Michael Burgess

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Many people didn't notice that a little over 3 weeks ago, the Medicare Trustees Report came out and advised that the Medicare program would in be serious difficulty in the year 2023. Now you might ask, What is Congress doing about this? We have well over 10 years to react. The Republican budget that was passed a few weeks ago did indeed lay out a pathway for dealing with the problems in the future. Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership in the other body has decided not to take up any type of roadmap or pathway that may lead to a resolution of this problem. So we are left with the program that was essentially laid out by the President in the Affordable Care Act, and this program relies heavily upon a group called the Independent Payment Advisory Board: 15 people, not elected but appointed by the President, well paid to sit on a board and to deliver to Congress every year a menu of cuts in the amount of money that Medicare may spend. Now, Congress, true enough, has the ability to accept or reject this menu of cuts, but if Congress rejects it, it must come up with its own plan. If Congress does not agree--and when has that ever happened?--the Secretary of Health and Human Services will have the ability to institute those cuts as planned.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to commemorate Dr. Lee Ann Nutt and her service as a longtime leader and champion of community college initiatives at North Central Texas College. Dr. Nutt, who has served as the provost of NCTC's Corinth Campus and as the face of the university for over 10 years, will begin the next chapter of her career as the Vice President of Instruction at the Tomball Campus of Lone Star College. Dr. Nutt's educational expertise comes from both the public and private sectors, including service as the Director of Education at the New Mexico Health Care Association, various administrative positions, and college-level teaching experience at Texas Tech University and Lubbock Christian University. Her strong professional background and leadership abilities have not only enabled her to serve North Central Texas College, but also the community that surrounds it. She serves on the Board of Directors of the United Way of Denton County as well as the Denton Chamber of Commerce, and has been actively involved with the Family Resource Center of Denton County and Presbyterian Hospital. In addition, Dr. Nutt previously served on the 26th Congressional District Academy Board, providing professional advice on my selection of outstanding students to attend the U.S. Service Academies. It is an honor to have the opportunity to represent North Central Texas College and the many individuals, like Dr. Nutt, who work to educate our young people in the 26th District of Texas. I would like to thank Dr. Nutt for her valuable contributions to the Denton County community and wish her the best of luck as she continues to positively impact the lives and futures of students throughout the State of Texas.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last year.

Mr. BURGESS. I thank the Chair for the recognition. You know, if we're going to tell stories here, let's start out with ``once upon a time'' and maybe we can end with ``and they lived happily ever after.'' Whose budgetary plan puts Medicare at the most risk? Is it the responsible Republican plan that was debated on this floor for hours over a month ago? This was a plan that for the first time we had laid out for us a road map, a pathway, for how to save Medicare for people who are going to enter into the program in 20 years', 30 years' time. Now what is the plan on the other side? Well, there was no plan from House Democrats. There is no plan from the Senate Democrats. There is a plan from the President. The President laid out his aspirational budget, just as the Republicans laid out their aspirational program which was their budget, and the President's aspirational document laid out a very clear path. The President believes in 15 people, not elected by anyone but appointed by him, and their ability to control costs in the Medicare system. It was written into a bill called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. You may remember it. I have a great deal of sympathy with those on the other side who do not like the Independent Payment Advisory Board. In fact, one of their number wrote an editorial for USA Today yesterday decrying the nature of the Independent Payment Advisory Board, but the sad fact of the matter is, this is the Democratic alternative to the Republican plan to save Medicare into the next 50 years. That plan, the Democrats' plan, the President's plan, with the Independent Payment Advisory Board, says 15 people are going to be picked, they will be paid well, they will then decide where are the cuts going to occur in Medicare. Now, true enough, Congress gets an opportunity. This 15-member board will come back to the United States Congress and say, ``Here is the menu of cuts that we believe are necessary to have this year in order to keep Medicare solvent.'' By law, they have to come up with a certain dollar number of cuts. But as the President himself said in his speech to Georgetown here earlier this year, that's a floor, not a ceiling. If we need to save more money, we can go back to the Independent Payment Advisory Board and save more money. Now, Congress looks at the cuts that are brought to them by this unelected independent board and says, We don't like those cuts. Some of those cuts are going to be very damaging to poor seniors on Medicare. Do we have a choice? Yes. We can vote it up or down. If we vote it down, we have to come up with our own menu of cuts to then deliver to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. What if Congress can't agree? I know. When has that ever happened before? But what if we can't agree amongst ourselves? Do we get to do something like the doc fix that we do every year? No, we do not. That's the whole purpose of the Independent Payment Advisory Board. We cannot intervene on behalf of America's patients because the President's board has spoken. So Congress can't agree on what these cuts should be. So what do we do? We continue to fight. But guess what happens? April 15 of the next year, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, whoever he or she may be at that time, gets to institute those cuts that were brought to you by the Independent Payment Advisory Board. Now, is that a good idea? And I've heard discussion here on the floor today about $6,000. You know what? If you don't fix that sustainable growth rate formula, guess what's going to happen to every senior, rich and poor, who is on the Medicare program? Either they're not going to be able to find a doctor to care for them when they require care, or they're going to have to pay more money. How much money are they likely to pay? About $6,000 per senior. But look. The Independent Payment Advisory Board, something like that has never happened in this country. In a free society, we've got now an unelected board who is going to tell us what kind of medical care we can get, when we can get it, where we can get it, and most importantly, when you have had enough. And when they say you've had enough, that's it. No more. Dialysis, insulin. It doesn't matter. You're full. You've had your share. That is the problem with the Independent Payment Advisory Board. And Congress then becomes powerless because frequently we do disagree with each other, and if we can't come to a consensus, the Secretary makes that decision for us. And then the next year starts all over again. I've got a great deal of sympathy with my friends on the other side of the aisle because they did not include this language in their bill. And we all remember a year ago the very bad process that brought us the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act. And what was that process? It was the Senate on Christmas Eve that passed a House-passed bill that then came back over to the United States House and will the House now agree to the Senate amendment to H.R. 3590? You all remember 3590. It was a housing bill when you passed it in the summer of 2009. It was a health care bill when it came back to the House. You did not include the Independent Payment Advisory Board in H.R. 3200 for a very good reason. The reason is it's un-American, and you know it, but now you're left to defend it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call special attention to Dr. Jay Thompson. Dr. Thompson has dedicated 42 years to Birdville Independent School District. He has served in a number of capacities, including: secondary mathematics and business education teacher, junior high and high school track and football coach, high school assistant principal, assistant director in central administration, junior high and middle school principal, and director of athletics. In the course of his time at Birdville ISD, Dr. Thompson was propelled by the desire to see his students ``grow, graduate, and become successful citizens in our communities, our nation and throughout the world.'' Dr. Thompson's impact on education extends beyond the boundaries of Birdville ISD. He is an active member of the executive board of directors for the Texas Girls' Choir and has participated in the Texas School Improvement Initiative, all while serving as a peer evaluator on the Texas Education Agency accreditation teams. Before that, he functioned as a board director of the Texas High School Athletic Directors Association and served on the UIL Waiver Review Board. It is Dr. Thompson's work within the schools in conjunction with his service in the community that explains what BISD's Board President, Joe Tolbert, calls Thompson's ``rich knowledge of the district as well as the trust of the staff and community.'' As Birdville ISD prepares for his retirement, the district can take heart in the fact that Dr. Thompson will remain a stable fixture in the community. I am honored to have an opportunity to serve Dr. Thompson and all of the individuals that help to educate our young people in the 26th District of Texas. I wish him all the best as he embarks on the next chapter of what has been, thus far, quite an adventure.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call special attention to Northwest High School in Justin, Texas. Students from Northwest High School will be competing in Aerospace Industries Association's 9th annual Team America Rocketry Challenge (TARC) National finals this weekend. This competition brings students from all over the United States together to hone their skills in math and science in order to design, build, and fly a model rocket. The rocket must carry one raw egg to an altitude of exactly 750 feet, remain airborne for 40 to 45 seconds and return to the ground with the raw egg intact. With this annual competition, the Aerospace Industries Association seeks to inspire students to pursue careers in the aerospace industry. The students at Northwest High School have been working all year to prepare for this opportunity. The event holds over $60,000 in prize money, scholarships, and a trip to the Paris Air Show. I know the students of Northwest High School have spent much time and energy into this opportunity, and I wish them all the best. Regardless of the outcome, I and the rest of the 26th District of Texas are extremely proud of this impressive group of students.