Michael Burgess

Mr. BURGESS

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

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

Mr. BURGESS

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

Mr. BURGESS. I would merely point out that we have had this discussion on the Energy and Water Appropriations bill year in and year out on this issue. The fact of the matter is the Department of Energy wasted money when it came to Solyndra. We should not support the additional wasting of money simply because it is nuclear energy that is involved at this point. Realistically, this should have been stopped last year or the year before. The fact that it has not been stopped is not something that we, as Republicans, can continue to justify. This activity needs to cease. To defeat this measure on a technicality is the wrong approach. I would encourage the Chair to allow this amendment to come forward to a floor vote. I believe it would be supported by the Members.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, I do.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to protect taxpayers from losing any more money, since the Department of Energy's track record of granting money to entities teetering on the brink of bankruptcy is far from stellar. Since President Obama ramped up spending at the Department of Energy in order to push a political agenda, the Department of Energy, first under Secretary Chu and now under Secretary Moniz, has lost hundreds of millions of dollars, hundreds of millions of dollars that the taxpayer will never see again. Moreover, over the past decade, the Department of Energy has given the United States Enrichment Corporation billions of taxpayer funds, with absolutely nothing to show for it. Last year, we discussed the funding that was earmarked for the United States Enrichment Corporation in this very appropriations bill, the Energy and Water Appropriations bill. And this body was given assurances, assurances that, first off, this would be the last installment of Federal funding for USEC and, second, that USEC was now doing a stellar job and was nearing completion of the tests being done at its American Centrifuge Project facility and that the concerns over the loss of taxpayer funds were overblown and unwarranted. Madam Chairman, unfortunately, both of those assertions have proven to be untrue. Not only does the underlying bill contain an additional $96 million for the United States Enrichment Corporation, but that corporation can no longer be considered to be on solid financial footing, having declared bankruptcy earlier this year. So it begs the question, why are Republicans in this body providing earmarked funds for bankrupt companies? When the Department of Energy took over operations at the American Centrifuge Project, through its Oak Ridge National Laboratory, many of us had high hopes of how the facility would be run in the future. But those hopes were dashed when the Department of Energy announced that the United States Enrichment Corporation would continue to operate the facility as a subcontractor, essentially maintaining the status quo, a status quo that historically had proven to be inoperable. Along with now-Senator Markey, I requested the Government Accountability Office to look into the Department of Energy's actions with regard to the United States Enrichment Corporation, providing uranium tails to the company while simultaneously harming the uranium mining industry in many of our Western States. The Government Accountability Office, in the first of two reports this month, found the Department of Energy had been taking steps with regard to the United States Enrichment Corporation that far exceeded its legal authority. Those of us who have been involved with this issue were hardly surprised by this conclusion, but the report served to undermine all of the claims that supporters of the United States Enrichment Corporation have made about the national importance of the American Centrifuge Project facility. Now, the Government Accountability Office is scheduled to release its second report later this summer, which concerns the claims that the United States Enrichment Corporation's existence is necessary for national security. It is clear, however, from the first GAO report, that the Department of Energy's actions have been taken in direct contradiction to Federal law. This must stop. Any further taxpayer money placed in this direction is sure to be wasted. Madam Chairman, the Department of Energy's track record of giving money to bankrupt companies is abysmal. The House today has a chance to stand up for the American taxpayer and prevent further funding from being provided to companies that simply cannot deliver. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Point of Order

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

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, I think columnist George Will said it best back in December of 2007 when the Energy Independence and Security Act passed. He said: Look, the United States Congress has two jobs--defend the borders and deliver the mail, and instead, they have spent their time outlawing Thomas Edison's greatest invention. I urge Members to support the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Chair, today's amendment is to maintain current law. Since the passage in 2007 of the Energy Security Act, I have heard from tens of thousands of constituents about how the language of the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act takes away consumer choice when deciding which types of lightbulbs to purchase and place in their homes. While the government has passed energy efficiency standards in other realms over the years, never have they moved the bar so high and lowered the standard so drastically. It is to a point where technology is still years away from making lightbulbs that are compliant with the law at a price point the average American can afford. Opponents to my amendment will claim that the 2007 language does not ban the incandescent bulb. I would stipulate that that is true. But it does ban the sale of the 100-watt, the 60-watt, and the 45-watt bulb. The replacement bulbs are far from economically efficient, even if they are energy efficient. A family living paycheck to paycheck can't afford to replace every single bulb in their house at $25 to $35 a bulb, even if those bulbs do last 20 years. And 20 years from now, who knows if the technology is going to change again, and maybe the Congress will have them change their lightbulbs again. The economics of the lightbulb mandate are only part of the story. With the expansion of Federal powers undertaken by President Obama and the Democrats in Congress during the first 2 years of the Obama administration, Americans realized just how far the Constitution's Commerce Clause has been manipulated from its original intent. The lightbulb mandate is a perfect example of this. The Commerce Clause was intended by our Founding Fathers to be a limitation on Federal authority, not a catchall nod to allow for any topic to be regulated by Washington that Washington felt was in the people's best interest. Indeed, it is clear that the Founding Fathers never intended this clause to be used to allow the Federal Government to regulate and pass mandates on consumer products that do not pose a risk to health or safety. The Congress should be on the side of the average American. The Congress should be on the side of the consumer. The Congress should be on the side of consumer choice. If new, energy-efficient lightbulbs save money and are better for the environment, we should trust the American people to make the choice on their own to move toward these bulbs. We should not force these bulbs on the American people. The bottom line is, the Federal Government has no business taking away the freedom of Americans to choose whatever they wish to put in their homes. I will add that recently lightbulb manufacturers in this country have claimed that because of the stopgap provision in the 2007 law, if we continue to prevent the Department of Energy from promulgating rules pursuant to these provisions, the manufacturers will be forced to stop manufacturing compliant incandescent bulbs. But this is an argument to repeal the 2007 language in its entirety, not to force its implementation. We should not allow a stopgap trigger in the law to extort us from allowing bad policy to move forward. This exact amendment has been accepted for the past 3 years by voice vote and has been included in the annual appropriations legislation, signed into law by President Obama each year since its first inclusion. It allows consumers to continue to have a choice. It allows consumers to continue to have a say about what they put in their homes. It is common sense. It is time we trust average Americans. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the dedicated service of Dr. Eddie Hadlock, President of North Central Texas College. After 40 years of service to NCTC, Dr. Hadlock's exemplary career is coming to an end. Dr. Hadlock's career in education includes two years of public school teaching and 35-plus years as a college teacher and administrator. From part-time teaching assignments, serving as a vocational counselor, and various administrative positions up to president, Dr. Hadlock has served in virtually every area of college operations. Dr. Hadlock currently serves on the Executive Committee of the Texas Association of Community Colleges and has held membership in numerous professional organizations including serving as a member of the Reaffirmation Committee for the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. North Central Texas College's sterling reputation is a reflection of the committed leadership of Dr. Hadlock. His professional legacy will continue to benefit the students of North Texas for years to come. I join his colleagues and the community in commending North Central Texas College's President, Dr. Eddie Hadlock for his dedication to education and extend best wishes upon his retirement. It is my privilege to represent North Central Texas College in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, the President needs to come to the Texas border. There is a crisis occurring there. I just returned from a trip to McAllen. The situation is grave. The influx of people is putting a strain on our resources and threatening our system of public health. Last week marked my second trip to tour the processing and holding facilities. I know other Members of the Texas delegation have made the trip as well. But President Obama, despite being in Texas for fundraising this week, refuses to come to the Texas border. The President's remarks from the Rose Garden last week did little to deter Central Americans from sending their children to the Texas border. His message was correct, but his tone was wrong. The President needs to be clear and direct. He needs to send a clear and direct message to the parents in Central America: Don't send your children across the deserts of Mexico into Texas. As a Texan, I felt compelled to make this trip, but I realize my influence in this realm is limited. The President has the bully pulpit. The President can make the point. The President of the United States needs to come to the border and speak in a clear and direct fashion to the parents of Central America.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Again, I would reiterate that the veterans bills passed by this House, passed by the House of Representatives, have now gone to conference with the Senate. The most expeditious way to accomplish the goals the gentleman referred to is for the conference committee to give its report and bring that back to the floor of the House. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Again, access and accountability are parts of the VA reform bills that have been passed by this House and currently that is in conference. Even today, they are having their first meeting of the conference committee. I, too, wish the administration would fire someone for incompetence. Whether it be at the VA, the Treasury Department, the Internal Revenue Service, healthcare.gov, the list of incompetencies grows larger every day and just begs the question: What do you have to do to get fired by the Obama administration? I have got to share with you something else. This Statement of Administration Policy--and this is the first time I have seen it here as we are presenting the bill today--but it closes with the statement: ``Because H.R. 3301''--that is the permitting bill-- ``would circumvent longstanding and proven processes.'' Proven processes? These processes are broken. That is why the legislation is necessary--because the administration refuses to act. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. The fact of the matter is that a conference committee is meeting on this very issue. In fact, they are having their first meeting this afternoon. The issues of access, the issues of accountability for VA personnel who have not held themselves to high standards, those are provisions that have already passed the floor of this House, some on suspension and some under a rule. These bills are before the conference committee with the Senate. It is appropriate that they be acted upon expeditiously, but in no way does defeating the previous question enhance that flexibility or the rapidity with which those questions are taken up. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I have very little to add to what my colleague from Texas just said. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, if it were really true that the actions we take here don't mean anything, then why did the Department of Energy suddenly release one of the export licenses merely on the fact that the Energy and Commerce Committee held a hearing on H.R. 6, the bill offered by the gentleman from Colorado, Cory Gardner, to require a time certain for the export license to be decided upon? Why does the gentleman from New Mexico, Senator Udall, have very similar legislation pending over in the Senate? I would say this is one proposal that perhaps has a very good chance of becoming law, even in divided governments, such as we have today. On the issue of the previous question, I would remind the body that the most expeditious way to get to a solution for the problems that are being experienced by our Nation's veterans within the VA system is for the conference committee to proceed. If we pass something today, it still goes back over to the Senate. It doesn't expedite a darn thing. The conference committee is the correct way for that to go. So I do urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question. Today's rule provides for the consideration of two key pieces of legislation to move our country toward a more energy-independent environment. I certainly thank Chairman Upton and Cory Gardner for producing bipartisan pieces of legislation to address real problems that have arisen in the permitting process, when politics are injected into what should be a merit-based system. H.R. 6, the Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act, and H.R. 3301, the North American Energy Infrastructure Act, are thoughtful pieces of legislation that deserve the support of this body.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 636 provides for consideration of two energy bills designed to provide certainty for those American businesses that have been given excuse after excuse as to why their permit applications have been delayed by the President, the Department of Energy, and other Federal agencies. The President and his administration have used every delaying tactic they can think of to put off approval of job-creating projects in the natural gas and oil sectors. Quite frankly, the American people are fed up with it. Republicans are here today to stand up for citizens, unions, and businesses that have stood up and called for a more expeditious process that removes politics from the permitting decisionmaking. The rule before us today provides for consideration of two bills, H.R. 6, the Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act, and H.R. 3301, the North American Energy Infrastructure Act. Both bills receive a standard structured rule under this rule. For H.R. 6, the Rules Committee makes in order four amendments--two from Democratic sponsors and two bipartisan amendments. For H.R. 3301, the rule makes in order three amendments, all sponsored by Democrats. This is a straightforward and fair rule that will allow the House to fully debate the issues of liquefied natural gas exports and cross- border pipeline and transmission line projects. House Republicans have been focused on this country's energy independence for years. The Energy and Commerce Committee has been out in front of this effort, holding hearings on the Obama administration's harmful policies, holding hearings on the job-killing regulations and those that place restrictions on development on public lands and thereby increase the cost of producing electricity and fuel. Although President Obama is quick to take credit for an increase in natural gas and oil production in this country over the last few years, any honest observer knows that any increase in production has come as a result of efforts on private, not public land, and certainly not lands controlled by the Federal Government. In continuing the Republican majority's focus on domestic production issues, utilizing the resources that we have here in North America, Representative Cory Gardner introduced H.R. 6, the bipartisan Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act, to provide for the expedited approval of exploration of natural gas to World Trade Organization countries. I am an original cosponsor of the legislation. In the Energy and Commerce Committee, we have had hearings about the gridlock which has held up dozens of applications from domestic production companies looking to export liquefied natural gas. Since the first non-free trade agreement application was submitted to the Department of Energy nearly 4 years ago, seven have been approved. Twenty-four are awaiting action. Interestingly enough, to counter what the Department of Energy knew would be the inevitable bipartisan criticism of its delays at the last hearing we held on this topic, the Department of Energy announced just days before the hearing the approval of another LNG export application. For anyone who thinks that this activity in the House is futile, given Harry Reid's intransigence in taking up any legislation that comes to the Senate from the House, this action by the Department of Energy highlights that efforts taken in this body--the House--can have meaningful impacts beyond simply having legislation signed into law. Sending a clear signal to the Obama administration that the people's House is fed up with its delaying tactics and refusal to move