Michael Burgess

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a constituent of the 26th District of Texas, Destinee Richardson. Miss Richardson is a 9th grader at Little Elm High School, and is the Texas Youth Ambassador for North Texas. As a Youth Ambassador, she has learned important lessons about discipleship, forgiveness, trust, and love. The Million Youth Peace March International will take place next weekend in Washington, D.C. Leaders from across the globe will gather to support world peace and encourage others to cease teen-on-teen violence, childhood obesity, and drug and alcohol abuse. Participants will march to encourage youth to express themselves in non-violent ways. I thank Destinee Richardson for her service, and am proud to represent her in Congress.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, right now this United States Congress is writing post-dated checks on an overdrawn account. We're on a path to fiscal destruction, one that may threaten the very fabric of our Republic. In many ways, Mr. Speaker, we may be lucky that we have a statutory debt limit because it forces both branches of the legislative branch of government and the executive branch to sit down and have the hard discussions that are necessary at this point in our Nation's history. Does anyone really believe we would be here having these discussions if we didn't have to? There is going to be a bill on the floor this week called Cut, Cap, and Balance; and it allows the President his wish for expanding the debt limit at the same time it caps spending, cuts current spending, and allows for a vote on a balanced budget amendment. The President issued a veto threat today, and I think that is unfortunate. The President has refused to offer any meaningful plan of his own, anything that is scorable. Anything that even has the barest of details the President has failed to provide. And, of course, we all wonder what's happening over in the other body. This country doesn't need more debt; it needs more jobs. But we need to quit spending money we don't have and put people back to work. Dealing with these important issues is what we need to do, and then let Americans do what they do best: create, innovate, and lead.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and welcome the 2011 Solar Car Challenge taking place in the 26th Congressional District at Texas Motor Speedway over four days: Monday, July 18th through Thursday, July 21. The 16th annual Solar Car Challenge is a solar-powered car race for high school students. This year's challenge is a four-day closed track race that provides high school students from across the country a hands-on experience in designing, engineering, building, and racing their own roadworthy solar cars. Each event is the end product of a two year education cycle. On odd- numbered years, the race is a cross-country event. On even-numbered years, the event is a track race around the 1.5 mile oval at Texas Motor Speedway. The team driving the most laps accumulated over the four days of racing will be declared the winner. I am proud that out of the sixteen teams participating in this year's challenge, two are from my congressional district. Racing in ``Cat 2.0'', the Bobcats Solar Racing Team of Byron Nelson High School in Trophy Club is captained by Matthew Klauser; their advisor is Darren Klauser. Liberty Christian School in Argyle will be racing in ``Aurora''; their team captains are Cameron Balkey and Preston Collins; advisor is Ken Marko. I would like to salute Dr. Lehman Marks, the Solar Car Challenge Event Coordinator, as well as all the Solar Car Teams' advisors, captains, and members who were instrumental in the support and building of these remarkable vehicles. Mr. Speaker, I proudly rise today to commend the hard-working and visionary students comprising the Solar Car Challenge Teams and wish them a great competition. It is an honor to have this event take place within the 26th District at Texas Motor Speedway for the sixth time.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. The fact is, the United States Congress, the Federal Government, should not pick winners and losers. Yes, there is new technology. It didn't happen as fast as the proponents of this legislation articulated in December of 2007, and the technology that was promised for 5 years later, which is now, in fact, has been slow to develop, but it will develop and then let them meet in the marketplace. Let the consumer decide. Let the consumer pick the winners and losers in this argument, not the United States Congress, not the Federal Government. We had no business restricting the sale of the 100-watt light bulb. We had no business restricting what light people should use in their homes. This is one time we should back off and let the American people make the choices that are right for them. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BURGESS. Earlier this week, 233 Members of this body, our colleagues, voted in repealing the 100-watt light bulb ban. This ban comes as a result of the 2007 energy legislation that included a provision that regulates what type of light bulb the American people may buy and may use in their homes. The Federal Government has no right to tell me or any other citizen what type of light bulb to use at home. It is our right to choose. Clearly a majority of this body, 233 Members, agree with the American people. Stay out of the decisionmaking and give the choice back to the consumer. Consumers want the 100-watt light bulb, and some consumers need the 100-watt light bulb. Now after our debate earlier on the floor this week I got this message from a constituent named Dave. Dave wrote: I need my 100-watt light bulb to do the type of work that I do. It is very detailed work. I need to see my work with a 100-watt light bulb, and sometimes I use a 200-watt light bulb. It is necessary. I cannot do my work with less wattage because I have to strain my eyes to do my work and that causes me headaches, and then I am unable to work. Those types of light bulbs, 100-watt light bulbs, are like having sunshine at your home and at your work bench. LEDs do not suffice. Neons don't work, nor any other type of new-tech bulbs that are so-called energy savers, and I don't want to purchase those lights that have mercury in them. Nobody should have the right to dictate what types of lights we buy and use in our homes. I cannot read the very fine, small print of some of the product labels using those weak light bulbs. Stop that ban on those light bulbs that will serve us well with proper light for working on very detailed projects and reading product labels that have very small print. That is what Dave said. Dave should have the right to choose what sort of light bulb he uses when doing his work at home. Now, look, I work in a Federal building. I understand the Federal Government gets to tell me what type of light under which I must work in that Federal building. But when I go home at night to read my Denton Record Chronicle, I should be able to choose what type of light I use for that illumination. In 2010, the last major GE factory that manufactured the incandescent light bulb closed its doors as a result of the reckless 2007 legislation, and as a direct result 200 people lost their jobs. This wasn't the only plant to close as a result of that 2007 legislation. These policies kill jobs. It's the clearest example of how real consequences affect real people with this reckless legislation. These jobs are being sent overseas. General Electric has said that the new lights cost about 50 percent more to make in the U.S. than in China. The overregulating government policies have to stop. It would not only be better for the environment and our pocketbooks, but it would bring those jobs back to America. My amendment at the desk would give Dave his choice of light and would allow every other American to choose, yes, choose what light bulb they want to use when they are in the comfort of their own home. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

