Michael Burgess

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute for a couple of brief responses. First off, I don't know whether the gentleman misheard or only caught me in midsentence. I was responding to the minority leader's statement about this September is the 4-year anniversary of the crash in the economy, and the preceding 20 months, from September of 2008, in the Congress, all of the levers of power were handled by the Democrats. Now, on this issue of fighting Washington, good strategy, bad strategy, I can't address that. But I do know what's going on out in this country--people are frightened of Washington. They're not fighting Washington; they are scared. Why are they scared? What are they seeing with the NSA? What do they see with the TSA when they go to the airport? What are they seeing with the IRS? Nobody likes the IRS to start with, but now people are concerned that their First Amendment rights are going to be trampled by an out-of-control Federal agency. And I have to tell you what, Mr. Speaker, it all devolves back to the administration. Yeah, the Congress has its own problems, but the administration is actually what is driving the frightening of America, not the fighting of America. I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley).

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 315 provides for consideration of two pieces of legislation passed by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The first, H.R. 2218, the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act of 2013 introduced by my friend on the committee, Mr. McKinley from West Virginia, passed out of committee with a strong bipartisan vote with 54 bipartisan cosponsors. The second piece of legislation, H.R. 1582, the Energy Consumers Relief Act of 2013, was introduced by my friend Mr. Cassidy from Louisiana. The rule before us today provides for 1 hour of general debate on each of the bills included in the rule. A total of nine amendments were made in order between the two bills, six on the Democratic side and three on the Republican side. Further, the minority is afforded the customary motion to recommit, allowing for yet another opportunity to amend each piece of legislation before it's final vote. H.R. 2218, the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act of 2013, is a product of hours of work over the course of the past few years that the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley) has put in to perfect this legislation. Indeed, the legislation includes numerous provisions offered by Democrats and even reflects input by President Obama's own Environmental Protection Agency. This legislation was prompted by a move in June of 2010 by the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate coal combustion residuals. In this rule, the Environmental Protection Agency set out three proposals for coal residuals, commonly referred to as coal ash. Coal residuals are often recycled in an environmentally sound fashion and repurposed for use in roads, parks, golf courses, and any other number of safe manners. Unfortunately, many in the industry viewed these proposed Environmental Protection Agency regulations as placing barriers to the continued use or recycling of coal ash. In response to these concerns, Mr. McKinley's bill would provide for minimum Federal standards but allow States to craft a permitting program that could be tailored to the needs in each individual State. The bill makes clear that it does not provide the Environmental Protection Agency with new rulemaking authority. Further, it requires the Environmental Protection Agency to defer to the States with respect to the regulation of coal ash. This would allow Sates to protect human health and the environment by adapting an existing solid waste regulatory program for coal ash. To ensure adequate safety measures for human health, the bill requires installation of groundwater monitoring at all structures that receive coal ash. The second bill included in today's rule has been carefully designed to protect consumers from a runaway Environmental Protection Agency which, in my experience as a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, constantly uses some pretty strange figures and some funny math in depicting the so-called benefits of its rules and rarely fully admits to the full cost of the rules it promulgates. Since the beginning of President Obama's, Lisa Jackson's, and Gina McCarthy's tenure with the Federal Government, the Environmental Protection Agency has promulgated regulations imposing billions of dollars in costs on our critical power infrastructure. Famously, the Environmental Protection Agency has been so out of control that the President himself was required to intervene and pull the ozone rule in August of 2011, knowing that the cost to the country far outweighed the benefits that the Environmental Protection Agency was claiming. In response to this out-of-control agency, Dr. Cassidy has carefully crafted H.R. 1582, the Energy Consumers Relief Act, which would add another measure of protection for consumers legitimately frightened of whether or not they will be able to afford their air-conditioning this summer or their heating this fall, or even to turn on their lights at nighttime. The bill is straightforward. It requires that, before promulgating a final rule that would impose an aggregate cost of $1 billion on the American people, the Environmental Protection Agency must consult with the Secretary of Energy, a Cabinet member who will be working for the very same President as the Administrator at the Environmental Protection Agency. The Energy Secretary must then determine that the rule before him would not cause significant adverse effects to the economy or to electric reliability, as is his job. That's what his mission statement is as the top energy official for our country. For too long, the