Michael Burgess

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 542 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 542 provides for a rule to continue consideration of the comprehensive energy legislation on which the House began its work yesterday. The rule makes in order 38 amendments to be considered on the House floor, 22 of which are sponsored by Democratic Members of the House, 12 of which are sponsored by Republicans, and 4 of which were submitted as bipartisan amendments. Further, the minority will be afforded the standard motion to recommit--a final opportunity to amend the bill prior to its passage. H. Res. 542 further provides for a rule to consider the conference report to S. 1177, the Student Success Act, which will move the country's education system beyond No Child Left Behind and return the responsibility of educating our children to local and State authorities, where it appropriately belongs. As with all conference reports brought before the House, the rule provides that debate on the measure will be conducted under the standing rules of the House and will further provide for a motion to recommit, allowing the minority yet another opportunity to amend the legislation before its final passage. The amendments that the Rules Committee made in order allow the House to weigh in on a number of important issues within the sphere of energy policy, from crude oil exports, to the Federal Government's policy on fossil fuel usage, to siting and regulatory reforms at the Department of Energy and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. I do wish to highlight an amendment that unfortunately was not made in order, one that I submitted to the Rules Committee, as well, during the markup of H.R. 8 in Energy and Commerce. It has become clear to me, having worked on the Energy and Commerce Committee over the past 10 years, that the authority given to the Department of Energy to regulate and mandate efficiency standards in consumer products was both initially misguided and ultimately has proven to be cumbersome and unworkable. Mr. Speaker, I have always been a strong believer in energy efficiency. However, government-mandated efficiency standards have proven to be the wrong approach. For this reason, I submitted an amendment to repeal the Federal energy conservation standards, which dictate how energy efficient consumer products must be before they can be sold in the United States. These mandates cover products from light bulbs--and, on this, we have successfully blocked it due to overwhelming public outrage--to ceiling fans, to air conditioners, to heaters, to furnaces. The list goes on and on. The Federal Government should not be setting these standards. Companies and, more importantly, their customers should be the driving force in this decision. This is about letting the free market drive innovation and technological advances. The government should trust the people to make the right decisions when it comes to the products that they buy. When the government sets the efficiency standard for a product, that often becomes the ceiling. When the market drives the standard, there is no limit to how fast and how aggressive manufacturers will ultimately be when consumers demand more efficient and better products. Mr. Speaker, government standards have proven to be unworkable. Every single time the Department of Energy proposes to set a new efficiency standard for any product, manufacturers run to their Members of Congress, asking us to sign letters to the Department of Energy to implore them not to set unworkable standards. It is a predictable occurrence for every rule. Even in H.R. 8, we are conceding that the Department of Energy is moving in the wrong direction with furnace standards, and Congress has to step in and mitigate. In fact, Congress should be getting out of the way of the relationship between companies and their customers. How many times during the appropriations process are we asked to vote on amendments blocking the Department of Energy from regulating consumer products because the Federal Government does not understand how to run a business? Instead of that approach, we should be removing the Department of Energy's authority altogether. The Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution was meant as a limitation on Federal power. The Framers intended that clause to be used to ensure that commerce could flow freely among the several States. It was never intended to allow the Federal Government to micromanage everyday consumer products. If the clause were truly meant to be that expansive, then the 10th Amendment would be meaningless. There would be no authority left to reserve to the States. This view of the Commerce Clause was reaffirmed most recently by the Supreme Court in the National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. The Commerce Clause does not and cannot extend so far as to allow the Federal Government to regulate products that do not pose a risk to health or safety. There is a place for the FDA to regulate safe food and drugs and for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to regulate the safety of cars on the roads, but to give the Federal Government the authority to regulate how efficient a product should be really seems to cross a constitutional line. Congress has already stepped in to block the Department of Energy from setting efficiency standards for light bulbs--not because Congress gained wisdom. It was because the American people understood clearly that this was government overreach at its worst, and they demanded it be fixed. But the same can and should be said about every consumer product that the Department of Energy has been given the authority to regulate in the efficiency space. From light bulbs, to furnaces, to air conditioners, to ceiling fans, the Department of Energy should not be telling manufacturers how to