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

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

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Four years ago, the summer of 2007, the then-new Democratic majority brought legislation to our committee that included a provision that I frankly did not understand what in the world they were trying to do, a provision that would regulate the type of light bulb that every American would have to use in their home. During the markup of this bill, I was outspoken in my opposition to the language. I introduced amendment after amendment to try to modify or prevent this from happening, and over and over again I was struck down along party lines. I tried to amend the bill so that we would not have to require the use of a mercury-containing light bulb in areas where there were vulnerable populations--nurseries in hospitals, nursing homes--where it would be difficult to move the people out of the way in order to comply with the EPA's guidelines for how you would deal with accidental breakage of one of these bulbs. The bottom line is that I and every other American should be permitted, should be allowed to determine what type of light bulb we use at home. It seems so simple. Whatever happened to government with the consent of the governed? But now the government wants to tell consumers what type of light bulb they use to read, cook, watch television, or light their garage. In fact, consumers should make that decision, and they should make that based upon what is available in the marketplace. However, we have distorted what's available in the marketplace. Proponents claim that this bill does not ban incandescent bulbs. Well, that's correct. What it does ban is the 100-watt light bulb. Let me repeat. The 2007 Energy Security Act bans the 100-watt light bulb. That's just flat wrong. Consumers should be making the decision as to whether or not they use a 100-watt bulb in their home, not bureaucrats in Washington. The new bulbs cost more. American families are already tightening their budgets. They need to be able to make the decision: Do I save on the electric bill, or do I save on the purchase of a light bulb? We should not be picking winners and losers in the United States Congress. Now, I'm a strong supporter of energy efficiency. I do an energy efficiency summit every summer in my district. I did one last weekend. I invite speakers to talking about what businesses and constituents can do to conserve energy. I drive a hybrid. I have taken steps to make my home more efficient. But I've done all of this because it was the right thing to do, and I purchased those things on the open market because they made sense to me and my family, not because the Federal Government or even the gentleman from Massachusetts told me that this was what I should be doing. The American people should be able to choose what type of light bulb they use in their home. They should not be constrained to all of the romance of a Soviet stairwell when they go home in the evening. Look, I work in a Federal building. I understand that in a Federal building I'm going to work under fluorescent light. I get that. But when I go home at night, I should be able to read my paper by the light of an incandescent bulb if that is my choice. I purchase other things, and I'm able to make an adult choice about that. I should be able to make the choice about what wavelength of light to use.

Mr. BURGESS. Here's the bottom line: Those of us of a certain age under a compact fluorescent bulb, we don't look as good as we do under an incandescent bulb. Even the former chairman of my Committee of Energy and Commerce suffers from what might be called ``spectrum fatigue'' under a compact fluorescent bulb. We need to be able to have the type of bulb that Americans choose, not that Congress chooses.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the life of Louis Beecherl, a great Dallas businessman, political activist, philanthropist, and community servant. Mr. Beecherl, who passed away on July 5th, 2011, was a founding member and CEO of Texas Oil & Gas Corp. from 1957-1977, was appointed chairman of the University of Texas Board of Regents in 1987, and was most recently the owner of Beechrel Holdings. In 2002, Mr. Beecherl was inducted into the Texas Business Hall of Fame and is recognized as being a leader in expanding Texas' economy. He also devoted his time and resources as a GOP benefactor, supporting various political campaigns, and the National Republican Congressional Committee. Furthermore, Mr. Beecherl will be remembered as a community servant and has been involved in countless organizations. He has served as President of the Boy Scouts of America Circle Ten Council, was as an Advisory Board Member of the Salvation Army in Dallas County, and has served as the Chair of the Young Men's Christian Association (YMCA) Capital Campaign Advisory Committee. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I rise to remember the life of Louis Beecherl; a great Texan, businessman, and above all, a devoted husband and father. It is my privilege to have this opportunity to honor his life and legacy.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor a very special constituent of the 26th District of Texas, Georgia Caraway. After 13 years of service as the Executive Director of the Denton County Museums, Mrs. Caraway will retire later this month. As Executive Director, Mrs. Caraway's professionalism and dedication has greatly impacted her community; she has spent her career striving to preserve Denton County's history through projects such as the Courthouse-on-the-Square Museum and the establishment of Denton County's Historical Park. Mrs. Caraway believes her greatest accomplishment was the founding of the Denton County African American Museum. Through her astute leadership and cooperative fundraising efforts, she enabled the restoration of the county's museums and saved taxpayers thousands of dollars. In addition to her work with the museums, she has also helped complete a series of historical photography books that commemorate Denton County, and she hopes these achievements will encourage others to remember the county's origins and history. Mrs. Caraway has left a lasting legacy in Denton County through her work. I thank Mrs. Caraway for her service and am proud to represent her in Congress.