forward with the approval of legitimate permit applications is key to making progress toward a more robust domestic energy sector. The delays which President Obama's administration has imposed on these applications make it more and more difficult. As applications sit collecting dust for these companies trying to secure financing and countries looking to do business with American suppliers, they will soon lose patience and look elsewhere for their needs. The window for these opportunities is closing, and it is the President's hand that is pushing it down. Mr. Gardner's legislation is straightforward. Indeed, it is a two- page bill with a clear purpose and intent. The legislation expedites the decisionmaking process for authorization to export natural gas by requiring the Department of Energy to issue a decision within a finite number of days. This legislation does not force the Department of Energy to make a decision or to make a decision a certain way. It simply says: make a decision. Moreover, an increase in liquefied natural gas exports in the United States can have major positive ramifications on international relations. I recently traveled to the Ukraine for their elections. I saw firsthand how Russia's cruel restrictions on natural gas are affecting the region's social and political atmosphere. Officials from the Ukraine and other Eastern European countries have told members of the Energy and Commerce Committee that the mere mention that the United States is increasing its LNG exports can have dramatic impacts on Russia's influence over the region. Mr. Gardner's bill achieves that goal. The passage of this bill will move the United States yet another step closer to both assisting our allies abroad as well as creating a more robust domestic industry at home. The second bill included in today's rule, H.R. 3301, the North American Energy Infrastructure Act, authored by Chairman Upton of the Energy and Commerce Committee, further improves the laws governing the permitting of oil and gas pipelines which cross the United States border between either Mexico or Canada. As the country has witnessed over the past few years, despite overwhelming support from the American people for the project, President Obama and his Secretary of State--first Hillary Clinton and now John Kerry--have refused to approve the Keystone pipeline to bring oil from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. Those of us who have followed the process over the many years that this administration has had the Keystone application under its review know that the delays which the President has imposed on this approval process have been done purely for political considerations and, in the process, have harmed the country's relationship with one of our closest allies, our neighbor to the north. If the goal of the President's delays--which he is clearly doing for his friends in the environmental lobby and certainly not for the many unions who have loudly called for the project's approval--was to stop development of the oil sands in Canada, the President again has failed. Canada recently approved the exploration of a new pipeline to its western coast, where oil would be transported and exported to Asia. Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee have been highlighting this possibility for years. Apparently, our predictions are about to come true. H.R. 3301 is about more than simply the Keystone pipeline. This legislation is about preventing the President--and future Presidents, regardless of their party--from playing politics with decisions that should be made on the merits of the project. This President has repeatedly ignored the State Department's comprehensive environmental review of the application, which found that minimal adverse impacts would occur from the building and operation of a cross-country pipeline, and has instead decided to base the decision purely on those special interests. This is not how major national projects should be evaluated in this country, and Chairman Upton's legislation ensures that future decisions will be done without the shadow of politics looming over them. However, although the legislation removes the politics out of such decisionmaking, it still ensures that other key safeguards in the approval process remain in place. Cross-border pipelines would still have to meet the Natural Gas Act's requirements, and they would still comply with all relevant Federal, State, and local siting and environmental law. The Department of Commerce and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission both will play roles in this process, as well as the Department of Energy. Decisions must be made within a 120-day timeframe to prevent the types of delaying tactics that we have seen from the administration with regard to energy projects. To be clear, this legislation applies only to projects which cross national borders and does not make changes to the application process for interstate and intrastate energy projects. Mr. Speaker, both bills before us today are commonsense responses to the problems we have experienced when the President decides to play politics with the Nation's domestic energy industry. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute for the purpose of a response. Two months ago, in an overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion, this House agreed to loan guarantees for the country of Ukraine as they dealt with an internal crisis in their country. It is interesting that, probably less than 24 hours after this House passed that loan guarantee, Vladimir Putin said: Do you know what? Your natural gas price just doubled. In fact, next year, it is going to cost you an extra $1 billion. So, in effect, he used natural gas pricing policy to offset the loan guarantees that we had provided to the country of Ukraine to deal with their internal problems. Mr. Speaker, this is something that this Congress can adjust and affect right now. We can remove the stranglehold that Vladimir Putin holds over Ukraine and, indeed, over the entirety of Eastern Europe, and we can do it with the passage of this bill today. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. I yield myself 1 minute. Madam Speaker, the oil produced in the Province of Alberta belongs to the country of Canada. Yes, it may traverse the United States, if the Keystone pipeline is built. But if it is not, the oil will traverse western Canada and be shipped to China. The oil will still be burned. The carbon will still go into the air. Who would you rather have in charge of the refining process: refineries in China who do not have the environmental controls, or refineries in Texas who do? I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, trauma is the leading cause of death for people under the age of 65. It is expensive, costing nearly $403 billion a year, third only to heart disease and cancer. It affects individuals of all ages, 35 million times each year, or one person every 15 minutes. H.R. 4080 reauthorizes two existing, bipartisan grant programs that support the regionalization of emergency care and trauma systems across the country. Trauma systems deliver a full range of care to injured patients. Most Members of the House have trauma systems either in their districts or nearby that are able to serve their constituents. This bill is supported by the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, the American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons, the American Burn Association, the American College of Emergency Physicians, the American College of Surgeons, the Emergency Nurses Association, the American Trauma Society, the Congress of Neurological Surgeons, and the Trauma Center Association of America. A study released in April found that patients living near a recently closed trauma facility were 21 percent more likely to die from their injuries. Two years after closure, the likelihood of death increased to 29 percent, emphasizing the importance of these grants. This legislation passed out of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health by a voice vote and passed the full committee on April 3 unanimously. This legislation is broadly supported by medicine. It is bipartisan, and it has gone through regular order. I want to thank Chairman Upton and Chairman Pitts as well as Ranking Members Waxman and Pallone, and the Energy and Commerce staffs on both sides of the dais: Clay Alspach, Robert Horne, Brenda DeStro, Katie Novaria, as well as Anne Morris Reid. Mr. Green and I have worked on this issue for years, and I appreciate his continued partnership on the bill. I also want to thank his staff, Kristen O'Neill. Finally, from my office, I want to thank Adrianna Simonelli and JP Paluskiewicz, who shepherded the bill through the process. I urge all Members to vote in favor of this legislation. It is important for all of our districts.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I did not participate in the vote of S. 1044 on June 23, 2014. Unfortunately, I was traveling back from Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas, and due to inclement weather, I could not get back from my trip in time to vote. However, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on S. 1044.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I did not participate in the vote of H.R. 316 on June 23, 2014. Unfortunately, I was traveling back from Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas, and due to inclement weather, I could not get back from my trip in time to vote. However, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on H.R. 316.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize National Sunglass Day and to honor the sunglass manufacturers and suppliers throughout my Dallas Congressional District, the State of Texas and around the country. Texas and the Dallas area are home to a variety of optical industry leaders including 24 optical laboratories that manufacture prescription sun wear, 3 lens manufacturers that supply UV filtering lenses, and 6 sun wear frame suppliers. As a physician, I commend the sunglass industry and their trade association The Vision Council (TVC) for ongoing outreach campaigns to educate consumers regarding the damaging effects of ultraviolet (UV) rays to the eye and healthy vision. In the case of eye protection, what you don't know can hurt you. When it comes to the human eye and the sun's rays, it's what we can't see that matters most. UV radiation that reaches the earth's surface, made up of two types of invisible rays, UVA and UVB, endangers an unprotected eye. The effects of long-term exposure can include cataracts, macular degeneration, abnormal growths on the eye's surface and even cancer of the eye. While everyone should shield their eyes from UV rays, certain risk factors like age and eye color increase an individual's vulnerability to UV related eye disorders. Where you live and travel can also make a big difference in the level of UV exposure. Since UV damage can't be reversed, prevention through protection is key. Later this summer, sunglass manufacturers and distributors from my home district in Texas and The Vision Council (TVC) will be convening a Capitol Hill briefing on the topic of UV danger and protecting your eye health. I encourage my colleagues to attend and applaud the sunglass community and The Vision Council for their leadership in promoting healthy vision.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, we are experiencing an unprecedented crisis on the Texas border, but this is not the result of a natural disaster. This is an entirely manmade crisis caused by the executive branch. The number of young undocumented immigrants has nearly tripled over the last 2 years. This is not a coincidence. Two years ago, the President essentially rewrote the Nation's immigration policies and promised amnesty to children of a certain age. Central Americans heard this message loud and clear and have sent their children to the United States in droves, oftentimes under the care of paid-off drug lords who are abusive and dangerous. I visited the holding facility at Lackland Air Force Base yesterday and heard the stories firsthand of the difficulties these children experience during their trip to the United States. The Obama administration has said it is committed to ending human trafficking; but, Mr. Speaker, when you are complicit in this degree of human trafficking, I would call you an enabler. I urge the President to reverse his course for the sake of these innocent children, for the sake of our hardworking border agents, and on behalf of the taxpayers.