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate Mayor Glenn Loch of Gainesville, Texas. Mayor Loch has served at different times as both a beneficiary and champion of the American dream. In the 1960's, he came to Gainesville for the first time with his wife Helen and their new baby. They had nothing to their name but a mattress, yet with some help from the community and a willingness to work hard, Loch became first councilman and eventually Mayor all in the course of ten years. He is now the longest tenured mayor in Gainesville history, and in his work, endeavors to repay the kindness the community bestowed when he was still a stranger to them. From the time of his first term in 1974, Gainesville has undergone fantastic transformations. The downtown area, dilapidated after the oil bust of the 1980's, is now, according to Mr. Loch, ``second to none.'' He also kicked off the ``Take Pride in Gainesville'' campaign. This campaign seeks to clean up Gainesville both ``trash-wise'' and ``crime- wise.'' Initiatives in this campaign include redesigned frontage roads along both sides of Interstate Highway 35, improving access and traffic flow. Loch has continually sought to help Gainesville remain a place where people are proud to live, with thriving businesses, jobs that pay well, and an involved community of citizens. It is this ingenuity that prompted me to partner with Mayor Loch on the Pecan Creek Project. I had noticed the flooding problem in that area for years, and when Mayor Loch asked me to help him by communicating with Congress to appropriate funds for the project, I knew it was important that I take part. Since then, construction for the drainage project is underway. Additionally, Loch oversaw the acquisition of 10,800 acre feet of water rights from Lake Texoma, providing Gainesville with enough water for the next fifty years. On the threshold of Mayor Loch's retirement, I am pleased to have had the chance to speak for a moment about this inspirational man. His story, as effectively as anyone's, celebrates the true meaning of the American Dream. The American Dream is about taking opportunity by the horns. The American Dream is about working tirelessly to make the most of that opportunity. Most importantly, however, the American Dream is about paying it forward, ensuring that those down the line have the chance to do the same. It's about bringing the dream full circle. On behalf of the 26th District of Texas, I thank Mayor Loch for his service to Gainesville and the citizens of America.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act, billed as a health care bill, is actually a tax bill. It is riddled with fees and penalties that will drive up the cost of health care by imposing taxes on families and businesses. Included in the law was a tax increase on nonmedical expenditures from a health savings account. There has always been a 10 percent penalty, but now it jumps to 20 percent. In addition, beginning next year, employers who have 50 full-time employees for the previous calendar year must offer health coverage that meets the minimum essential benefit coverage requirement of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and that coverage requirement is likely to cost $52 billion over the next 10 years, hardly the way to foster job creation in an economy that desperately needs jobs. The individual mandate starts out as a tax; then it is a penalty. Oh, now it's back to a tax again. The administration creatively changed its position when it realized that the mandate was indeed a tax, even though it violated the President's own pledge during the campaign not to raise taxes on middle class Americans to pass his signature health care legislation. The taxes in the health care law will affect everyone inevitably and cannot help but drive up the cost of health care in this country.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. It's an interesting little motion to recommit, described as being benign and not changing the overall nature of the underlying legislation. So benign is the motion to recommit that it descends into the realm of being superfluous and unnecessary. It is a motion to recommit to publish the names and locations of applicants who will not receive grants. Now, look, just from this, we won't know if those grants that were not approved were just simply poorly drafted. We already have a health care law that was poorly drafted, so we know it is within the realm of someone working in the Federal Government to poorly draft an application for a school-based clinic. Washington's addiction to spending has become crystal clear to the American people, and the passage of this massive health care law by President Obama last year is exhibit A. Of the thousands of problems in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the underlying bill, H.R. 1214, addresses but one of them and a very small one at that. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act provides $200 million in mandatory funding for the construction of school-based health centers. The bill eliminates this funding as our Nation faces a mounting deficit and debt crisis. Funding for school-based health center construction may be a good idea. Maybe it's not a good idea. Maybe we should have that debate, which we didn't in the run-up to the passage of this bill. But the 111th Congress, the last Congress, did not think about it before they threw literally $200 million at the program. And, Madam Speaker, I would just point out, out of all of the so- called ``cut'' bills that are to remove the advanced appropriations in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, out of all of those bills that remove advanced appropriations, it is this small little bill that has not drawn a veto threat from the White House. Madam Speaker, that leads me to believe that the President himself was embarrassed about the language that was included in the bill on this point; and the White House, now recognizing that, is not about to go out on a limb and issue a veto threat against this bill. The motion to recommit, brought forward by the other side, shows they simply do not realize that we have a spending problem in Washington, D.C. Congress should examine if there is a need for a program, and through regular order, rather than rushing to authorize or appropriate dollars in a feel-good piece of legislation. We hear about standing with the American families. How about standing with those American families that actually pay taxes to the Federal Government for a change? I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit, ``yes'' on the underlying bill. Let's get our fiscal house back in order.

