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, House Resolution 333 provides for a rule to consider important bills that deal with our environment: the first, H.R. 2822, the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2016; and the second, H.R. 2042, the Ratepayer Protection Act of 2015. Each bill will be provided the standard 1 hour of debate, equally divided between the majority and the minority. Further, on each bill, the minority is granted the standard motion to recommit, a chance to amend the legislation one final time prior to its passage. As with nearly all regular order appropriations bills that have come to the floor under the Republican leadership, the Interior-EPA bill will be considered under a modified open rule, allowing every Member of this body the opportunity to come to the floor and offer amendments to the bill that comply with the House budget rules. H.R. 2042, the Ratepayer Protection Act, is given a structured rule under the resolution before us today, with the Rules Committee making in order five of the eight amendments offered during consideration of the bill last evening. Of the amendments made in order, one is bipartisan, three were offered by Democrats, and one was offered by a Republican. H.R. 2822, the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2016, provides funding for both the Department of the Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency. This bill provides funding for many of the national parks and recreational facilities throughout the United States. The bill includes over $30 billion in base funding, decreasing the top line level by $246 million below fiscal year 2015 and cutting $3 billion from the President's budget request. This spending reduction is necessary to rein in an out-of-control Environmental Protection Agency that is moving at breakneck speed to regulate every aspect of our economy. Following the failure of the House and Senate Democrats to get the disastrous Waxman-Markey cap-and- trade legislation to President Obama's desk in 2009, Lisa Jackson and, now, Gina McCarthy, both administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency, have moved forward with regulatory regimes under the guise of the Clean Air Act to go around Congress to regulate carbon after the American people explicitly rose up and said do not do this. The Energy and Commerce Committee has held countless hearings and markups to address the out-of-control efforts by the Environmental Protection Agency and has taken over the past few years to push President Obama's harmful environmental policies onto a populace that has rejected those same policies at the ballot box. From carbon dioxide to ozone to every stream, puddle, ditch, pond in America, the Environmental Protection Agency will not rest until it has regulatory control over every aspect of every life in America. The appropriations bill before us is an important step toward reining in such a power-hungry agency. The bill contains prohibitions on the Department of the Interior's attempts to regulate hydraulic fracturing, a process that President Obama's own Environmental Protection Agency recently stated has not resulted in any significant environmental or health harms. It includes a provision preventing the Environmental Protection Agency from proposing new ozone standards until at least 85 percent of the country is able to meet current standards, which would seem to be a reasonable request. It prohibits the Environmental Protection Agency from moving forward with new greenhouse gas regulations, regulations that the American people have never supported. And it prohibits the Environmental Protection Agency from moving forward with regulating every stream and pond in the country, an issue that the Supreme Court has rejected and that farmers and landowners all across America have risen up to oppose. Even more than the funding levels in this bill, passing the House Interior Appropriations bill will keep the Environmental Protection Agency from doing further damage to the United States economy than has already been done by this administration. Mr. Speaker, I will just point out, we were greeted with the news that in the first quarter of this year, the economy actually contracted by 0.2 percent. That is not the direction that we need to go. The second bill contained in today's rule is H.R. 2042, the Ratepayer Protection Act of 2015, which does address the Environmental Protection Agency's job-killing carbon rules on existing power plants. The bill allows for judicial review of any final rule pertaining to greenhouse gas emissions before requiring compliance with such a rule and allows States to protect households and businesses from significant adverse effects on electricity ratepayers or reliability. This seems like a reasonable ask, that the EPA's own rule, which we know will be litigated anyway, not go into effect until the courts have had a final say on whether or not the Environmental Protection Agency actually followed the law. The Environmental Protection Agency's proposed regulation on greenhouse gases, a regulation that the Democrats couldn't achieve through legislation, places different limits on different States, allowing the Environmental Protection Agency to pick winners and losers in the carbon wars. If a State does not comply with the strict guidelines that the Environmental Protection Agency sets out for its electricity market, then the EPA will force its own Federal plan on the State, driving up the cost to ratepayers exponentially. The EPA's own estimates of this rule--just the rule, without any mention of the other disastrously expensive rules that it is currently proposing, such as the ozone regulations--suggest that the carbon rule for existing power plants will impose annual costs of $5.5 billion to $7.5 billion by 2020, and almost $9 billion by 2030. All of those costs will be passed on to every American who pays an electricity bill. Of course, as we have seen in previous rules, the Environmental Protection Agency consistently underestimates the cost of its rules to hide the ball from the American people about the true damage that is actually being proposed by the Agency. Outside estimates put the cost of this one regulation at upwards of well over $360 billion to almost $500 billion between 2017 and 2031. That level of harm to the United States economy is insane after seeing such a slow recovery under the current President, but it is exactly what Administrator Gina McCarthy is proposing. State Governors, regulators, and other stakeholders have submitted thousands of comments on this rule, explaining how difficult it will be to implement and prevent rates from increasing, but those pleas appear to have hit a dead end. The Environmental Protection Agency is moving forward with these rules, and this bill before us presents one of the great opportunities to slow them down before irreversible damage is done to the economy. Mr. Speaker, the House is moving forward with important legislation today to make the government more accountable. I look forward to both bills having a full debate on the House floor after the passage of today's rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to myself. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Chair that the issue under consideration today before the House of Representatives is H. Res. 333, which provides for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2822, making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for other purposes; and further providing for the consideration of H.R. 2042, to allow for judicial review of any final rule addressing carbon dioxide emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired electric utility generating units before requiring compliance with such rule, and to allow States to protect households and businesses from significant adverse effects on electricity ratepayers or reliability. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I do not.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, again, I will just remind the House that what is under consideration is a rule resolution, H. Res. 333, for consideration of the appropriations bill for the Department of the Interior and H.R. 2042 to allow for judicial review of any final rule addressing carbon dioxide emissions. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman from Arizona that this appropriations bill is coming to the floor, as has been the custom during the Republican majority, under a modified open rule, which means that any Member is able to bring an amendment to the floor of the House and have it heard. This, of course, includes limitation amendments that would be heard at the end of the reading of the bill that would allow for the striking of any of the provisions that he finds objectionable. Then all that is necessary for the gentleman to do is to convince 218 Members of this body to vote with him on an amendment, and he will be able to accomplish his heart's desire. A modified open rule is a good process, and it does allow the will of the House to be heard on this bill. I look forward to us affirming the previous question, passing the rule to allow the bill to be heard, and then we can get on to the business at hand. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to myself. Again, I just want to underscore that the issue under consideration on the House floor today is to consider H. Res. 333, to provide for consideration of the bill, H.R. 2822, making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, environment and related agencies, and to provide for consideration of the bill, H.R. 2042, to allow for judicial review of any final rule addressing carbon dioxide emissions. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. It was 6 years ago this week. I don't know if many people remember the activities on the House floor 6 years ago this week, but in June of 2009, right before we left for the July 4 recess, the then-Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, brought forward to this floor a bill. The bill was called Waxman-Markey. It was the cap-and-trade bill. The bill had come through our Committee on Energy and Commerce. I thought it was a dead duck when it left there, but that bill was pushed through to the floor at the end of June 2009. Madam Speaker, I don't know that I need to remind you that, in 2009, right after the 2008 election, the Republicans were deeply in the minority. People talked about the fact that the Republicans were so far in the minority that 40 years in the wilderness actually sounded like the best case scenario for House Republicans; but something happened, and it began in that last week of June 2009. Now, a lot of people will credit the change in the House majority to the President's healthcare law--and, indeed, it was ill-advised; and, indeed, it did upset a lot of people very quickly--but prior to that, even before we began having the big debates on the Affordable Care Act--the big debates on what became ObamaCare--the then-Speaker of the House brought to the floor of this House Waxman-Markey. When people started to look at it, Waxman-Markey, we started to get phone calls. People said: ``I can't sell my house unless the Department of Energy certifies it as reaching certain levels of energy efficiency. How am I supposed to be able to do that? That is not a free society. That is not a free country when I am prohibited from selling the one possession that I had used to accumulate dollars in my estate over my entire life, and I can't sell it without permission from the Department of Energy.'' People were legitimately asking questions about what this cap-and- trade bill will do. Madam Speaker, I have got to tell you that there are times in this body when there is one of those moments when the incandescent lightbulb goes off. One of those was last night. We were sitting in the Rules Committee, and we were hearing testimony from two Members from Kentucky, one in the majority and one in the minority. The one in the majority is bringing the bill that we have before us, H.R. 2042, the Ratepayer Protection Act. Mr. Whitfield of Kentucky was explaining what the bill would do and the protections the bill would provide. The other Member from Kentucky, a member of the minority, said, because of the failure of the legislative process, the President was required to act, and this is part of the President's Climate Action Plan. What the H? A failure of the legislative process? Madam Speaker, I would submit that the legislative process functioned as intended when Speaker Pelosi brought Waxman-Markey to the floor of this House and this House passed that bill. We went back to our districts that weekend, and I will tell you what we caught. We caught unmitigated holy ``you know what'' because people were so incensed at the freedoms that Waxman-Markey and the cap-and-trade program would take away from them. When the gentleman last night said it was a failure of the legislative process and that the President had to act, it was exactly the performance of the legislative process that delivered us from a very bad proposition. What happened after that? Because the country was in such a convulsion about what the House had done, the