and who we're not. The cost for the starter kit for Asthmanefrin is right at $50. At Walmart in my district it was $49.96. A boxful of the packets of the medicine that is necessary to place into the machine to dispense costs $27 for a box of 30. And I'm not that good at math, but that's about 92, 93 cents per packet, one packet per treatment. How many treatments are in this? I don't know. I've never used one completely. I always lose them before I get to the end. But it's advertised to be between 250 and 275 treatments. The cost differential, a little bit less than 6 cents for this, 93 cents for this per treatment episode. Not a big deal in days you're talking about medicines that might cost $250, $280 a month for maintenance therapy for asthma. Yeah, the cost is negligible, but for some people it's not. For some people that represents a significant expenditure. This, I can carry in my pocket. I can bring it to the House floor. If someone's smoking a cigar in one of the anterooms and I get a puff of that, I'll have this available when I get to the House floor. This is harder to carry in your pocket, not impossible, but much harder to carry in your pocket. There is a convenience factor. Dean of the House Dingel mentioned that when he talked about his efforts to preserve products for patients with asthma. A little less user friendly to go through the multiple steps for Asthmanefrin as opposed to squeezing the Primatene Mist bottle and dispensing the medicine where it needs to go into a patient's chest. The other over-the-counter products are absolutely not equivalent to Primatene. Primatene tablets are, indeed, still available. But what are Primatene tablets? They're ephedrine. That's the active ingredient in some of the diet pills that the FDA pulled off the market a few months ago. Yeah, ephedrine will help you if you're in a tight spot with your breathing, but it's not instantaneous. It's about 30 minutes away after you take the pill. And you want to talk about something that makes your heart race, it's not Primatene Mist, but the Primatene tablets will do it every time it's tried. Madam Speaker, here's the real issue: Should we let elites at the Federal agency dictate to our asthma patients in our districts what they can and can't have? This is one of those instances where I say the Federal agency has gone too far. Ranking Member Waxman said that the FDA didn't need to ban Primatene Mist because the EPA had already done it. By what authority does the EPA regulate medicines that I prescribe for my patients? There is no such authority, unless I missed something and we gave them authority where none existed before. This is about common sense. This is about doing the right thing for the American people. We took away their toilets. We took away their lightbulbs. For heaven's sake, let's not take away their asthma inhalers. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 6190, this is a bill that I honestly wish we did not have to consider today. Over the past several years, I have repeatedly asked the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, and even the White House, the President himself, for answers to questions that I and other members of the committee have as to why the administration has refused to grant a waiver to sell the existing stock of over-the- counter epinephrine inhalers. Only last summer, and because the committee was moving legislation at the time, did the Food and Drug Administration finally provide at least some sort of response, albeit one that was entirely unsatisfactory. Under the rules known as the Montreal Protocol, certain chemical propellants used in a number of medical and cosmetic devices were to be phased out over a number of years, the chlorofluorocarbons, CFC, used in the epinephrine inhalers. Here is one of the ones that was one of those propellants. One of the manufacturers of these over-the-counter inhalers has worked on a replacement inhaler only to meet with stonewalling through the Food and Drug Administration and requests for more studies into the device. Although the Food and Drug Administration claims they are awaiting an application from the company, the company counters that the Food and Drug Administration once again continues to move the goalpost. Regardless of the finger-pointing, Mr. Speaker--and there is much of it surrounding this issue--the fact remains that there is no viable alternative for the over-the-counter purchase by an asthmatic suffering from an acute emergency attack. We've heard that a company is about to market a device, and indeed there is a device available without a prescription, but it's behind the counter. In other words, if the pharmacy is open but the pharmacist is not there, you cannot purchase this device. I know this firsthand because it happened to me one evening while we were home on one of the district work periods. The new product uses a nebulizer rather than a propellant. It's a little more complicated. In my experience, it's a little more difficult to use and less effective. Nevertheless, it is available, but the cost differential is significant when compared with the old over-the-counter CFC propellant epinephrine inhaler. The committee and the Congress should be on the side of putting more available products into the hands of patients and allowing them to effectively manage their medical issues. Instead, opponents of this legislation hide behind false claims of the safety and efficacy of epinephrine. Mr. Speaker, I would point out that I've been an asthmatic my entire life. I have utilized rescue inhalers for a long time. Racemic epinephrine, the active pharmaceutical ingredient in an over-the- counter asthma inhaler, has been around for 60 years. There has not been a question of its safety and efficacy. If so, we know the FDA has the power to remove a drug or device that they think is unsafe or not effective. They have given their stamp of approval to racemic epinephrine again and again over the last 60 years. There continue to be dozens of epinephrine-based treatments for asthma-related issues that are used by doctors and medical professionals. Although opponents of this legislation will claim that they're opposed to the bill because epinephrine is not safe, this claim is simply not true. There are currently over 1 million units of these inhalers sitting in a warehouse in California not helping patients currently suffering from an asthma attack, not available for a rescue treatment for someone who cannot get their breath. It's unconscionable to allow them to sit and gather dust when they could be used to provide relief to America's asthmatic patients. Moreover, the company is committed to donating any proceeds from the sale to charity to remove any possible profit motive from their request to sell these products. This is not about allowing a company to continue to sell their product; it's about not allowing a regulatory agency to unreasonably restrict the access of America's asthmatics to a useful product. I wish more companies would come forward with a viable over-the-counter asthma inhaler so that asthmatics could have more and more choices instead of that costly emergency room visit at 2 a.m. This bill is about allowing asthmatics to continue to get relief during an asthma attack, to continue to have an emergency rescue inhaler available when they deem that they need it, not when the Administrator of the EPA says they need it or not when the Administrator of the FDA says they need it. Members of Congress spend a lot of time talking about how much they care about the plight of patients--and asthmatics in particular--and decrying the high cost of health care. Even if it is just for a limited time, this bill returns a safe, effective, and inexpensive treatment into the hands of patients suffering from asthma, one that has been in use for decades. For me, at least, the issue is clear. Let's side with patients on this issue. Let's stop this senseless war on asthmatics the administration has waged for the last 3 years. With that, I'll reserve the balance of my time.