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to bring your attention to the front page of USA Today. The story is titled, ``Medicaid Payments Go Under the Knife.'' This is an issue that, unfortunately, is going to continue to get worse. Medicaid isn't just going under the knife; it's being slashed. The simple truth is that Medicaid has become a coverage without access and only an empty promise for the people who arguably may legitimately need its services. And the Affordable Care Act is only going to exacerbate the problem with patient access to physicians. The new health care law has changed what was a program that was designed for the poorest of the poor, pregnant women, children, and the elderly, and turned it into a one-size-fits-all government program. States will add 16 million new people to the program, millions of younger adults, putting an even greater strain on the State budgets. The health care law never addressed the root problem. We need to ensure that Medicaid spending is directed in a fashion that provides an actual safety net for those in need and allows States to create a range of products to give Medicaid patients access to their physicians and better care. We actually need to get back to the basics. And it is essential that we examine Medicaid and realize the ramifications before our States sink even deeper into a budgetary crisis.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of a remarkable public servant, Brenda Gormley. Mrs. Gormley is from Lewisville, and was awarded the first annual Jack Colley Award for Volunteerism, the highest state-wide honor given to a volunteer by Texas's Citizen Corps Council. The award is given to a volunteer who shows unwavering dedication, self-sacrifice, and service to the State of Texas, qualities exhibited by the late Chief Jack Colley, head of the Texas Division of Emergency Management from 1998-2010, for whom the award is named. As the Denton County Emergency Services Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) Volunteer Coordinator, Mrs. Gormley volunteers an average of 50 hours a week, and has trained over 1,000 community volunteers. She also serves as the Secretary for the Denton County Citizen Corps Council, teaches two Teen CERT courses per semester, and was recently the chair of the North Texas Regional Citizen Corps Council. In 2009, the Denton County Citizen Corps Council received the National Award for Outstanding Citizen Corps Council under her leadership as chair. Furthermore, Mrs. Gormley is a cancer survivor, has undergone quadruple bypass surgery and two complete hip replacements, and lives with a progressive bone fusing condition, all of which make her volunteer efforts even more extraordinary. The Jack Colley Award for Volunteerism recognizes the efforts of outstanding community volunteers. Mrs. Gormley has given her time above and beyond expectations, and it is my honor to recognize her and represent her in Congress.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to commemorate the 175th anniversary of the National Library of Medicine. What began in 1836 as a small collection of medical books on a shelf in the library of the U.S. Army Surgeon General is now the world's largest biomedical library. The National Library of Medicine, part of the National Institutes of Health, is located in Bethesda, Maryland. Today, the National Library of Medicine is much more than a collection of books. The National Library of Medicine is dedicated to the innovative use of communications and medical information to enhance public access and understanding of human health as well as to provide valuable information resources for medical research. Whether it is serving to facilitate advances in medical technology, empowering the public to play an active role in managing health and health care, developing groundbreaking electronic health records, or responding to national emergencies with disaster management research, the National Library of Medicine is the world's most trusted resource for health information and innovation. This historic anniversary is an opportunity to recognize the valuable contributions the National Library of Medicine has made to scientific discovery, health care delivery, and public health response. It is with great honor that I congratulate the National Library of Medicine on 175 years of excellence in medical and health information and look forward to seeing the positive effects its continuing innovation will have in the future.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in recognition of our youth who show an outstanding capacity for service. In particular, I would like to commend the achievements of Brooks Byers of Flower Mound, Texas. Mr. Byers is the newest winner of The Congressional Award Gold Medal, Congress's only and very prestigious award for youth. Earning the Gold Medal requires great commitment and devotion to service; each award-winner must spend two or more years completing more than 400 hours of community service Mr. Byers's service projects included organizing youth tennis camps and gift-wrapping fundraisers to raise more than $3,000 for Susan G. Komen for the Cure, tutoring at- risk children each week and raising money for their after-school program through a book drive, and organizing homecoming celebrations for soldiers each weekend as part of the Welcome Home a Hero Program. Mr. Byers's accomplishments do not end here. The Congressional Award Gold Medal also requires participants to complete 200 hours of personal development and physical fitness activities, which Brooks fulfilled through a junior golf league and his high school's tennis team. For the Expedition part of the Gold Medal program, Brooks planned a trip to enrich his understanding of ancient European history in Scotland and France. The Congressional Award Gold Medal recognizes youth who show great initiative and an inspiring ability to reach complex, self-imposed goals. This experience, what Mr. Byers himself calls ``transformative'', shows an incredible commitment to excellence and the principles of our country's future leaders. It is an honor for me to have the opportunity to recognize and represent Mr. Brooks Byers.