visceral and immediate reaction of the people of the United States was: ``Hold the phone; we don't want what they are doing.'' The Senate, which was fully invested in passing a cap-and-trade bill--you had Senators who thought cap-and-trade was the be-all and end-all, and that was the reason they were in the United States Senate--didn't bring it up. It never came up for a vote. Here was a situation in which the Democrats had--I don't remember what--a 55-seat majority on us here in the House of Representatives and a 60-vote--filibuster-proof--majority over in the Senate, and they couldn't get this done. They couldn't get this done because the people said: ``No. No. Don't do this to me.'' The legislative process worked. The Senate said, ``I haven't got the courage to do this right before the 2010 election,'' and the proposition died at the end of the session that concluded on December 31, 2010. I would just submit that that is a good thing. Here we have before us a bill today to provide, in some measure, some of the protections about things that people were worried about 6 years ago, but it is precisely because we were where we were 6 years ago that we are now considering a bill that will hold back some of the rulemaking authority from the Environmental Protection Agency. Madam Speaker, under today's rule, we are providing for the consideration of two important bills, bills that prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from doing irreversible damage to our economy through dozens of ill-advised regulations that Administrator McCarthy is looking to push on the American people before President Obama leaves the White House in January 2017. The bills are thoughtful responses to one of the most egregious agencies in the administration, and I look forward to a full debate for that reason.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 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. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), a valued member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

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

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, previously it was brought up about the prevention fund, which was being used as one of the offsets for the repeal of the Independent Payment Advisory Board. And I just wanted to give the Congress a sense of some of the activities that have been funded under the Secretary's so-called prevention fund. How about pickle ball? I didn't even know what that was. I had to Google it after that came to light in our committee. Massage therapy, kickboxing, kayaking, and Zumba--a separate grant was given for that. A grant for signage for bike lanes. A grant to promote free pet neutering. A grant for urban gardening. A grant to lobby for a soda tax in New York, block construction of job-creating fast food small businesses, and another grant to boost bike clubs. These are the types of activities that are being funded in the prevention fund, not actual activities that would result in the prevention of disease. This is a good use of these dollars, and I urge adoption. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon), a member of our Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), the vice chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, we have talked a lot about the Affordable Care Act here on the floor of this House, and one of the reasons we have talked a lot about it is because, very famously, it was passed before we read it. We had to pass it to find out what was in it. Let me just talk about a couple of those things because I think they are germane to our discussion today. This is June 17. Around the country, many Members' offices are being contacted by groups asking why Congress itself isn't following the law that Congress passed. I am referring specifically to section 1312(d) in the bill. It says: Members of Congress in the exchange requirement notwithstanding any other provision in law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress shall be health plans that are, number one, created under this act, or two, offered through an exchange established unto this act. The term ``Member of Congress'' means any Member of the House of Representatives or the Senate. The fact of the matter is most people don't follow the law. I did, Mr. Speaker, and I think it was important to follow the law. I bought my health care in the individual market, in healthcare.gov, started October 1 of 2013. You may remember that night. That was the night the fiscal year ended and the famous government shutdown began. I began early that morning in trying to sign up for the Affordable Care Act because I knew, as a Member of Congress, we were supposed to sign up through healthcare.gov, an unsubsidized policy in the individual market. So I performed as indicated. It took 3\1/2\ months for the check to clear the bank. It was one of the most uncomfortable, god-awful experiences I have ever been through in my life. What is the final result? I have a bronze plan in the individual market in healthcare.gov, the Federal fallback provision in the State of Texas. Mr. Speaker, that plan cost $560 a month the first year that I was enrolled, and then it went up 24 percent the next year. It is now up to $700 a month for me for an individual. These are after-tax dollars. Do you know the worst part, Mr. Speaker? The worst part is that the deductible is $6,000. Now, some people have asked me, they say: Well, gee, are you worried about the fact that the networks are so narrow on these plans that you can't see your doctor? I honestly don't know. I don't know if my doctor is included on the plan. I haven't looked because I ain't going. At a $6,000 deductible, someone will have to drag me in the backdoor by the time I am dying. What has happened, Mr. Speaker, is we have created a whole subset of individuals in this country who are functionally uninsured because the cost of their care is so high. Had Members of Congress followed the law, they would be as aware of that as our constituents are. Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of two bills that begin to right some of the many wrongs included in the Affordable Care Act: H.R. 160, repealing the Independent Payment Advisory Board charged with cutting Medicare; and H.R. 1190, repealing the medical device tax. These are two steps that the House can take this week to help lower the rising costs of health care created under the President's healthcare law. Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the rule before us and the passage of the two important pieces of legislation.

