|
Rep. Burgess Announces 2005 Academy Appointees
Posted by on June 22, 2005
U.S. Rep. Michael C. Burgess, R-Flower Mound, is proud to announce that the following outstanding young people have accepted appointments to one of our nation’s service academies. Recently, at his Lewisville District Office and at his Town Hall meeting in Richland Hills, Rep. Burgess presented the appointees with a Special Certificate of Congressional Recognition and a flag flown over the U.S. Capitol in honor of their appointment.
"I was pleased to nominate these incredible young men and women who will be the future leaders of our armed forces and America,” stated Rep. Michael Burgess. “I am even more delighted that they have accepted this challenge."
Students requesting appointments to the U.S. Service Academies are evaluated on a variety of criteria including academic background, physical abilities, personal recommendations, and an evaluation, interview and ranking by the Academy Advisory Board.
U.S. Military Academy at West Point, NY
Stephen Barnes, a recent graduate of American Heritage Academy – Carrollton, is the son of Mr. Andy and Dr. Kathy Barnes.
Johnathan Dietz, a recent graduate of Prosper High School, is the son of Mr. & Mrs. James Dietz.
U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis, MD
Tim Boyce, a recent graduate of Flower Mound High School, is the son of Mr. & Mrs. Timothy Boyce.
Adam Gaston, a recent graduate of Newman Smith High School – Carrollton, is the son of Mr. & Mrs. Tyner Gaston.
Andrew Knudson, a recent graduate of Flower Mound High School, is the son of Mr. & Mrs. Steve Knudson.
Andrew Konosky, of Bedford, a recent graduate of Trinity High School – Euless, is the son of Mr. & Mrs. Carl Konosky.
Rebecca Shaw, a recent graduate of Little Elm High School, is the daughter of Mr. Thomas Shaw and Ms. Suzanne August.
Steven Shaw, a recent graduate of Little Elm High School, is the son of Mr. Thomas Shaw and Ms. Suzanne August.
Thomas Tellson of Bedford, a recent graduate of Trinity High School Euless, is the son of Mr. & Mrs. Thomas Tellson.
Nathaniel Thayer, a recent graduate of Carroll Senior High School – Southlake, is the son of Mr. & Mrs. George Thayer.
Matthew Vegel, a recent graduate of Carroll Senior High School – Southlake, is the son of Mr. & Mrs. Anton Vegel.
U.S. Air Force Academy at Colorado Springs, CO
Steven Beaulieu of Bedford, a recent graduate of Trinity High School – Euless, is the son of Mr. & Mrs. Walt Beaulieu.
Kyle Bruton of Hurst, a recent graduate of Grapevine High School, is the son of Mr. & Mrs. Steven Bruton.
Thomas Coker, of Colleyville, a student at Northwest Preparatory School – Crestline, CA, is the son of Mr. & Mrs. Donn Coker.
Jason Correll of Argyle, a student at Embry Riddle Aeronautical University – Daytona Beach, FL, is the son of Col. & Mrs. Mark Correll.
Bruce Hrabak, a recent graduate of Grapevine High School, is the son of Mr. & Mrs. Bruce Hrabak.
Jason Koller of Roanoke, a home schooled student, is the son of Mr. and Mrs. Ralph Koller.
John Lee of Bedford, a recent graduate of L.D. Bell High School - Hurst, is the son of Mr. and Mrs. James Lee.
Kris Loewecke, a recent graduate of Keller High School, is the son of Mr. & Mrs. Brian Loewecke.
Julie Luce, a recent graduate of Denton High School, is the daughter of Mr. & Mrs. Larry Luce.
U.S. Merchant Marine Academy at Kings Point, NY
Hunter Blue, a recent graduate of Hebron High School - Carrollton, is the son of Mr. & Mrs. David Blue.
Andrew Christensen, a recent graduate of Lewisville High School, is the son of Mr. Bruce Christensen and Ms. Laura Knutty.
Jerry Schroeder of Lewisville, a recent graduate of Marcus High School – Flower Mound, is the son of Mr. & Mrs. Gerald Schroeder.
Medicaid Drug Reimbursement Hearing
Posted by on June 22, 2005 Opening Statement Congressman Michael C. Burgess, M.D. Medicaid Drug Reimbursement Hearing June 22, 2005
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today, and I want to thank our witnesses from joining us here. This is an extremely timely hearing as this committee considers different options that will recognize some savings in the Medicaid program. About 10 percent of annual Medicaid expenditures come from prescription drugs, an optional benefit that all states have chosen to provide to their beneficiaries. I think we can all agree that pharmaceuticals play a vital role in the practice of medicine today. I shudder to think how my grandfather would treat patients decades ago without the benefit of pharmaceuticals. A drug program is a necessary component of the Medicaid program, just as this Congress determined it was a necessary component to add to the Medicare program just over 18 months ago. That said, we need to get a handle on how drugs are paid for in the Medicaid program. The dizzying system of Medicaid pricing uses no standardized benchmark and is complicated by a maze of differing co-payments and dispensing fees. I believe that we need a better benchmark for drug pricing than Average Wholesale Price. An alternative system to the current one needs to be fair to the pharmacists and the manufacturer, but the health needs of the beneficiary should be our primary concern. I look forward to the testimony here today. Thank you and I yield back.
United Nations Oil-for-Food Program: A Review of the 661 Sanctions Committee
Posted by on June 21, 2005 Statement by the Honorable Michael Burgess, MD The United Nations Oil-for-Food Program: A Review of the 661 Sanctions Committee June 21, 2005
Thank you Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this important hearing. As we all know, the United Nations originally established the Oil-for-Food program for the noble cause of aiding and providing for the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people trapped under Saddam Hussein’s regimen. This program was quickly warped into a financial scandal of epic proportions. It has turned into an international crisis, and I sincerely hope that this committee will continue its oversight regarding this serious matter. At our last hearing we focused on the Hussein’s Regime use of oil allocations to accentuate divisions within the U.N. Security Council as a means of undermining sanctions. I look forward today to examining these divisions from the perspective of individuals who actually worked within the 661 Committee. Particularly, I would like to discuss if there were divisions among the Permanent Member States within the 661Committee concerning the Oil-for-Food program. Also, I would like to examine whether certain Permanent Member States resisted remedial efforts to eliminate many of the abuses of the Oil-for-Food program perpetrated by the Regime. I realize that these concerns may have to be further addressed during the closed session, but I look forward to getting to the bottom of this grave issue. Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this hearing on this crucial investigation.
Burgess Votes for Stronger Department of Defense
Posted by Michelle Stein on June 20, 2005
Congressman Michael C. Burgess (TX-26) voted in favor of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year (FY) 2006 providing $408.9 billion. This is roughly 3.1 percent more than appropriated in the last fiscal cycle.
“The number one priority for Members of Congress is to ensure America’s safety at home and abroad,” stated Congressman Michael C. Burgess. “This year’s Defense Appropriations bill is a strong statement of our commitment to our soldiers and to anyone who supports global democracy.”
Locally, Congressman Michael Burgess ensures that the University of North Texas (UNT) receives continued funding for the Advanced Research and Technology Institute. In the House version of the FY06 Defense Appropriations, UNT will receive $4.6 million. To date, Representative Burgess has secured $9 million for the center.
The House Department of Defense (DoD) Appropriations Act, H.R. 2863, passed by a vote of 398-19. The Senate will take up its own DoD Appropriations bill, and the differences will be decided in conference.
Details from the appropriations bill:
Military Personnel $84.1 billion
Operation and Maintenance $116.1 billion
Procurement $76.8 billion
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation $71.7 billion
Revolving and Management Funds $2.8 billion
Other Department of Defense Programs $2.5 billion
Emergency Wartime Appropriation $45.3 billion
Troop Support: Fully funds the 3.1% military pay raise and end strength requirements proposed in President George Bush's budget. There was also an increase of $20 million for the military’s Family Advocacy program to fight domestic violence.
Bridge Fund: The bill includes $45.3 billion in emergency funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, available on October 1, 2005. The fund is designed to cover 6 months worth of contingency operations costs in the global war on terrorism. The majority of this funding – $36.7 billion, or 80% – is provided for military pay and operation and maintenance accounts. Funds are also provided for the following:
Replacement of equipment losses: Approximately $2.8 billion is added to procurement accounts for Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force equipment due to wartime losses and degradation. This includes funding for additional Humvees, trucks, radios, electronic jammers, Tomahawk cruise missiles and ammunition.
Personnel protection items: An additional $1.2 billion is provided for personnel force protection items and gears for troops in the field such as body armor.
Insurance and Death Gratuities: A total of $230 million is provided to cover costs of the enhanced insurance and death gratuity benefits approved in the FY 2005 war supplemental.
Army Reset: The recommendations propose a total of $2.9 billion for Army equipment rehabilitation (unit and depot maintenance).
Other Items: Authority is provided for the Iraq and Afghanistan security force training programs, as well as the Commander’s Emergency Response program (CERP), to receive $500 million. Recruiting and retention activities are allocated $735 million.
Army Ground Systems: The Army’s Future Combat System (FCS) research and development program is funded at $3.0 billion. The Non-Line of Sight Cannon (NLOS) program would receive an increase of $50 million. The Stryker vehicle program is fully funded at the requested level of $878 million for 240 vehicles.
Navy Shipbuilding: The President’s request included funding for 4 ships: one Virginia-class submarine, one LPD-17 amphibious ship, one Littoral Combat ship (LCS), and one T-AKE cargo ship. The recommendations fully fund these and add 4 additional ships: one DDG-51 class destroyer ($1.4 billion); two LCS ships (an increase of $440 million); and one additional T-AKE ($380 million). Included is a recommendation to cut the Navy’s DD(X) destroyer program by a total of about $1 billion - the combination of a reduction of $0.7 billion for advance procurement and $0.3 billion out of R&D; $670 million would remain in R&D. The recommendation is consistent with the levels approved by the House for the DD(X) program in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006.
Navy/Marine Corps Aviation: The bill fully funds the request for 130 aircraft, including 42 F/A-18’s, compared to 115 total aircraft provided in fiscal year 2005. The bill fully funds the V-22 aircraft procurement program ($1.5 billion for 11 aircraft). The VXX Presidential helicopter replacement program is fully funded, as requested ($0.9 billion).
Air Force programs: The bill would include purchasing 25 F/A-22 aircraft, as requested, and provides $3.2 billion. The C-17 program is fully funded (15 aircraft at $3.5 billion). The bill restores funding for the C-130J multiyear procurement program by transferring funding from the Navy to the Air Force; the Air Force will procure 9 aircraft while the Navy will procure 4 tanker variants. The Joint Strike Fighter (a joint program with the Navy) is funded at almost $5 billion in R&D, as requested, but a reduction of $152 million for advance procurement is made due to development delays and since the first production aircraft will not actually be purchased until FY08. Finally, roughly $120 million is reduced from the request for Global Hawk funding due to an anticipated slowdown in the production schedule.
Missile Defense: The bill provides a total of $7.6 billion for ballistic missile defense, a decrease of $143 million from the budget request. The recommendation does, however, include additional funding for Asymmetric Warfare Initiative and S-Band radar. The Kinetic Energy Intercept program is funded at the President’s requested level of $225 million.
Space Programs: Funds most of the Administration’s request for major space programs. However, the bill makes reductions to the request for two programs; Space radar (-$126 million) and transformational communications satellite (-$400 million). Remaining funds for these programs are for research and development activities, and for activities to reduce the costs for potential future procurements.
Terminations: The bill terminates funding for the Joint Air to Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM). The President requested $150 million for the program. The bill provides $2 million to close out existing contracts. The missile has repeatedly failed reliability and performance tests.
Drug Interdiction and Counter-drug Activities: The bill provides $907 million for DOD’s counter-drug activities and to fight narcoterrorism, $11 million over the request and roughly last year’s level.
Medicaid Reform is Needed
Posted by on June 15, 2005
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, when you hear Governors talk about Medicaid , the one word they use, regardless of party or what region of the country they represent, the one word they use over and over again is ``unsustainable.''
In 2005, the Medicaid program has grown to become a program that costs Federal and State governments $330 billion a year and covers 50 million beneficiaries. States grapple with the cost of the program, providers struggle to participate in Medicaid , and beneficiaries ask whether it is meeting their needs.
Mr. Speaker, if we were creating this program today, I doubt the current Medicaid system is one that any one of us would visualize. We should not shy away from reviewing this program to ensure that it is meeting its stated mandate: to provide quality care for the disabled, poor, elderly, and the frail.
Is the program meeting this mandate? In terms of sheer magnitude, the Medicaid program has become unworkable, and growth is a constant. The program cannot continue to grow at its current rate and meet the needs of those that its covers.
Oftentimes health care policy is a study in crisis management. We have come to a point with Medicaid that we will be pushed to make trade-offs. We must ensure that Medicaid serves as a true safety net, and we must have the institutional courage to review this program and make changes where necessary prior to its ultimate collapse from its own weight.
 Watch Video
Medicaid Reform: The National Governors Association’s Bipartisan Roadmap
Posted by on June 15, 2005 Opening Statement Congressman Michael C. Burgess, M.D. Medicaid Reform: The National Governors Association’s Bipartisan Roadmap June 15, 2005
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today, and I want to thank Governors Huckabee and Warner for being here today. I think we can all agree that Medicaid is a program in crisis. In 2005, the Medicaid program has grown to become a program that costs the federal and state governments $330 million a year while covering over 50 million beneficiaries. States grapple with the costs of the program, providers struggle to participate in Medicaid, and beneficiaries ask whether it is meeting their health needs. We should not shy away from reviewing this program to ensure it is meeting its stated mandate: to provide quality care for the disabled, poor, elderly, and frail. But is the program meeting this mandate? In terms of sheer magnitude, the Medicaid program has become nearly unworkable and growth is almost a constant. The program cannot continue to grow at its current rate and meet the health needs that it covers. Often times, health care policy is about identifying acceptable trade-offs. We have come to a point with Medicaid that we will be pushed to make trade-offs. We need to ensure that Medicaid serves as a true safety net and not an economic development program for states to continue to game. I look forward to the testimony here today. Thank you and I yield back.
Congressman Burgess Meets with HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt
Posted by on June 14, 2005
Last week, Congressman Michael C. Burgess met with Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Michael Leavitt. During the meeting, Rep. Burgess and Secretary Leavitt discussed critical, upcoming health care issues including Medicaid reform, the Medicare prescription drug roll out beginning in 2006, community health centers and health information technology standards.
The meeting was part of a weekly series of meetings where Congressman Burgess meets with distinguished government, political and corporate leaders to discuss the news of the day.
“With my focus on health care, I was particular honored to have time discussing a variety of subjects with Secretary Leavitt,” remarked Congressman Burgess. “Congress and the Administration must continue to work together to improve and strengthen America’s health care system. We have the best system, and I want to ensure we stay that way.”
Canada's Health Care System
Posted by on June 14, 2005
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, within the past few weeks the Canadian Supreme Court has issued an opinion that it is unconstitutional for the State of Quebec to outlaw the private practice of medicine and private health care in the State of Quebec. This is an interesting development because we are frequently told that our neighbor to the north has solved their health care problems, while the United States languishes behind.
In an editorial yesterday in the Wall Street Journal, they point out that the Canadian Supreme Court found that access to a waiting list is not the same as access to care, and, in fact, for surgery across the board, no matter what type of surgery, the waiting time is over 18 weeks in Canada, and it would be longer if the United States were not just to the south of Canada. Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit probably takes a lot of the problems of the waiting lists in Toronto. Surely, those clamoring for a single payer system in this country must now rethink their position.
The Wall Street Journal points out that there are two ways to allocate goods and services. One is by price and a market-driven economy, and one is by placing people in waiting lines as in a government-run system.
Mr. Speaker, a doctor I knew from Cuba several years ago told me, sure, we have equality in our medical system in Cuba; unfortunately, that equality is absolutely at the bottom. We do not need to duplicate that here in the United States.
 Watch Video
The Freedom Flat Tax Act of 2005 (Testimony)
Posted by on June 10, 2005 The Freedom Flat Tax Act of 2005 Submitted by: U.S. Representative Michael C. Burgess (TX-26) 1721 Longworth House Office Building Washington, DC June 10, 2005 I would like to thank President Bush for his leadership on tax reform, as well as the members of this panel for their service. I believe that this is one of the most important issues facing our nation today. I am pleased to have the opportunity to offer my Freedom Flat Tax proposal to the Tax Reform Panel for consideration. I would first like to associate myself with former Majority Leader Armey's written comments, which he submitted to this panel during the May 12, 2005 hearing in Washington, DC. In 1996, long before I even considered running for Congress, I picked up a copy of Dr. Armey's book and read it from cover to cover. At that time, I believed that it was a common sense proposal and I still believe that today. I have enormous respect for Leader Armey and am grateful for his leadership on this issue. I am glad that he continues to champion for the flat tax because I believe that his expertise is invaluable to the debate. Today I offer the Freedom Flat Tax Act (H.R. 1040 in the 109th Congress) to the panel for consideration. The Freedom Flat Tax Act is a modified version of the Armey-Shelby flat tax. I have included the text of the Freedom Flat Tax Act with my written comments for your review. Rather than describe my entire proposal, which is extremely similar to the Armey-Shelby Flat Tax, I would like to describe the major differences between the two proposals. I believe that Mr. Stephen Moore, who testified before this panel on May 12, 2005, discussed the basic concept behind the Freedom Flat Tax Act of 2005. The largest difference between the Armey-Shelby Flat Tax and the Freedom Flat Tax Act is that my bill would create an optional flat tax system. It would leave it up to individual taxpayers to decide when to opt-into the flat tax. The reason that this opt-in clause is so critical can be illustrated by the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-514), which was the last time that the tax code has been reformed. As this panel knows, The Tax Reform Act of 1986 both broadened the tax base and lowered marginal rates. After its passage, people who had made financial decisions based on the tax laws of the time woke up one morning to discover that the rules had changed overnight. The sudden changes to the tax code made by the Tax Reform Act of 1986 had a significant negative impact on the energy and real estate sectors of the economy in Texas. While I believe that the best tax system is one that does not encourage individuals to make financial decisions based on the tax code, our current system does just that and we need to recognize that fact as we make changes. I believe that it is fundamentally unfair to penalize people who have played by the rules by changing the rules in the middle of the game. That is why the Freedom Flat Tax Act allows taxpayers to make a one-time, permanent election to the flat tax system. Taxpayers can either remain in the current income tax system, or they can opt into the new, streamlined and simplified flat tax system. It allows taxpayers who have bought a house with the assumption that they could deduct their home mortgage interest to decide if it would be to their financial advantage to jump to the flat tax. If it were me, I'd gladly give up my home mortgage interest deduction in order to opt into the pro-growth flat tax. But not everyone is the same. Under the Freedom Flat Tax Act, the decision to move to a single rate system would be entirely up to the individual or business, not up to the government. If someone has constructed their domestic finances, or their business finances, in a way that maximizes earnings under the current federal income tax code, they would be allowed to stay within the code. We should not penalize taxpayers for doing what we encouraged them to do in the first place. There would be no ability to move between the two systems. The Taxpayer Bill of Rights would, however, extend to flat tax electors in order to provide the "innocent spouse" protection that is provided in current law. There are other minor differences, but the proposals are otherwise very similar in concept. For example, The Freedom Flat Tax Act contains inflation-adjusted numbers for the personal exemptions and the wording of the supermajority provision, which requires a supermajority of Congress to vote in order to increase the tax rate or change the tax structure, is different than the Armey-Shelby proposal. In conclusion, I urge the panel to consider The Freedom Flat Tax Act, as well as the Armey-Shelby Flat Tax proposal. As Dr. Armey, Dr. Hall, Mr. Moore, and Mr. Forbes all discussed in their testimony to the panel, I believe that the flat tax has a lot to offer America.
Congressman Burgess Supports a Fix to HIPPA Transportation and Motorized Recreation Loophole
Posted by Michelle Stein on June 8, 2005
Today, Congressman Michael C. Burgess (TX-26) introduced legislation aimed at correcting a loophole in HIPPA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) that denies health care benefits for those who participate in legal transportation activities.
The bill will fix the current loophole that does not permit an employer to deny health coverage to an employee on the basis of their participation in a motorized recreational activity, but allows insurance companies to deny benefits for injuries sustained while participating in activities such as motorcycling, ATVing, snowmobiling or horseback riding.
“Quite simply, the bill provides health care benefits to those who have slipped through the loophole by protecting their access to substantive health care,” stated Congressman Michael C. Burgess.
With strong bipartisan support, the legislation targets clauses in health insurance contracts sometimes known as “source of injury” exclusions.
Ted Strickland (OH-6), the lead Democratic sponsor of the bill, had this to say, “It’s shameful to allow health insurers to discriminate against individuals who take part in perfectly legal hobbies, activities and transportation. Our legislation provides a common sense solution to this rule.”
“Texans have the luxury to enjoy our vast State and all of the outdoor activities it has to offer,” commented Congressman Burgess. “Just because someone wants to take a horse ride in Big Bend National Park or motorcycle around Lake Lewisville, they shouldn’t be denied health insurance benefits.”
“The AMA is excited by the opportunity to work with the great staffs of Representatives Burgess and Strickland, as well as the Energy & Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Health to close this loophole once and for all,” stated Edward Moreland, Vice-President of the American Motorcyclists Association (AMA) on the HIPAA Recreational Injury Technical Correction Act.
“We look forward to working with Congressman Burgess on this important piece of legislation as it moves through the House of Representatives,” stated Duane Taylor, Government Relations Specialist for the Motorcycle Industry Council.
|
Latest from twitter
Get the most up to date news from me on Twitter.
Five things you need to know about the #COVID19 from @DrNancyM_CDC https://t.co/SOUwnXj9AB
Katherine Johnson was a pioneer and inspiration to young women around the world. Her legacy will live on for genera… https://t.co/FwAKIYXlPk
"Entrepreneurship is the backbone of the American economy and minority-owned businesses are no exception to that fa… https://t.co/g2ReRiewHm
. @CDCgov announced an initiative to help labs in rural communities improve diagnostic excellence through… https://t.co/rMDvYlPdkt
With the announcement of another confirmed #COVID19 case, I want to thank the over 300 U.S. Public Health Commissio… https://t.co/qf9ddh9nLN