make their products. I also want to say one thing about the amendment to H.R. 8 that was submitted by the Representative from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis), which was also, unfortunately, not made in order. This amendment was based, in part, on a series of GAO studies that I and Senator Markey had commissioned to study the Department of Energy's management of uranium issues and its impact on the domestic uranium mining industry. It is a critical issue for those of us from Western States. And it is my hope, as this body continues to work to protect that industry from further legally suspect actions by the Department of Energy, that Mrs. Lummis' wishes will be achieved. The education conference report, known as the Every Student Succeeds Act, is a bipartisan compromise to reauthorize and reform our education system. For the past 13 years, our students and our schools have been struggling to meet the rigorous and often unrealistic demands of No Child Left Behind. No Child Left Behind attempted to improve school accountability by conditioning increased funding on annual testing requirements and pass rates. One hundred percent of students were supposed to be proficient by 2014, with failing schools being required to restructure under Federal guidelines. A vote against the Every Student Succeeds Act today is a vote to keep No Child Left Behind in place, to keep the onerous average yearly progress standards in place, and to keep the high-stakes testing in place that so many of our constituents deplore. This compromise, which was worked out in committee, is a vast improvement. It is not a perfect bill by any stretch, but it is a vast improvement. And, really, for the first time, it moves control back into the hands of States and local districts, where it belongs. It eliminates the waiver process by repealing the adequate yearly progress Federal accountability system. For years, school boards in my district have been requesting relief from having to obtain waivers from the Department of Education. This bill will allow local districts to set their own testing requirements and standards to determine whether a student or a school is struggling as well as how to improve. Common Core incentives are eliminated. Let me repeat that. Common Core incentives are eliminated. The Federal Government created the Federal education regulations and mandated their adoption by withholding funds from schools. This intervention is another example of the Federal Government's prescribing its best practices over those schools and teachers who, every day, get up and go to work to do their best. They know their students. They know how best to teach them. Under the Every Student Succeeds Act, this stops. This bill also provides States with new funding flexibility by allowing States to determine how to spend their Federal dollars--on average, 7 percent per year. In my State, this is more than $225 million annually that the State will be able to allocate in the most effective and the most efficient way possible. This bill is a 4-year authorization. That is an important point. Regardless of how you feel about the current administration, it will not be the current administration in 4 years' time. That will allow the next administration, whoever he or she may be, the opportunity to better evaluate education programs and, my hope is, to continue to reduce the Federal role for our students, schools, and teachers in Texas and throughout the country. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

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

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I believe I am the only speaker.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 539 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 539 provides for a rule to consider three important bills that will help millions of Americans and their families who are having to pay or will soon be paying higher energy costs due to the administration's misguided and ill-conceived energy policies. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided between the majority and the minority of the Energy and Commerce Committee, on each of the pieces of legislation before us, including S.J. Res. 23, a resolution of disapproval of a rule promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency on greenhouse gases from new stationary sources; S.J. Res. 24, a resolution of disapproval of a rule promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency on greenhouse gases from existing stationary sources; and H.R. 8, the North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of 2015, which will move this country in a direction of greater energy independence. The rule before us today provides for a closed rule on both resolutions of disapproval, as is standard for such measures, allowing for 1 hour of debate equally divided between the majority and minority of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, while allowing the minority a motion to commit on each of the resolutions. Further, the rule provides for 1 hour of debate on H.R. 8, also equally divided between the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. A subsequent order from the Committee on Rules will likely address any amendments to be made in order later in the week. The House, in taking up these measures, is doing so to reflect the will of the people so many of us represent who are opposed to the administration's actions and wish to stop this out-of-control Environmental Protection Agency from doing further damage to the economy. Further, H.R. 8 reflects a broad consensus of energy stakeholders who are ready and willing to move the country's energy future into high gear. S.J. Res. 23, disapproving of the Environmental Protection Agency's new greenhouse gas rules on new stationary sources--loosely translated, that means the Nation's power plants, keeping the lights on in your home, the heat on in the winter, and the air-conditioning on in the summer--and S.J. Res. 24, disapproving of the EPA's new greenhouse gas rules on existing stationary sources, both of these joint resolutions passed in the Senate in October by a majority vote of 52-46. The Congressional Review Act, the law which allows for the process of disapproval by Congress when an administration goes too far with one of its rules, allows us an up-or-down vote on the resolution, which cannot be filibustered, thus allowing the measure to be considered in the Senate. It is now time for the House to be heard on this measure as well. Mr. Speaker, the Environmental Protection Agency's overreaching greenhouse gas rules have had an extensive number of hearings in the Energy and Commerce Committee over the last few years. The committee reviewed all aspects of the proposed rules, including the impacts on reliability and the impacts on consumer costs, including bringing the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to discuss possible impacts on reliability around the country due to these rules. Already, in many States across the Nation, coal-fired power plants are closing because they see that the Obama administration's EPA has made it clear that it will go after them relentlessly until they are shuttered. This means fewer cost-effective options for consumers and also the potential for brownouts and blackouts during high-consumption times, like during the peak of the summer in Texas, where rolling brownouts are already not uncommon. The Environmental Protection Agency's new rules will only exacerbate this issue. Whether Members of this body support these rules or oppose them, the measures before us today will provide each Member the opportunity to be officially registered on where they stand on these EPA rules, and that is what we are all here to do. H.R. 8, in contrast to the EPA's regulations, moves the country to a place of greater energy security and abundance. Over the past several years, the Energy and Commerce Committee has worked towards modernizing the Nation's energy laws, making the government more accountable, more accountable to the people it is meant to represent as it makes decisions which affect literally every citizen in this country and their pocketbooks. The free market has long been the guiding force in moving this country ahead in the energy sector. Texas was one of the first major beneficiaries, with the oil boom in the last two centuries. Now, as new technologies and innovations emerge, Congress must stand on the side of the free market again, stopping the executive branch from picking winners and losers in the energy market and allowing consumers--allowing consumers--to make those decisions for themselves. When consumers choose what energy sources and what technologies work best for them, the economy grows faster and grows more efficiently than ever the government could possibly drive it. That is what the Architecture of Abundance is all about. This country has the resources to be energy independent. It has the ability to end our reliability on oil and gas from the Middle East, a region that is perpetually in turmoil. But the Obama administration has stymied much of the progress that was made in the first decade of this century, slowing or stopping leases on public lands for new exploration of our own resources and putting up red tape and numerous barriers to allowing Americans to tap into what is rightfully theirs. This is a bill that is long overdue, and I certainly thank Chairman Upton for his work on the bill, H.R. 8. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the three underlying bills. They are an important first step in setting this country on the path to a modern, stable, and abundant energy future. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. The Republican Party is in the majority today. There are a couple of reasons that is so. There were bills passed in 2009 and 2010, and the American people looked at what was happening in their legislative body and said: We need a change. We need a change from the direction in which we are going. One of those bills, I will submit, was the Waxman-Markey bill, the cap-and-trade scheme that was drawn up in the Energy and Commerce Committee, of which I am a member. I sat through the debate on it. I remember it very well. That bill was brought to this floor, and that bill was forced through this House in June of 2009, right before Members went home for the 4th of July weekend. A lot of people will look at the Affordable Care Act and say that is the reason Congress changed from a majority-Democrat institution to a majority-Republican institution. It is because of the passage of the Affordable Care Act. Yet, Mr. Speaker, I submit that it was actually that activity in June of 2009 that caused people to look at what was going on in their Congress and to look at that bill that was drafted in the Energy and Commerce Committee by Chairman Waxman and Chairman Markey and say: No, not for us. We are not going along with this. This is not a direction in which we want you to take this country. We still function under that quaint notion that we have government with the consent of the governed, but the governed did not consent to what they saw being passed in Congress late in June of 2009. So it is no accident that things are the way they are today.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 1 minute. I want to read a passage from columnist George Will from earlier this year, January 7, of his writing in the Washington Post. Mr. Will writes: ``We know, because they often say so, that those who think catastrophic global warming is probable and perhaps imminent are exemplary empiricists. They say those who disagree with them are `climate change deniers' disrespectful of science. ``Actually, however, something about which everyone can agree is that, of course, the climate is changing--it always is. And if climate Cassandras are as conscientious as they claim to be about weighing evidence, how do they accommodate historical evidence of enormously consequential episodes of climate change not produced by human activity? Before wagering vast wealth and curtailments of liberty on correcting the climate,'' perhaps they should consider the past. Then he goes on to detail those episodes in the past: the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 30 seconds. There are, indeed, recent episodes in recorded history that can be looked to where the climate has changed and, yes, has affected human behavior and the human condition, but those were not climate changes affected by the result of human activity. Those were caused by natural cycles, within the Sun cycle, within things over which none of us had any control. Again, I would take the words of Mr. Will to heart. Before we wager vast amounts of wealth and curtailments of liberty, we would do well to consider those facts. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I do feel obligated to point out that, in the absence of the Waxman-Markey bill, during this administration and the previous administration, between 2005 and 2012, carbon emissions in this country fell by 10 percent because of market-based activity. That puts the United States halfway to the goal that it set for itself in the United Nations agreement, a goal that we would reduce carbon emissions by 20 percent in the year 2020. We are halfway there, a 10 percent reduction. That is without Waxman- Markey. That is without any international agreement that the President might think he is entertaining or entering into over in Paris. Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of three important bills for our energy future, two resolutions disapproving of the Environmental Protection Agency's greenhouse gas regulations and a bill that is forward looking that will set this country on the path to greater energy security. The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts is as follows: An Amendment to H. Res. 539 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts Strike all after the resolved clause and insert: That immediately upon adoption of this resolution the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1076) to increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected dangerous terrorist. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill. Sec. 2. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 1076.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, today I want to address the importance of passing the reauthorization of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, H.R. 1786, and this needs to be done as a standalone bill. The reauthorization of this bill is far too important to be rolled into a package at the end of the year. Our country was attacked 14 years ago, and these Americans responded without hesitation. First responders are undoubtedly heroes in the eyes of America. They at least deserve to have their bill heard individually. Five years ago, in the last days of the 111th Congress, this bill was passed. It was the last bill that Congress passed that year in the lame-duck 2010 year. It is important that this bill be brought up. It is important that each of us put our cards in. Vote your conscience. Vote ``yes'' or ``no.'' But we deserve a chance to vote on this bill as a standalone bill.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following letter from Governor Greg Abbott: November 16, 2015. Hon. Barack Obama, President of the United States, Washington, DC. Dear President Obama: As governor of Texas, I write to inform you that the State of Texas will not accept any refugees from Syria in the wake of the deadly terrorist attack in Paris. Further, I--and millions of Americans--implore you to halt your plans to accept more Syrian refugees in the United States. A Syrian ``refugee'' appears to have been part of the Paris terror attack. American humanitarian compassion could be exploited to expose Americans to similar deadly danger. The reasons for such concerns are plentiful. The FBI director testified to Congress that the federal government does not have the background information that is necessary to effectively conduct proper security checks on Syrian nationals. Director Comey explained: ``We can query our database until the cows come home, but there will be nothing show up because we have no record of them.'' The threat posed to Texas by ISIS is very real. ISIS claimed credit last May when two terrorist gunmen launched an attack in Garland, Texas. Less than two weeks later, the FBI arrested an Iraqi-born man in North Texas and charged him with lying to federal agents about traveling to Syria to fight with ISIS. And in 2014, when I served as Texas attorney general, we participated in a Joint Terrorism Task Force that arrested two Austin residents for providing material support to terrorists--including ISIS. Given the tragic attack in Paris and the threats we have already seen in Texas, coupled with the FBI director's acknowledgment that we do not have the information necessary to effectively vet Syrian nationals, Texas cannot participate in any program that will result in Syrian refugees--any one of whom could be connected to terrorism--being resettled in Texas. Effective today, I am directing the Texas Health & Human Services Commission's Refugee Resettlement Program to not participate in the resettlement of any Syrian refugees in the State of Texas. And I urge you, as president, to halt your plans to allow Syrians to be resettled anywhere in the United States. Neither you nor any federal official can guarantee that Syrian refugees will not be part of any terroristic activity. As such, opening our door to them irresponsibly exposes our fellow Americans to unacceptable peril. Respectfully, Greg Abbott, Governor.