Environmental Protection Agency has dictated our energy policy rather than simply our environmental policy. Former Energy Secretary Steven Chu seemed to have no problem passively delegating his job to Lisa Jackson. I suppose he was too busy losing America's money to solar companies. The era of the Environmental Protection Agency dictating energy policy must end, and this bill is a solid step toward that goal. Mr. Speaker, American consumers are struggling. They watch the cost of food as it rises right before their eyes. They watch the gas prices. Where are they going? Nowhere but up. They watch their electricity bills. They are also going up. There is no relief in sight on the horizon under this President and this administration. House Republicans have not abandoned their promises to protect consumers from an out-of-control bureaucracy imposing cost after cost on the American people. Today's legislation is yet another few arrows in the quiver to stop the Federal Government from taking more money out of Americans' pockets. As I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the two underlying bills, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. 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 have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 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. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 315 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, let me yield myself 30 seconds for response, pending which I'm going to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from West Virginia. In the brief 7 months that I have spent on the Rules Committee in this Congress, there's only one time where the administration has not issued a veto threat to legislation we were considering under the Rules Committee. This is H.R. 2218, Mr. McKinley's bill. They voiced problems, but they did not issue a veto threat. That is a red letter day in this institution. Every other piece of legislation that's come to the floor has done so under a threat of a veto by the administration. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I will be happy to address some of the revisionist history. If we want to talk about reality testing, how about the fact that, in September of 2008, Democrats had controlled every level of power in the United States Congress for some 20 months, but we didn't hear a peep out of them until Lehman Brothers failed? And, oh, by the way, who was on watch at the New York Fed when that happened? Timothy Geithner. He was rewarded by becoming President Obama's Treasury Secretary. For the first 2 years of the Obama administration, it was so anti- employer that no wonder the recovery was, indeed, a jobless recovery and that it has continued in that mode until today. And don't get me started about the Affordable Care Act. That has been a wet blanket on job creation in this economy. The President knows it, which is why he revised things last week. And, oh, by the way, if he wants to reach out his hand to us, how about sending people from the agencies to our committees who at least will stop the propensity for prevarication when they will not admit to the fact that they have contingency plans in place for delaying and downsizing the implementation of the Affordable Care Act as they were, in fact, planning that very measure when those people came to the committee and spoke under oath.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, this week the Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Health will begin a markup on legislation to fix a problem that Congress has been struggling with for over a decade, and that's fixing what's known as the ``doc fix,'' or the sustainable growth rate formula. The proposed legislation is bipartisan. Both sides of the dais agree that this must be done, and it incorporates the feedback we've received from over 80 stakeholder groups. The legislation replaces the problematic formula with an improved system to increase the quality of care for Medicare patients while streamlining the costly and complicated process in a fiscally responsible way. Most importantly, the legislation ensures that Medicare patients will continue to have access to medical service. By providing incentives for doctors to continue to treat Medicare patients, we're putting the health of our seniors first. I'm proud to be part of this commonsense solution, and I look forward to speaking to this House more about this in the weeks to come as it works its way through committee.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, here it is, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, section 1513, page 159, paragraph D, Effective Date. This is the section that deals with the so-called ``employer responsibility,'' what we call the ``employer mandate,'' the effective date as defined in law: The amendments made by this section shall apply to the months beginning after December 31, 2013. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to bring the House's attention to a letter that was submitted to Leader Pelosi and Leader Reid by leaders of some of our country's labor unions. This is from James Hoffa from the Teamsters Union. Since the Affordable Care Act was enacted, we have been bringing our deep concerns to the administration seeking reasonable regulatory interpretations to the statute that would help prevent the destruction of nonprofit health plans. As you both know firsthand, our persuasive arguments have been disregarded and met with a stone wall by the White House and the pertinent agencies. This is especially stinging because other stakeholders have repeatedly received successful interpretations for their respective grievances. Most disconcerting of course is last week's huge accommodation for the employer community--extending the statutorily mandated December 31, 2013, deadline for the employer mandate and penalties.