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in recognition of the Morton Museum of Cooke County in Gainesville, Texas. I am proud to announce that this small local history museum, which has been serving the historical curiosity of the public since 1968, is one of the newest participants in the 2011 Conservation Assessment Program (CAP), a program administered by the Heritage Preservation and funded through the Institute of Museum and Library Services. CAP is a technical assistance program that, for over twenty years, has been helping small museums that lack conservators or building experts of their own to improve their collections care efforts in terms of their individual budget, staffing, and fundraising capacities. The Morton Museum is one of only five museums in Texas selected for this prestigious grant, and one of only one hundred museums nationwide. With its participation in the Conservation Assessment Program, the museum will receive a professional site visit for assessment and prioritized recommendations for improvements. Together, CAP and the Morton Museum are working hard to ensure an enriching experience for all who visit the museum. It is not only an honor for the Morton Museum to be selected to participate in this program, but it is also an honor for me to have the opportunity to represent the museum and the people who work so hard to maintain its tradition of excellence in the 26th District of Texas. I commend the Morton Museum's continuing efforts to improve and serve the people and visitors of Cooke County.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, as Co-Chair of the Congressional Motorcycle Safety Caucus I rise to recognize Ride to Work Day. Since 1992, this event has been organized by the Ride to Work organization and is intended to increase public awareness of motorcyclists; promote the use of bikes as consistent methods of transportation; and increase motorcycle safety. This year, on June 20th more than a million riders will commute to work on their motorcycles and scooters. This annual event offers riders an opportunity to highlight motorcycles and scooters as viable, fun, and fuel-efficient modes of transportation. In 2008, more than 25 million Americans operated a motorcycle at least once--and that number is expected to rise as more Americans recognize motorcycles and scooters as attractive commuting options. Motorcycles and scooters can save riders money at the fuel pump, and help to reduce our nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil, as motorcycles are considerably more fuel-efficient than most other vehicles. As more Americans choose two wheels over four it becomes even more important to focus on motorcycle safety. As a doctor I know how important safety is when riding and sharing the roads. Riders and their machines are smaller and harder to spot--and given that motorcyclists make up a relatively small percentage of all road users, drivers often do not expect to encounter motorcycles. It is therefore important that we take every opportunity to remind all road users to be aware on Ride to Work Day and every day.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the memory of two of Denton County's most esteemed spiritual leaders, Reverend L.E. Lawson and Monsignor Charles King. Both Reverend Lawson and Monsignor King devoted their lives to serving their respective congregations and compassionately working to improve the lives of the less fortunate in the Denton community. Reverend Lawson, who passed away May 22nd, spent the last 26 of his 52 years in the ministry as pastor of Denton's Mount Cavalry Baptist Church, during which time he baptized, married, and performed the burials of generations of church members. Reverend Lawson loyally tended to the spiritual needs of the community in which he immersed himself. Monsignor King, who passed away June 1st and just a week after the Reverend Lawson, served 10 of his 54 ministry years at Denton's Immaculate Conception Catholic Church, but left an equally lasting mark of leadership and compassion on his congregation and his community. The two men's spiritual work represented different branches of Christianity. Monsignor King's Catholic Church is a centuries-old world religion of grandeur while Reverend Lawson hailed from the much humbler African-American Baptist church. In the end, however, their paths ultimately led to interchangeable legacies that reflect both men's never-ceasing dedication to the Christian faith and the Denton community. Comments from members of both congregations in Reverend Lawson's and Monsignor King's obituaries could be applied to either man. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to commemorate the exemplary lives of Reverend L.E. Lawson and Monsignor Charles King. With the passing of these men, Denton has lost more than a century of spiritual direction and service. Their passion and enthusiasm for their faith and their fellow man, however, will always be remembered.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the contributions of Dr. Marion Jackson Brooks, an individual fondly known as ``Dr. Jack,'' a name not only synonymous with medical care among Fort Worth's African-American community, but also the community at large. As a lifelong resident of the City of Fort Worth, he was a devoted family man, a generous and caring physician, a tireless advocate for social justice and a steadfast friend. His legacy of community service has been immortalized in Fort Worth through the naming of the Tarrant County Health Building in his honor. Jack Brooks was the third of four boys born to Roy and Eula Brooks, graduating from I.M. Terrell High School in 1936. A born leader, he became commander of the ROTC while attending Prairie View A & M College, a service that presaged his role in World War II as an army First Lieutenant. On Christmas Day, 1945, Jack married the former Marie Louise Norris and shortly thereafter moved to Washington D.C. where he received an honorable discharge and enrolled in Medical School at Howard University. He graduated 5th in the medical school class in 1951 and returned to Fort Worth with his wife and four children to begin practicing medicine in Fort Worth's black business district. From this vantage point, he recognized the broad needs of his community beyond the delivery and access to quality health care and encouraged and helped politically organize the African-American community through dissemination of information, programs, voter registration and organization. Dr. Brooks worked toward expanding access and equality for his community. Initiatives he worked and advocated for included integration of Fort Worth's hospitals and public school district, serving as co- founder and the first president of the Sickle Cell Anemia Association of Texas, and service on boards and commissions devoted to his alma mater, Prairie View. Additionally he worked to expand economic opportunities as head of the local Urban League chapter and toward expanding political empowerment as a founding organizer of the Tarrant County Precinct Workers Council. He expanded his medical practice with his brother Donald through the establishment of the Brooks Clinic in Fort Worth's Morningside Community, a full-service medical facility in the heart of the African- American community. In this neighborhood he and his wife established a home for what had now expanded to a family of five children and organized the Morningside United Methodist Church in their living room in 1962. From this foundation he served over 30 years as Sunday school teacher. Dr. Brooks also contributed to the McDonald Branch Y.M.C.A., Free and Accepted Masons-Prince Hall, Ft. Worth Chamber of Commerce, the Ft. Worth Symphony Orchestra and served as the first African-American member of the Parks and Recreation Board of the City of Ft. Worth. He was also a professional affiliate of the Tarrant county Medical Society, American Association of Family Practice Physicians, and the National Medical Association. He was also a member of the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, NAACP and SNCC. Through his medical practice and his life, Dr. Brooks remained committed to the underrepresented and underprivileged. He accepted his role of service as a physician within the African-American community and broadened the responsibility to speak out for the rights of its citizens as an elder statesman, impacting the lives before closing his story of service to God, family and community on March 3, 2003. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to recognize Dr. Brooks contributions to the City of Fort Worth and to celebrate the naming of the Dr. Marion J. Brooks Building. He has enriched the city, county and state which I am honored to represent.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. This afternoon, the Congressional Health Care Caucus wants to talk a little bit about the future of the government's role in health care in this country. I recognize, for those of you studying your Constitution as of this very moment, you don't find the government's role for controlling health care in this country, but we will do our best to help you understand why we are where we are and perhaps where we are going with some of the Federal programs that are run by the Federal Government. Again, the Congressional Health Care Caucus, the Web site healthcaucus.org. This hour, I am grateful to the leadership of the Republican Party for the use of this hour. I and my cochair, Mr. G.T. Thompson from Pennsylvania, will be leading the discussion. We have had a lot of talk over the past 4 weeks about the future of Medicare in this country. Certainly, if you look at the three plans that are on the table right now--and I understand you may be scratching your head and saying, Wait a minute. I thought there was only one plan out there. I thought there was only the Republican plan. But the Medicare Trustees Report that was issued some 2, 2\1/2\ weeks ago, came forward and articulated how the Medicare trust fund would be exhausted in the year 2023 or 2024. This is a significant fact that right now this Congress and the White House are trying to ignore, but it can't be ignored, and that's why the responsible Republican budget passed in April would deal with this fact. One plan would be to continue on the current course and make no change at all, and that is what the trustees' report articulated. The trust fund is exhausted by 2023 or 2024. That means, then, all funds to pay for part A, part B, and part D of Medicare, hospitalizations, physician payments, and pharmaceutical payments would all come from the Federal Treasury. The trust fund would be depleted at that point. What are the implications for that? As we sit here even now and talk about things like expansion of the debt limit, the implications are that all of the funding for Medicare for the hospitalizations, for the physicians part, for the pharmaceutical part, all of the funding would come strictly out of the general revenues, that part that is paid by the taxpayers every year. Are there things that could be done under the trustees' report to prevent this from happening? There are. And one of those things would be to raise the tax on the payroll tax that is paid by individuals for their Medicare. All of us pay a 1.2 percent tax. The employer matches with a similar amount, so that comes out of our paychecks every 2 weeks or every month. However we are paid, there would be a way to increase that tax to perhaps sustain Medicare farther into the future. But I must remind the Speaker that this law, which was signed by the President in March of 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, already had a Medicare tax increase included therein. So there is a .9 percent Medicare payroll tax that is included in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which leaves us very little room to maneuver unless the payroll tax goes up even further. Many people argue that the payroll taxes are some of the least progressive and most regressive taxes in this country because they are administered across the board without regard to income, so this is a potential problem. It is one that perhaps could have been solved with a payroll tax increase, but that payroll tax increase has already occurred. You say, well, but okay, if there is a payroll tax increase in the Medicare trust fund, that's good news, because that means that Medicare goes on farther. Unfortunately, under this law, the money that is taxed on the payroll, collected by the Medicare trust fund, makes a very short stop in the Medicare trust fund and then goes to fund a very different program, a program that, in fact, does not exist today but will start in 2014, a program of subsidies for entitlement for people to purchase private health insurance in the non-Medicare years in what are called the State exchanges. So the money goes from the Medicare trust fund to fund a new entitlement. That money will have to be paid back to the Medicare trust fund, make no mistake about it. It is money that we are borrowing from ourselves, but it is not money that is there to save Medicare today. But as the administration argues that, hey, within the Affordable Care Act we have already done some things to sustain Medicare into the future, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, they have probably poured gasoline on the fire that was already in existence. One of the other things the trustees' report suggested was that benefits could be cut in the future. And I daresay that if nothing else happens and we get to the point where the trust fund is exhausted, those benefit cuts will be enacted not by this Congress, not by the next Congress, but by some Congress in the future, because of the intergenerational strife that will occur because of the inability to keep pace with the problems that were made by generations before, with generations yet to come. The unfunded liabilities in the Medicare trust fund will soon begin to outstrip every other activity of the Federal Government. That is, there will be no money left for defense, no money left for transportation, no money left for education. All of it will go into health care in some way, shape, or form. Well, did the President have a plan for sustaining Medicare? Well, yes. You heard about the tax that he already enacted in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, but that may not have been so helpful. In fact, that may have been more detrimental. What other things has the President put out there on the table as a plan for saving Medicare? Now, bear in mind, there is no Presidential plan to save Medicare. We have encouraged the White House to provide us with such a framework. We would like to see such a framework. They could send it over to the Congressional Budget Office and have it scored, have it compared to Republican proposals