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, this morning my Governor, Governor Abbott of Texas, sent a letter to President Obama: ``I write to inform you that the State of Texas will not accept any refugees from Syria in the wake of the deadly attacks in Paris.'' This tragedy on Friday follows quickly behind Secretary Kerry's announcement that the United States will be taking in an unprecedented number of refugees. Last month the Helsinki Commission, of which I am a member, held a hearing. Assistant Secretary of State Anne Richards said that refugees were fleeing to Europe because they perceived those borders to be open. Madam Speaker, there can be no perception that our borders are open. During my questioning last month, it became clear to me that we do not have the procedures in place to perform adequate and thorough background checks on refugees. President Obama is engaged in what may be best described as magical thinking. Certainly, it is a fragmented strategy to combat ISIS. The world held a moment of silence this morning. We should not be silent on this issue any longer.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, the thesis of this amendment is to secure good government reforms at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. We want to make certain that we are able to exercise strong oversight of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and we want to make certain that NHTSA is staying within its authorized jurisdiction. We took some ideas that were raised by the minority, amended them to reflect things like the longer life of cars. We asked manufacturers to hold onto safety information for a longer period of time. We extend the time for free recall fix requirements. Lastly, we have added the bipartisan Low Volume Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Act of 2015 and provided adjusted funding levels to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to advance their important safety work. This is an important amendment, and I urge my colleagues to accept it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. This amendment also requires the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to issue an agenda on December 1 of every year detailing the agency's policy priorities, their planned rulemakings, and any projected alterations to the agency structure. Actually, that is a good idea. Regulated entities, especially, should have an idea of what the focus of the agency is going to be in the upcoming months and years. The last time the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration published a planning report was 2011. They are asking us for more money. We are providing them with more money. All we ask is they provide us a glimpse into what their strategy is as to how that money will be effectively spent. This is a good amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chairwoman, as I advised earlier in speaking to another amendment, some significant flaws in the basic operations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration were revealed earlier this year and reported in an inspector general's report. Again, in an unprecedented move, after the IG report was released, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration publicly committed to a timeline to implement all of the inspector general's recommendations because of their serious and direct impact on NHTSA's ability to fulfill its core mission. I am grateful to NHTSA that they had this commitment to these reforms. Just like the Senate language, our amendment does provide for additional funding to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. This amendment would increase NHTSA's funding by 23\1/ 2\ percent for fiscal year 2016 and over 27 percent for fiscal year 2017 from the authorized levels in the underlying bill. Maybe we don't go as far as the Senate, but these are significant and generous increases. Again, I will urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, for some time now, the Energy and Commerce Committee, its Subcommittee of Oversight and Investigations as well as its Subcommittee of Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade, have been looking into recalls and automobile safety. We have heard about problems within the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and about problems within the automobile industry, itself. There is a lot to fix, and there are provisions to get after those issues in terms of recommendations from the Inspector General's Office. Serious flaws of the basic operation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration were revealed earlier this year in a widely reported inspector general's report. In an unprecedented move after the inspector general's report was released, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration publicly committed to a timeline to implement all of the inspector general's recommendations because of the serious and direct impact on NHTSA's ability to fulfill its core mission. You do worry that the direction in which this amendment purports to now go is going to send resources in the wrong direction. It is going to be very, very friendly to the Plaintiff's Trial Bar, but, really, that is not where our focus should be. Of course, the Plaintiffs' Bar wants to be able to download, sort, and map all of the incidents attributable by an automaker so that they can file class action lawsuits--very, very good for the Plaintiffs' Bar, not necessarily so good for the consumer. The problem is there is a real cost in going in this direction. More resources are diverted to defending non meritorious lawsuits, and that means less can go into safety and quality. Effectively, this provision starves the consumer in order to feed the Plaintiffs' Bar. I reserve the balance of my time.