Mr. BURGESS. I yield back the balance of my time. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. BURGESS. I will withdraw my reservation.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Marcus High School in Flower Mound, Texas. The Marcus varsity boys' basketball team won the 5A UIL State Championship. The Marcus Marauders beat Garland Lakeview, 40-38, in the final to finish the season 39-1. Led by Head Coach Danny Henderson, these young men are exemplary representatives of their school and should be very proud of what they have accomplished. This is not the first time I have had the pleasure of highlighting the accomplishments of Marcus High School, and I have a sneaking suspicion that it will not be the last. With the level of teamwork and perseverance that is present in this North Texas high school, it is no wonder that they are an ``Exemplary Campus''. It is inspiring to recognize such ambitious young student athletes who are making a positive impact in our community. I am pleased to have the opportunity to represent these young men, and their classmates and teachers in the U.S. House of Representatives. Congratulations on being the 5A UIL Boys Basketball State Champions.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw the point of order.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1213 that we've had under discussion all day does nothing about preexisting conditions; therefore, this motion to recommit is irrelevant and unnecessary. Members were brought here to get runaway spending under control. Rather than help us avoid a fiscal crisis, House Democrats have brought forward a motion to recommit that is irrelevant to the points that have been made on the floor of this House today. As has been pointed out, Section 1113(a) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services an unlimited appropriation to facilitate enrollment in State health exchanges. We simply do not know how the Secretary of Health and Human Services will spend these dollars. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services has indicated that States should look to this fund to plug State budget shortfalls. Section 1311(h) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act gives the Secretary the ability to regulate which doctors can provide care through exchange plans. This fund can be used to federalize how doctors can practice medicine. Grants under 1113(a) could also be used to provide a 100 percent subsidy for premiums, driving patients out of employer-sponsored insurance. Under Section 2705, it is already prohibited for a qualified plan to discriminate, and, thus, the motion to recommit attempts to keep the spending going. Continuing to fund State-based exchanges would jeopardize taxpayer resources. Given the huge uncertainty regarding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, two Federal District Courts have struck down the law. State attorney generals have asked for an expedited review of the litigation, but the Obama administration has refused to allow that to happen. In the interim, repealing this fund is the best thing we can do to protect taxpayer resources at a time of record red ink. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. The amendment requires the Government Accountability Office to conduct a study to determine the school districts in the United States most in need of constructing or renovating school-based health centers. Actually, the amendment is refreshing. I only wish we would have had an opportunity to have this discussion in our committee a year and a half ago before the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed. This amendment underscores one of the major flaws in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Rather than conduct hearings and markups on this specific program, the school-based health center construction fund was lumped in with hundreds of other programs in a 2,700-page bill. I think the amendment will help the Congress determine whether the need exists and to quantify the target dollars in a careful manner. My only regret--my only regret--is that in the last Congress the then Democratic majority did not request this study before providing $200 million in mandatory funding for the school-based health center construction under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Congress should determine the need before authorizing and appropriating dollars. That's, after all, regular order. That's the way we are supposed to do it; not simply throw the money out after a program because we feel that it may be a good program or we believe that it may be a good program, no. We're dealing with taxpayer dollars. It is our obligation to show those dollars are going to be wisely spent and then proceed with the authorization and then the appropriation. I believe this amendment will help in that process, and I urge support of the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, the Jackson Lee amendment would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to post on the HHS public Web site a notice of the rescission of unobligated balances from the mandatory funding for school health center construction provided under section 4101(a) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and the amount of that rescission. Mr. Chairman, I support transparency in government. I actually wish there was more transparency, especially when the last Congress was putting