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, House Resolution 319 provides for a rule to consider two separate bills, which will address two of the most flawed and ill-conceived provisions contained within the so-called Affordable Care Act. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate on H.R. 160 dealing with the repeal of the medical device tax, equally divided between the majority and minority on the Committee on Ways and Means, as well as the standard motion to recommit provided for the minority. The rule further provides for 1 hour of debate on H.R. 1190, which would repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board. This is equally divided between the majority and minority of both the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Further, the rule provides that the Pitts amendment, which will cover the cost of repealing the Independent Payment Advisory Board by using the Affordable Care Act's prevention fund, a slush fund for the Secretary, which has been used to pay for everything from urban gardening to lobbying for higher cigarette taxes, be added to the bill. As with H.R. 160, the standard motion to recommit is also provided to the minority on H.R. 1190. It is well documented that many provisions contained within the Affordable Care Act will have negative consequences on patients, both in access to care and in affordability. Yet two provisions have been so universally criticized that, on a large bipartisan nature, their repeal was called for almost immediately after the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010. One such provision was the tax contained within the bill on medical device manufacturers. It seems illogical that within a piece of legislation that was purported to make medical care more accessible to all Americans, the Federal Government would want to tax the very providers of medical innovation that creates the devices to improve the delivery of health care. Nevertheless, the President and then-Majority Leader Harry Reid in the Senate included this provision in order to pay for part of the astronomical price tag that accompanied this massive bill. This tax is an unfair burden that actually increases the cost that consumers will pay at the doctor's office. The tax has also been cited by dozens of medical device manufacturers who have or are considering moving their operations overseas so that they can continue to innovate without the heavy burden of the Internal Revenue Service stifling their growth. This tax slows the creation of new techniques, slows the creation of new devices, all of which could make the delivery of medicine more efficient. It also puts at risk the jobs associated with the creation of those devices. And lest anyone think that we are merely talking about the largest and most expensive pieces of technology found within a hospital, such as the MRI or the CAT scanner and surgical equipment, let's be clear that this tax covers every piece of medical equipment from those large machines to the smallest of items, including the syringes that are used to deliver lifesaving antibiotics and vaccines. In my own district, I have met with a number of constituents, including the owner of Retractable Technologies, which makes those very syringes, and have been shown firsthand how this tax is creating a burden on the growth of his company. The medical device tax has led to the elimination of thousands of good-paying jobs, and repealing it would be the first step in bringing those jobs back to stem the loss of future jobs within an industry that is vital to the country in helping to mitigate the rising cost of health care due to other burdensome provisions within the Affordable Care Act. Mr. Speaker, plain and simple, this is a tax on business, a tax on small business, a tax on consumers, a tax on innovation. To date, 33,000 jobs have been lost in the medical device industry since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, and it is projected that well over 100,000 additional jobs are on the chopping block. Actually, who could be surprised about this? Excise taxes, which this tax is, are meant to lead to a reduction in the consumption of the good being taxed. We place an excise tax on cigarettes to discourage their use, making it burdensome to afford a smoking habit. Did the President and Harry Reid intend to make it more burdensome to use more efficient medical devices? Of course, not only is this burdensome tax ill-conceived as a concept, it was ill-conceived in a practical sense as well. Last year, a Treasury inspector general audit found that the Internal Revenue Service issued 217 erroneous penalties to device companies in a 6-month period. We have all seen how poorly much of the Affordable Care Act was written. One need only to look at the most recent Supreme Court cases for that determination. But how difficult is it to write a clear-cut tax provision? Apparently, for Harry Reid, it is quite difficult. H.R. 160 has bipartisan and bicameral support and currently has 282 cosponsors. In fact, 18 Democrats in this body sent a letter to Speaker John Boehner and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi calling for the timely passage of this bill. Republican leadership in the House heard their requests and the calls from