Accountability of Congress

ACCOUNTABILITY OF CONGRESS -- (House of Representatives - November 09, 2005)

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to go out of order and address the House for 5 minutes.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania). Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?

There was no objection.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) is recognized for 5 mintes.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, indeed, tomorrow this House will hear the debate on the budget resolution, and I think the country needs to hear the debate. I think the country needs to see that all of us in Congress, on both sides of aisle, are accountable. They need to see that we are results driven. We are results oriented, and they need to see some success from this body.

Now, our commitment, my commitment is to the hard-working Americans who pay taxes in this country. I think we have an obligation to the taxpayers of this country to redesign government when necessary, to reform programs if they are not working well, and always ensure that those Federal programs, those Federal agencies are working at peak performance.

Mr. Speaker, it would not be saying too much to say we need to rebuild some confidence in America. If we can cut some red tape then I think we should. Where local solutions will work, we need to empower local authorities to envision and utilize those solutions. The Secretary of Health and Human Services was addressing our committee yesterday and talked about preparation for pandemic flu and he was challenged and someone said, Mr. Secretary, you need to have a plan. Do not let the local people have to come up with a plan. And the Secretary does have a plan. But he said, local activities are going to be important as well. You do not need the Secretary of HHS telling every school district across the country when they can and cannot open their doors.

I could not agree with him more. Mr. Speaker, we need to modernize some of our Federal programs, where we are using tin-can telephones when the rest of the world is using satellite communications, and it is not right. We need to reform government. We need to set priorities. And sometimes that means making some tough choices. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, we need to learn from the past, learn from the past, whether it be the Spanish flu outbreak of 1918, learn from the past of previous wars this country has fought; but along those same lines, we need to utilize that information from the past to plan for our future.

Now, Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, 2 weeks ago, my committee, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, spent 3 days, 3 days on a markup to produce a plan, a plan that reforms government and leads to greater value for dollars spent, particularly in the Medicaid program. We held hearings through the spring and the summer leading up to this legislation. We heard testimony from Members; leaders of the National Governors Association, a body of 35 bipartisan Governors in this country, who came to us with a set of principles and said we had a lot of ideas that we put out on the table, but here are seven things that everyone of us, 35 out of 35 agreed upon.

And, Mr. Speaker, we crafted legislation that incorporated at least six of those seven principles. We left out some judicial reforms that I would have liked to have seen in the bill, but maybe that is for another day. But those other reforms were crafted in legislation and then we spent 3 days, 3 days on the Committee of Energy and Commerce talking about that.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, I think we have crafted a legislation that is going to save Medicaid for the poor, the truly infirm, the people that really need it in this country. The default position was to see more and more people turned off the Medicaid roles by the States as they could know longer afford to keep up with the expenditures in Medicaid. So we are going to provide more services. And maybe we are going to deliver a little greater value. And, Mr. Speaker, if that means that a few dollars are saved in the process, well, I am all for that.

But consider the numbers involved here. Medicaid, with no reform, is going to grow at a rate of 7.3 percent over the next 5 years. With the reforms we put in place, Medicaid is going to grow at a rate of 7 percent over the next 5 years. We are talking about a miniscule amount of savings by adding some value to the program as it exists today. As a consequence, more patients will be served by this program.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I know, because I sat in that markup for 3 days, I know right now it is popular to vilify the productive segment of American society. I have heard it done from every angle. There is angst, genuine angst over reinvesting in the productive segment of American society. We hear it all the time, why $55 billion was given to people who really do not need it.

But, Mr. Speaker, those are the taxpayers. Those are the people who create the jobs. I know, because I was one three short years ago. That 38 percent tax rate I paid on my business allowed me to employ 50 people in my town of Lewisville, Texas. It allowed me to purchase equipment for my practice. But what do we hear out of the other side? They want that $55 billion back, but that $55 billion that we reinvested produced $262 billion for the American Treasury this year in additional tax revenue. So they would have to double the tax and double it again to even approach the amount of money.

Well, this is the default position on the other side. This fall is not the time for Democrats to roll out positive agenda, said a House Democrat aide. That is a shame. We need their ideas. We need their enthusiasm. We need their energy. I look forward to this debate tomorrow. I think at the end of the day we are going to have a good product for the American people.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov