Michael Burgess

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Hice) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, today's rule provides for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 1319, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. First, the House considered the budget resolution setting the budget reconciliation instructions for this massive coronavirus relief bill. Then, the House considered and passed, on a partisan basis, the budget resolution authorizing a deficit increase of nearly $2 trillion. After an all-night vote-a-rama in the Senate, the House will consider this package for the third time. Three times the House will have debated and passed a partisan package, and only 9 percent is dedicated to actually crushing the coronavirus. This isn't just disappointing; it is irresponsible, and it is unrepresentative of the American people. Currently, Democrats only hold the majority by five Representatives. That means that the 211 Republicans, representing nearly 150 million Americans, have been shut out of this process; 150 million Americans are not represented in the package before us today. Madam Speaker, we all want to provide the resources to successfully emerge on the other side of the pandemic. This bill does include funding for testing and vaccine deployment, as well as some economic support and aid to those who are unemployed or experiencing food shortages, but this support is not targeted toward those identified as most vulnerable. This bill includes $1,400 in economic stimulus payments to anyone making $75,000 a year or less, including those who may not have lost their jobs or experienced reduced employment. In addition, there is no mechanism to ensure that these payments go only to American citizens. Republicans were pleased that the infrastructure projects in California and New York, projects that had nothing to do with coronavirus relief, have been removed. We are glad of that. My Democratic colleagues may argue that these projects would have created jobs, but why then are Democrats also providing $125 billion to schools even if they remain closed? Teachers want to teach. Teachers want to be safely in their classrooms teaching. The Centers for Disease Control has confirmed that with appropriate safety precautions, the risk of coronavirus transmission in schools is minimal. In fact, many States are prioritizing teachers for vaccines. Madam Speaker, our State of Texas is doing so. Why are we paying schools to keep them home? This bill also provides $362 billion for State and local governments. The CARES Act, passed on March 27, already provided a $150 billion Coronavirus Relief Fund to help local entities with lost revenue during the shutdowns. However, many local authorities have chosen to keep their economies shut down, despite a drop in coronavirus cases and the effectiveness of safety measures like social distancing and mask- wearing. Congress should not bail out State and local governments for mismanagement that occurred prior to the pandemic. The total revenue loss of State and local governments during the pandemic is $7.6 billion. This bill provides over $219 billion, and it is available until expended. Let me say that again: It is available until expended. That is $200 billion more than the lost revenue due to the pandemic, the crisis which this bill is meant to target. This bill also provides $400 million for an emergency food and shelter program, with $110 million set aside specifically for humanitarian relief to families and individuals encountered by Department of Homeland Security officials. Since his first day in office, President Biden has worked to overturn the advances achieved by the Trump administration to limit border crossings by those undocumented, which is particularly concerning given that limited coronavirus testing is occurring along our Southern border. Just recently, over 100 individuals crossing without documentation tested positive for the coronavirus, but were subsequently released into the interior of the United States. We cannot allow the desires of foreign nationals to come before the needs of American citizens. We should provide testing and personal protective equipment to all encountered along our Southern border so that we can protect our frontline officials and protect American communities. These are only a few of the concerning provisions included in this so-called relief package, but the most concerning piece is that Republicans' participation in this process was extremely limited by Democrats. Bipartisanship is not unprecedented. We came together to pass prior coronavirus relief bills. Literally, 1 year ago, March of last year, we passed three bipartisan coronavirus relief packages through the House and the Senate. And we can do so again. Why now are the Democrats deciding Republicans are not worthy, we are not worthy partners, and limiting the voices of our constituents? Why should only half of the Congress be allowed to participate in the making of a law that will affect the entire country? Is only half of the American population worth saving? Those are the questions being asked today. With that, I urge opposition to the rule. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Hinson) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the distinguished Republican leader, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney).

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. Greene).

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Herrell).

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, here are the facts: This bill is not going to reopen our economy. It is not going to reopen our schools or provide targeted relief to those who need it most. This is the most expensive bill in the history of the United States House of Representatives, and it does not even prioritize the immediate needs of the American people. Rather than work for the American people, Democrats are fine working for their own future 2 years from now. That is really not the way it is supposed to be. We are supposed to be focused on the next generation, not the next election. I find this unacceptable. This is a $1.9 trillion partisan wish list that could ultimately increase the deficit $3 trillion without addressing the immediate needs of Americans who are trying to survive this pandemic. With $1 trillion of unspent funding--cash already in the till from previous bills--why is it so urgent to pass another $2 trillion now without the representation of literally one-half of the country? Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, ``no'' on the rule, ``no'' on the underlying measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for the time. Madam Speaker, I am concerned about H.R. 1446, the Enhanced Background Checks Act, that is part of this rule. This bill would eliminate the 3-day waiting period for a National Instant Criminal Background Check system determination. Under current law, if no determination is made within 3 days, a firearms sale may proceed. This bill that will be before Congress this week would expand the 3 days to require a 10-business-day waiting period with an additional 10 days allowed for the Attorney General to process any petitions. But rather than eliminate the 3-day waiting period, we should be removing from commerce those firearms that are sold to individuals who are later found to be ineligible. In 2016 the Department of Justice Inspector General audit found that less than 1 percent of those who were sold a firearm and then found later to be ineligible through the delayed background check were investigated and prosecuted. According to a 2018 Government Accountability Office report, the FBI conducted just over 25 million firearm background checks through the NICS system that year. One percent of attempted purchases were denied, or about 181,000. If only 1 percent of those denials were investigated, that still leaves 179,000 NICS denials where an individual may have been inappropriately sold a firearm, but, in fact, were never investigated. Even one firearm illegally in commerce, unfortunately, can lead to tragedy. Rather than place further burdens on law-abiding gun owners, we should be investigating and prosecuting those who have obtained a firearm illegally. Enforcement of our existing laws would be the first step to preventing gun violence. During rules consideration, I submitted an amendment to H.R. 1446 to require the Department of Justice Inspector General to report to Congress on the number of NICS denials referred for investigation.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for the time. Madam Speaker, this will provide an accurate accounting of the inefficiencies in the NICS system and provide a starting point to ensure full enforcement of our laws. I was pleased that this amendment was made in order, and I hope all Members will support it when it comes to the floor for a vote. But the underlying bill, H.R. 1446, should not pass this House.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the recognition. Madam Speaker, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 1, Burgess amendment No. 12, which would require the Attorney General of the United States to submit a report to Congress on the impact of widespread mail-in voting on the ability of Active Duty military servicemembers to vote, how quickly their votes could be counted, and whether the higher volumes of mail-in votes makes it harder for those individuals to vote in national elections. America's servicemembers put their lives on the line to protect our country and everything it stands for. We must ensure their voices are heard in our elections. If the majority has their way with the underlying bill in permanently expanding mail-in voting, Congress must first know that such policies won't negatively impact those we rely on to ensure that our voices are heard in the first place. A second amendment, Burgess amendment No. 13, would require a report on voter data collection efforts at local, State, and Federal levels, and make the resources necessary to defend such efforts from cyberattacks and the impact of potential data breaches of local, State, or Federal online voter registration systems. H.R. 1, the underlying bill, includes the Voter Registration Modernization Act, which requires that all Americans have access to online voter registration, a significant expansion of this service in many parts of the country. Voter online registration can be quick, easy, and convenient. It also poses significant risks for those same citizens by increasing the cyber-infrastructure requirements at all levels of government and introduces cybersecurity challenges in areas that have not previously had online registration. We are all familiar with the concept, if it goes on a network, it can be hacked. Data breaches pose a real threat to Americans' privacy, to their financial security. We have seen time and again how poor digital hygiene, or insufficient cybersecurity, have created new vulnerabilities to Americans' personally identifiable information. Madam Speaker, Americans deserve to know how this mandate in the underlying bill will impact their local voting systems and their personal privacy. Many areas of the United States have successfully implemented online voter registration, and that could be great for those voters. However, many election precincts, and even some States, do not have adequate infrastructure or resources to ensure proper protection of the personally identifiable information that is required to be collected to register to vote. This amendment would provide our constituents information to either provide a sense of security that their voter data will be properly protected or will serve as a warning as to how this could impact their voting system. Madam Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' on both votes.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I thank the Chair for that reminder. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cline).

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger), who is another valuable member of the Texas delegation.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, just before I begin, I also want to acknowledge that I had sent the chairman of the Rules Committee a letter earlier in the week, to which he today kindly responded, and I appreciate the prompt response to my concerns about Capitol security. Madam Speaker, today's rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1319, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. Throughout this process, Republicans have been completely excluded. I sit on the Committee on Energy and Commerce, I sit on the Budget Committee, and I sit on the Rules Committee, and throughout the markups in each of these committees Republicans offered sincere amendments to improve the bill for the American people. While only 2 of the 245 Republican amendments offered were adopted, the rule before us today strips out the one amendment adopted by a rollcall vote. Earlier today in the Rules Committee, over 200 amendments were offered and debated, not a single one was made in order. The American people at least deserve to have the suggestions of Members that they elected to be debated on the House floor. They don't have to be adopted, but they should at least be heard on the House floor. It seems that the Democrats are unwilling to allow elected Members of Congress to do their job and represent their constituents. With $1 trillion of funding left unspent from the previous--from the previous--coronavirus response bills, it does seem that we do have some time to do our work, but, instead, we didn't even hold markups on this portion of the bill. While the Energy and Commerce Committee did hold a markup, all Republican amendments were defeated. This portion of the bill includes changes that will take months to implement, if indeed they happen at all. Perhaps the most startling figure is less than 10 percent of these dollars are actually spent on combating the coronavirus. Despite spending over $14 billion on vaccines and therapeutics, after $28 billion was just recently provided in the fiscal year 2021 omnibus, this package does not contain any funding--zero funding--for the National Institutes of Health. The National Institutes of Health has been a critical partner in Operation Warp Speed and getting the vaccine through the approval process in literally warp speed time and helping the vaccine manufacturers in developing the coronavirus vaccine that we are now so urgently needing. This legislation includes many provisions that really should be addressed outside of a coronavirus relief package, like providing a State option for postpartum Medicaid coverage for women. While this is a policy I have long advocated for, it should not be temporary, as this legislation directs it to sunset after 7 years. Let's bring that bill separately to the floor and get this policy right, just as we did in the last Congress. Furthermore, although there are billions of dollars directed to public health, the Provider Relief Fund is curiously not replenished. Again, why are we not supporting programs which we know work and we know provide direct, targeted relief? The Provider Relief Fund is a program that works, and that is why I offered an amendment to add $35 billion to the Provider Relief Fund. Adding to the partisan nature of this legislation is the lack of any Hyde protections ensuring that none of this funding is used to subsidize abortion. The Hyde amendment is a longstanding, bipartisan agreement. Instead, there is $50 million included for Title X Family Planning, which likely is going to go to Planned Parenthood and has nothing to do with coronavirus relief. This is a $1.9 trillion partisan wish list that could ultimately increase the Federal deficit to between $2 trillion to $3 trillion without addressing the immediate needs of Americans simply trying to survive this pandemic. So I would suggest that now is not the time to push through partisan priorities. Barely a month ago, Congress passed, and President Trump signed into law, a $900 billion coronavirus relief package. Combined with previous relief packages, which were bipartisan and which were worked on by both Democrats and Republicans in the last calendar year, there remains $1 trillion in unspent funding. Why is it so urgent to pass another $2 trillion now? It is reminiscent of our former colleague, Rahm Emanuel, who said: Never let a crisis go to waste. Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), who is a valuable member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser).

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), the ranking member of the House Committee on Rules.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack), a valuable member of our Appropriations Committee and a subcommittee ranking member.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie), the ranking member of the Health Subcommittee on Energy and Commerce.