together this new health care law. We still do not know why it is certain projects were given mandatory funding and others were determined to be discretionary programs. No explanation has been given as to why construction of these facilities is mandatory and yet the staffing remains discretionary. Paying for construction of health centers has always been the responsibility of States and localities and the Federal Government would help with the staffing. The Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act turned that long-term policy on its head. I recognize that the Democrats in the House of Representatives, now the House minority, did not write the bill. In fact, the bill was written behind closed doors in the Senate and probably at a coffee shop down by the White House. Yet no one who was in the room or at the coffee shop will explain how the bill came to be. If the author of this amendment feels that this would increase transparency, then I will support the amendment. I would hope that all Members would take the opportunity to increase transparency and demand transparency on how the backroom deals that sealed the fate of our health care system in the hands of Washington bureaucrats came to pass. Mr. Chairman, I urge an ``aye'' vote on the amendment, and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1214 and to insert extraneous material into the Record.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I'll tell you what's not rational. It's not rational to spend this money and say you're prohibited from providing care. Let's be honest. The money for construction is duplicative. It was offered up in the stimulus bill previously. So we're duplicating a previous Federal expenditure in forward funding, advance funding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. That's what doesn't make sense. A previous speaker on the Democratic side called me mindless. That is mindless. It was mindless to pass this bill over the objections of the American people, to never listen to the voices of the people that were literally ringed around this Capitol a year ago who said kill this bill. Well, now we have a chance to bring back a little bit of that spending, to bring it back into the arena in which it belongs, which is the United States House of Representatives, the people's House. The mandatory spending was not in the bill that passed this House in November of 2009. This language was put in by the United States Senate. And why was it put in by the United States Senate? Because they were playing ``Let's Make a Deal.'' They had to get to 60 votes. They didn't know how to get there. They got there by buying votes, and this small provision, someone must have sold out pretty cheaply, this small provision was one of the provisions that allowed them to do that. Again, I would remind my colleagues that you cannot use the money that is provided in 4101(a), you cannot use that money to have a doctor or a nurse in the clinic. In fact, you are expressly prohibited from that. I suspect that is why the President has not issued a veto threat on this particular piece of legislation, because he himself included no money on the discretionary side that is actually going to provide the services of a doctor or a nurse. Look, we've got one small chance to reclaim some small part of our sanity in the United States House of Representatives, in the people's House. The forward funding, the advance funding, the direct appropriations that were contained within the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act were an anathema to everything that people in this country understand about what is the role of their Federal Government. After all, they willingly give up a little bit of their rights in order to have their lives run more orderly. But they don't ask us to run roughshod over Federal spending and then claim a greater and greater share of their lives. Yes, it is unfortunate that we have had to spend all day here debating this bill. I don't dispute that fact. We should never have been here in the first place. The advance funding should never have been included in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. And why was it? Because the Democrats knew last year they never intended to do a single appropriations bill, so the only way to get this dog up and running after its passage last year was to push the appropriations out the door in the language of the bill. That's what we've got to correct right now. That's what these arguments are all about. Yes, it's going to be tough sledding in the Senate. Yes, we don't have an ally down at the White House. But the American people expect us to do this work and they want to see us do that work. I urge an ``aye'' vote on the underlying bill.

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

Mr. BURGESS. I yield myself 30 seconds. Again, let me remind people what we are talking about today. We are talking about taking away advance appropriations in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act for construction purposes--not for running the darned clinic but for construction purposes. An eligible entity shall use funds provided under a grant ordered under this subsection only for expenditures for facilities. No funds provided under a grant ordered in this section shall be used for expenditures for personnel or to provide for health services. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana, Dr. Bucshon.