many other Members of this body and is moving this bill in a responsible way to put Americans back to work and lower the cost of health care for all. The second bill contained in today's rule, H.R. 1190, repeals one of the most poorly thought-out ideas ever to come out of Congress, and that is really quite impressive considering the many disquieting ideas that have originated in the Pelosi-led House of Representatives. The Independent Payment Advisory Board is an unelected, unaccountable board dedicated to set up within the Affordable Care Act for the sole purpose to cut Medicare payments to providers if Medicare targets within the bill are not met. Let's be very clear about this. President Obama, Majority Leader Harry Reid, Speaker Nancy Pelosi created a board of unelected officials in order to ration Medicare, to cut Medicare, and every Democrat who supported the Affordable Care Act voted in favor of this Board. The Independent Payment Advisory Board is a regulatory board composed of 15 health professionals appointed by the President. There is no requirement that any of these professionals have ever actually practiced medicine a day in their lives, and we are well aware that this President prefers academics to those who have real-world experience. The Board's stated responsibility is to develop proposals to reduce the growth of Medicare spending. What does that mean? It means seniors will face cuts to their health care with no recourse if they don't agree with what the Board proposes. Former Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag, the President's top budget adviser, called the Independent Payment Advisory Board the single biggest yielding of power to an independent entity since the creation of the Federal Reserve. Think about that. Let that sink in. The Independent Payment Advisory Board has been given the authority to do for Medicare policy what the Fed is able to do with monetary policy. That should be terrifying to every American. The Independent Payment Advisory Board is set to recommend cuts, amounting to one-half of 1 percent of Medicare spending, and then the number rises until it hits 1\1/2\ percent. It makes these cuts by reducing the rates that Medicare pays for medical procedures and drugs, which means the Independent Payment Advisory Board can only make cuts to providers' reimbursements. Instead of being allowed to make real lasting structural reforms that could actually help the solvency of Medicare, this Board's approach to saving money is one of the clumsiest, most bureaucratic ways of achieving this goal. The Independent Payment Advisory Board has massive structural and constitutional defects in its design. If Congress fails to act on the Board's recommendations, they automatically go into effect. And even if the Congress did pass a bill countering the Board's cuts to Medicare, the President can simply veto the bill. And the judiciary--and how this passes constitutional muster, I seriously question--specifically the judiciary, is forbidden to review the Independent Payment Advisory Board's recommendations. For these and many other reasons, over 500 organizations have urged Congress to get rid of this thing--repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board--including the American Medical Association, the American College of Surgeons, and the Veterans Health Council. Repealing the Independent Payment Advisory Board would protect seniors' access to Medicare, encourage us to do real Medicare reforms, and put an end to the constitutionally questionable Board of unelected bureaucrats--right now under the President's healthcare law--the very decisions that they are empowered to make changes to Medicare. All Americans will benefit from the repeal of this draconian idea. It is a clumsy way that then-majority Democrats were able to buck their responsibility at addressing cost concerns over entitlements. Government by bureaucrats instead of government by the people, government by bureaucrats instead of government by representatives, it is no way to run this country. And yet that is how then-Majority Leader Harry Reid and then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi preferred that we operate. The Independent Payment Advisory Board's design undermines seniors' access to Medicare and the health care that they need and have paid for throughout their working lives. This Board should have been repealed years ago, but so long as Harry Reid was majority leader in the Senate, the Independent Payment Advisory Board continued to live. Last year's election created a sea change over in the other body, changed the majority leader in the Senate, and now, the American people may finally see their government begin to work for them yet once again. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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 319 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 Colorado (Mr. Polis), 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 reserve the balance of my time to close.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the proceedings during the former Members program be printed in the Congressional Record and that all Members and former Members who spoke during the proceedings have the privilege of revising and extending their remarks.