that are out there, but this ask has not yet been honored. So, as a consequence, what we are left with are the bits and pieces that the White House has articulated, the administration has articulated: Here is our plan for Medicare. One of the big plans they have for Medicare is contained within the pages of the compilation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, on page 423, where it talks about a new board that is created that is going to administer Medicare costs. This is the Independent Payment Advisory Board. Who will these individuals be? Well, they will be 15 in number. They will be nominated by the President. They will be confirmed by the Senate. They are to be made up of academics, of people who have worked in government, people who have expertise in health finance and economics and actuarial science, health facility management, health plans, and integrated delivery systems. And way, way down at the bottom of the page, yes, you might get a doctor or nurse on that board as well. Fifteen people that are paid by the government to do nothing but identify cuts in the Medicare system. Well, perhaps that's a good thing. Perhaps that's something that's necessary. Now, look, I am a Member of the United States Congress. The Speaker is a Member of the United States Congress. We are the people's House. It is our job to deal with the people's money, to tax the people, to raise the money, to spend the money and be good stewards of the people's money. It is not our job to hand off that obligation to the executive branch or, worse yet, to a board that is appointed by the executive branch and is accountable to no one. It is not our job to do that. It is our job to have the oversight over the Federal agencies and boards so that we can ensure that things are done properly with the people's money. In this case, the Independent Payment Advisory Board will be just that. It will be absolutely independent of the legislative branch. Once an action is taken by the Independent Payment Advisory Board, it becomes very, very difficult for Congress to impact the decisions that are thereby made. Now, true enough, their job is to deliver back to the House and the Senate their recommendations for cuts in the Medicare system, and it's very detailed in here on those pages as to just how much they are required to cut. It's very detailed as to the procedure for bringing those cuts to the House and the Senate and which committees they go to for evaluation. But here's the deal. At the end of the day, Congress either votes up or down on this menu of cuts that's provided by the Independent Payment Advisory Board. And, yes, we can vote ``no.'' Yes, we can turn down the recommendation of the Independent Payment Advisory Board. What happens then? According to statute, we are not finished. Congress then is required to produce the same level of cuts that was recommended by the board, maybe taking it from different places. But still the same amount of money has to come out of the same Federal program, that is, the Medicare program. Well, what if Congress gets together and says, ``We don't like what the board has delivered to us. We're going to produce a different menu of cuts''? But then, wouldn't you know it; Congress can't agree on what those cuts should be. I know, I know, Madam Speaker, you'll find that hard to believe that Congress could ever get to a point where it didn't agree with itself on very much, but it could happen at some point in the future that things could be so contentious in Washington and so contentious in the House and the Senate that we couldn't agree with each other on what those cuts would be. Well, what happens then? What happens then is the cuts recommended by the Independent Payment Advisory Board are, in fact, delivered to the Secretary of Health and Human Services; and that person, whoever he or she may be, the following April, will enact those cuts. There is no getting away once those cuts are recommended. Again, they are dictated in statute. Once they are recommended, they are going to be enacted. There is almost no way around that. We've got kind of a similar situation today with a different formula that deals with only part B. That's only the part that reimburses physicians. It's called the sustainable growth rate formula. It is a very complex set of figures and numbers that deals with some Federal targets, that deals with conversion factors, and that deals with update adjustment factors. But suffice it to say that it requires a reduction in reimbursement for patients' visits to doctors, and it does this every year. Now, Congress, historically, has come in at the last minute and rolled those cuts back and said that we won't enact those cuts. The problem is, with the formula as written, every year that we come in and say, ``okay, doctors and patients, we're not going to actually cut reimbursement rates this year,'' that aggregate number that should have been cut is added to the sum that ultimately must be cut. So, right now, we are existing on a gift, if you will, done in the lame-duck session of the last Congress where the cuts in Medicare were given a 13-month reprieve. But, if Congress doesn't act by December or January, December of this year or January of 2012, an almost 30 percent cut goes to physicians who practice in the part B part of Medicare. Now, I know you can say, well, doctors probably make too much money anyway and the government needs to save money, so what could that hurt? Where that hurts is that doctors are having a tough enough time keeping up with their expenses. When we cut them 30 percent, the nurse that works in the front office or the company that delivers the electricity that keeps the lights on in their practice doesn't say, ``Gee, Doc. We know you're having a tough time and the government cut your reimbursement, so we're going to give you a break on your electricity bill.'' That does not happen. The good people in the municipality that allow the doctor to practice don't come up and say, ``Doctor, we know this is tough on you. We're going to give you a 30 percent reduction in your school taxes this year on your business property.'' That does not happen. Those fixed overhead expenses occur, and the Federal reimbursement rate for Medicare in the part B program reduces year over year. That is why you have doctors leaving the Medicare program. As a consequence, that is why you have people who are entering the Medicare program, turning 65 or older, who move to a new location, call up a doctor's office and say, ``I need to be seen for my whatever,'' and the answer is, ``We are not taking new Medicare patients.'' That unfortunate reality is hitting people today. The Independent Payment Advisory Board is theoretical. That's in the future. The SGR is the ``here and now'' that Congress is dealing with even this year. Now, I'm very fortunate to have been joined by my counterpart on the Congressional Health Care Caucus. Again, healthcare.org is the Web site. Glenn Thompson from Pennsylvania, thank you for being with us this afternoon. Let me yield to you such time as you might consume.