Mr. BURGESS

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 yield myself such time as I may consume. Let's also just deal with a couple of things that have been said during the last hour of debate. The gentleman from Connecticut stood up and provided a CRS report that detailed various times in the past where rules have been delayed, the Department of the Treasury, regarding tax law. But what he listed were all bills that have passed since President Obama came into office, and they all had to be postponed because they were ill-conceived and ill-thought-out. I would just submit that it was December 24 of 2009 when this thing passed out of the United States Senate. If, as the gentlelady says is correct, they sat down and read this thing line by line three times, they were bound to have encountered page 159, paragraph D: Effective Date. The amendments made by this section shall apply to the months beginning after December 31, 2013. Mr. Speaker, I would just submit, if the Department of the Treasury said this was going to be a problem--they've known about it for almost 4 years--where have they been? And why was it necessary for it to come up on July 2 at 6 p.m.? Mr. Speaker, I have asked representatives from the administration, representatives from the agencies: What are you doing? Are there contingency plans? This thing looks awfully complicated. This thing looks awfully complex. Can you get it done? Are you thinking about delaying it? Are you thinking about jettisoning other parts? And as late as the end of April, the first of May, I was told, no, there are no such plans. Now, the Administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services apparently today, in a hearing, testified that, Yes, sometime in June we had actually made the decision that we were going to have to do something here. This is inconsistency coming from the administration. We ask for information, and no information is forthcoming. And then we're accused of being obstructionists and saying, Well, you never wanted the law in the first place. Maybe so. But how in the world can we even have a meaningful dialogue if, when you come into the committee and you're asked a direct question under oath, you won't respond accurately? The propensity for prevarication of this administration has been absolutely stunning. Now, we're here today because of a blog post on July 2 at 6 p.m. I would very much like to get the author of this blog post into our Committee on Oversight and Investigations on Energy and Commerce and ask her just exactly what was going on, what led to this decision: Did you get a legal memo? Did you get information from some legal counsel as to the fact that this was okay? I would welcome that opportunity. But, Mr. Speaker, you and I know that that opportunity is never going to occur. So, Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of two critical bills, ensuring that the American people are not penalized for this administration's inability to implement its own law properly. I applaud the efforts of my colleagues, Mr. Griffin and Mr. Young, and I look forward to the spirited debate on these two bills in the ensuing hours, and I'm sure this House will produce spirited debate.

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

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

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the Education and Workforce Committee, the gentleman from Indiana, Dr. Bucshon.

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

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 300 provides for consideration of two closely related bills, H.R. 2667, the Authority for Mandate Delay, and H.R. 2668, the Fairness for American Families Act. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate for each bill, controlled by the Committee on Ways and Means. Further, the minority will be offered a motion to recommit on each bill. Because the issues before us in these two bills are so closely linked, the rule provides that, upon passage, the Clerk will merge the text of both bills into a single measure to send to the Senate. Mr. Speaker, we're here today because the President has decided that he alone, without consultation, without advice, consent, or even notice to the United States Congress, has the sole authority to decide which laws he will and which laws he will not enforce. The President has done this with regard to immigration laws; he has done this with regard to duly enacted marriage laws; and now, in an act of too true hubris, he has done this with respect to his own signature issue, the President's health care law. In a July 2, 2013, blog post--a blog post; not a letter, not a phone call, not a press conference, not even a press release, but a blog post--the President announced three significant changes to his health care law that we have been assured over and over is perfect, it's on track, it's on schedule, we will be ready. But this announcement, posted just before the July 4th holiday, 6 p.m. eastern time, on July 2, when the administration knew that everyone in the country was preparing to celebrate this country's independence, spending time with their families, everyone's attention was diverted so they did not notice that two major provisions to the President's signature piece of legislation were being postponed: First, the requirement that employers report data to the Internal Revenue Service are postponed for a year; Second, the requirement that large employers offer coverage to full- time workers or pay a penalty. Large employers are defined as having 50 or more full-time equivalent workers. Well, that's postponed; and Third, the requirement that coverage offered by large companies be not more than 9.5 percent of an employee's pay for his or her individual coverage. With the President's supporters chanting they can't wait any longer for the benefits of the health care law to go into effect, the President has responded and told them, ``Just wait.'' In showing that the House Republicans and the President can, in fact, come together and agree upon an issue, Mr. Griffin from Arkansas introduced H.R. 2667, the Authority for Mandate Delay Act, providing the President with the statutory authority that he has already usurped and codifying the President's announcement. Although Republicans have long held that all provisions in the health care bill should be delayed--delayed permanently--we can at least come together when we are on the same page as the President and support his efforts by passing his announcement into law. However, while he's giving a pass to employers by not requiring them to offer health care coverage next year, he is giving no such pass to individual citizens. The individual mandate and other elements of the Affordable Care Act remain unchanged. Republicans believe providing relief to businesses while denying that same relief to individuals is inherently unfair. For this reason, Representative Todd Young from Indiana has introduced H.R. 2668, the Fairness for American Families Act. This bill would provide the same relief to individuals and families that the President has provided to business owners. It is the fair thing to do. It is the right thing to do. The President has justified his postponement of the employer mandate by pointing out that the regulations surrounding the mandate are just so very complicated, businesses will need at least one more year to comply. And, quite frankly, his administration will need at least one more year to put the regulations into place. This is the same argument that could be used for the individual mandate. I am highly skeptical, as are many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, that this administration will be able to have the exchanges and the insurance programs up and running. Remember, open enrollment starts in just a few weeks, October 1 of this year, a prerequisite for the individual mandate to be able to be implemented. Although officials from the administration repeatedly claim they are on track to implement this law and meet its deadlines, the employer mandate postponement shows that the train, in fact, is not coming off the rails, it's already off the rails with regard to implementation. On October 1, navigating the exchanges will be a nightmare for our constituents, and yet the administration has turned its back on giving them any relief from their law. Even the law's original proponents are beginning to become more vocal about the law's unintended consequences and negative effects on Americans' lives. In a letter sent to Nancy Pelosi and Leader Reid last Friday, three major unions wrote: When you and the President sought our support for the Affordable Care Act, you pledged that if we liked the health plans we have now, we could keep them. Sadly, that promise is under threat. Right now, unless you and the Obama administration enact an equitable fix, the Affordable Care Act will shatter not only our hard-earned benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40-hour workweek that is the backbone of the American middle class. After detailing in the letter how Democrats have repeatedly ignored the unions' pleas to fix this ill-conceived bill, the letter concludes: Time is running out: Congress wrote this law; we voted for you. We have a problem; you need to fix it. The unintended consequences of the Affordable Care Act are severe. Perverse incentives are already creating nightmare scenarios. Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Democrats will join Republicans today and, quite frankly, follow the President's lead and postpone this law. What's good for business should be good for the American people. Republicans have sided with the American people on this issue time and again. The American people do not want this law to be implemented as its written, and we're here today to see that it is not. I am encouraging my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the two underlying bills. With that, 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. For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 300 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, some of the Affordable Care Act's oldest and strongest supporters are now coming out against the bill. Yesterday, the three largest unions in the country wrote a letter to Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid and said that the President's health care takeover would ``destroy the foundation of the 40-hour workweek that is the backbone of the American middle class.'' Their concern--my concern--is that the employer mandate will force small businesses to move their employees to part time in an effort to avoid additional expenses. While I wish they had realized this before spending so much time and so much money on getting the law passed, at this point I couldn't agree with them more. This week, it is very important that we pass the bills to delay the individual mandate and delay the employer mandate for a year. This will give us time to consider how to keep the Affordable Care Act from destroying our economy. To quote the union's letter: Time is running out. We have a problem. You need to fix it. The unintended consequences of the Affordable Care Act are severe. Further quoting: We can no longer stand silent in the face of the elements of the Affordable Care Act that will destroy the very health care and well-being of millions of hardworking Americans. By passing these two bills this week, we will take an important step in minimizing the damage from the Affordable Care Act.

Mr. BURGESS

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

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, in this House, in 2007, a bill was passed called the Energy Independence and Security Act. One of the features of this bill was to take away consumer choice when deciding which light bulbs our constituents could use in their own homes. Since that time, I have heard from literally tens of thousands of people on the inequities of this provision. Mr. Chairman, they're right. While the government has passed energy-efficiency standards in other realms over the years, they have never moved so far and lowered standards so drastically to a point where at this date, over 5 years, the technology is still years off in making light bulbs that are compliant with the 2007 law and at a price point that the average American can afford. Last year, light bulb companies talked about their new 2007 law- compliant bulbs that are available now, but they're available at price points of $20, $30, $40, and $50 each bulb. Opponents to my amendment will claim that the 2007 language does not ban the incandescent bulb. This is true. It bans the sale of the 100- watt, the 60-watt, and the 45-watt bulbs. 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 bulb in their house at $25 a bulb, even if those bulbs will last 20 years. This Congress should be on the side of the consumer and on the side of consumer choice. If the new energy-efficient light bulbs save money and if they're better for the environment, we should trust our constituents to make the choice on their own toward these bulbs. Let the market decide. We should not be forcing these light bulbs on the American people. The bottom line is the Federal Government has no business taking away the freedom of choice from Americans as to what type of light bulbs to use in their homes. The columnist, George Will, speaking on a television program back in December of 2007, describing the efforts of the then-110th Congress, was fairly disparaging. He pointed out that Congress had not done much work in the calendar year 2007. He went on to say that the sole functions of the Federal Government are to defend the borders and deliver the mail, but all the Congress had managed to do was ban the incandescent bulb. This exact amendment was passed the past 2 years by voice vote and both times was included in the legislation signed into law by President Obama. It allows consumers to continue to have a choice and a say as to what they put in their homes. It's common sense. Let's give some relief to American families at least until replacement light bulbs can be marketed at prices that don't break the bank. I yield back the balance of my time.