Mr. BURGESS. Well said, because that is exactly the point of this exercise this afternoon. These are difficult concepts. They are very easy to demagogue; they are very easy to demagogue against the Republican plan. The President himself may choose to do this. Certainly the Democratic leadership in this House has chosen to do that. They do that in the absence of putting forward their own plan. But let's be realistic. We talk about things like premium support. Now, in the 1990s, I'm just a regular guy practicing OB-GYN in Texas, and President Clinton recognizes that Medicare is going to be headed for difficulty in a few years. He convenes a big commission, the bipartisan Medicare commission that is going to save Medicare. Senator Frist, who at the time was relatively new in the Senate, was a heart surgeon from Tennessee. At that time, he was recognized as one of the thought leaders and forward thinking in health care reform. So Senator Frist was on that commission. Senator Breaux from Louisiana, a well-respected conservative Democrat, was on the commission; Bill Thomas, who subsequently became chairman of the Ways and Means Committee in the House, was on the commission. The Breaux-Frist Commission came up with a series of recommendations to the Clinton administration on how to sustain Medicare into the future. The Breaux-Frist Commission had a number of recommendations, but the centerpiece of what they recommended to President Clinton was this concept of premium support. It was not necessarily new with them. It had previously been described by the Brookings Institute, certainly not a conservative think tank, probably regarded more as a moderate to somewhat left of center think tank, but the Brookings Institute had come up with the concept of premium support. People liked to try to describe what the Republican budget produced as a voucher system. That is, in fact, incorrect. I will tell you, I was a little bit surprised that members of the administration, when the Republican conference was called down to the White House earlier this week and had a discussion with the administration, required some instruction as to what premium support actually was and what the history of premium support actually represented: that it was in fact developed by a moderate think tank, that it was embraced by a centrist to center left Democratic administration in the Clinton administration, and that the Clinton administration essentially took this idea, evaluated it and put it on the shelf and said we are not going to consider it because there were too many special interest groups on the left who did not like the concept of Medicare moving away from central Federal control. But what premium support represents is, in this case a purchaser, in this case the United States Government, going out and negotiating with insurers, saying we have a bank of patients that is going to require care, i.e., our seniors on Medicare, and this is the type of claims history they have had for the last several years, and we would like to see if you would be interested in developing a proposal for what you can do for our patients. So it is essentially a request for proposals that goes out from the Federal Government--yes, to private health insurance companies, some for-profit, some not-for-profit. The only requirement is that they be able to show that they can take care of the patients where the government needs help with its seniors and produce a product that is going to be cost effective and is going to deliver quality care to the patients. A voucher system--and, again, I was somewhat startled that members of the administration required instruction in this regard. A voucher system would be essentially giving a check to someone and saying: Go out and negotiate and cut your best deal with an insurance company. A premium support system is the government going out, negotiating with the insurance companies and then saying: Come to us with your best proposals for taking care of Medicare patients. Some people would say: That is preposterous. That would never work. Congressman Thompson, you were not here when Medicare part D was passed. I was. Part D was built on that premise. It was let's see if there is an interest out there in providing a prescription drug benefit for seniors. Since we were criticized that no one in their right mind would provide such insurance for seniors, we had a fallback position. It was a Medicare prescription drug program exclusively, not one run through a private intermediary. The fear was there would be parts of the country that no insurance company would show up to make a proposal. What we got was, indeed, a surprise. After being criticized for several months that no one was going to show up to participate, we were criticized by the other side because people said there are too many plans out there from which seniors have to choose. In the State of Texas, there were 45 plans available subscribing at different rates. You could pick the one that most consistently met your needs for a prescription drug program. But it really was a pleasant surprise. Because of the competition between so many plans, the prices were vastly under what had been projected by both the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget, and one of those few programs that came in on time and under budget where the satisfaction rate is in excess of 94 percent. Very few seniors today would be willing to give up their part D coverage under the Medicare prescription drug program. Yes, it has had some bumps and bruises along the way, but a lot has been learned in the process. Now the concept of premium support is much more developed in 2011 than it was in 2003 when the Medicare Modernization Act passed. So premium support--and again, I was surprised that members of the administration required sort of remedial learning on this. But at the end of the morning, I hope they understood better that it is not necessary to demagogue against the Republican plan because, after all, it is a reasonable plan that has been tested with Medicare part D satisfaction rates high and the cost of delivering the care under what was projected. Why in the world wouldn't we draw on that worthwhile experience? Now, what do you do about someone who is between the ages of 55 and the end of their life? What do you do with someone who has reached that point where they have basically made all of their assumptions and plans based around what the government promised they were going to do? For that individual aged 55 or older, nothing changes. I happen to fall into that age group. As Mr. Thompson alluded to, I would happily opt into the group that is going to have choices because I would rather have choices than a prescribed benefit. Nevertheless, those individuals who are 55 and older will see no change, the thought being that they have already structured their lives and their retirements based on the fact that this promise had been made. For individuals who are younger than that, when there is still time to make some adjustments in your post-work years, your retirement years, there will be a different program. Now you ask: For people who are 54 years of age and younger, is that fair to do this? Well, I think both Mr. Thompson and I have articulated what ``fair'' will look like if you don't do something. What ``fair'' will look like if you don't do something is either vastly restricted benefits, as has been recommended by the Medicare trustees, vastly restricted benefits as dictated by the Independent Payment Advisory Board, or perhaps no Medicare program at all. After all, the makeup of the voting public in 10-to 15-years' time is going to be different than what it is today, and the makeup of the voting population in 10-to 15-years' time may feel significantly different about paying 60, 65, 70, 75 percent of their paychecks in order to continue benefits that were promised by a Congress 60 years before. This type of intergenerational anxiety is just around the corner, and if we don't deal with it head on, if we don't take it as a serious responsibility, then it, indeed, could set the stage for some significant strife down the road between today's children and tomorrow's grandparents. That is why it is so important that we address this situation today. G.T., I have said what I had intended to say today. If you have any additional comments or closing thoughts, we'll wind down this hour a little early.

Mr. BURGESS. I think we'll look forward to having similar discussions in the future, probably frequently, because it's important that we not just have the debate with both sides of the Chamber. It's also important that we have the conversation with the American people. I would remind people that the Republican budget that was passed in April was an aspirational document. It wasn't terribly long. If you look at something that becomes an actual law, it can get fairly long and intricate, but the budget was an aspirational document that set the goals. In 10-years' time, we want to see Medicare on a sustainable path. We want to preserve, protect and defend it for the future, and this aspirational document sets the pathway for achieving that goal. All of the work that will be done to actually develop the legislative product will be done in the committees that Mr. Thompson and I are on in the House and that Members of the other body are on in the Senate. The actual work will be done on those committees, and there will be ample opportunity for people to comment, for people to contact their legislators. There will be periods of open comment at the Federal agencies as those laws are written. They won't be written in the next couple of months. They will be written over the next several years. The point I would end with is that we are entering a phase of a long conversation with the American people about what the future of this program is, which arguably has been a good program in the past but, left untouched, is headed for some significant problems in the future. So what is the forward-looking path for our Medicare system and for our seniors of both today and tomorrow? It will be a long conversation, but we are both up to it, and we can talk for a long time without pausing. I look forward to working with you on many afternoons on this very subject. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Steve Simmons for his years of service to the State of Texas. Mr. Simmons worked as the Deputy Executive Director for the Texas Department of Transportation since 2001. After earning his degree in civil engineering from the University of Houston in 1981, he began his career with TxDOT as a project manager in 1982. He then went on to serve as the deputy district engineer for TxDOT's Houston District and was named the Forth Worth district engineer in 1998. During this time he also served on the Regional Transportation Council of the North Texas Council of Governments. Under Mr. Simmons' leadership, the Fort Worth District received the Design Excellence Award for a Metropolitan District in 1998, 1999 and 2000. Mr. Simmons' service also includes time on the civil engineering advisory boards for the University of Houston and the University of Texas at Arlington. Mr. Simmons received the University of Houston's Engineering Alumni Association's Distinguished Young Engineering Alumnus Award in 1997 and the Distinguished Engineering Alumnus Award in 2005, making him the first University of Houston graduate to attain both awards. He was one of the university's inaugural inductees into the Cullen College of Engineering's Academy of Distinguished Civil and Environmental Engineers. His ability to help make projects a success dates back to his youth when he earned the rank of Eagle Scout. There are numerous transportation projects in the 26th District and I have been grateful for the efforts of Mr. Simmons. Whether weighing in on a highway in need of expansion or coming to North Texas to update my constituents on the state of our transportation system, his willingness to serve has equaled his professionalism. It is with great honor that I recognize Steve Simmons for his years of hard work and dedication given to the citizens of Texas.