Randy Weber

Mr. WEBER of Texas

Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Chairman Smith's bill, H.R. 3293. At a time when budget constraints and the deficit loom large and ominous, why in the world would anyone object to more transparency and accountability? Can anyone explain that to me? I didn't think so. Here is how some of our hardworking taxpayer money is being spent. Mr. Chairman, I have a list of 41 studies and programs that, if taxpayers knew, they would rise up and revolt. Some of the more notable are: $227,000 to review animal photos in National Geographic magazine. (what baboon thought that up?) $350,000 to study human-set fires in New Zealand in the 1800s. (the main ``human set fire'' here is our taxpayer dollars being burned) $200,000 to tour Europe for an overview of the Turkish fashion-veil industry. (I am reminded that fashion is a form of ugliness so bad, it has to be changed about every 6 months!) $735,000 for the American Bar Association to follow young lawyers' careers (3 awards). $920,000 to study textile-making in Iceland during the Viking era (2 awards). $50,000 to support STEM education in Sri Lanka. $164,000 to study Chinese immigration to Italy (1900 to present). $20,000 to study stress among people from lowland Bolivia (one of 12 awards). $147,000 to analyze fishing practices at Lake Victoria, Africa. (Heck: all you gotta do is come down to my district in Galveston TX and we'll show you how to analyze fishing practices for a lot less and you can spend that money in our country!) $147,000 to study international marriages between citizens of France and Madagascar. $50,000 to study civil lawsuits in colonial Peru (1600-1700 AD). $250,000 to survey public attitudes about the Senate filibuster rule. $300,000 to study law firms in Silicon Valley. $170,000 to study basket weaving among Alaskan native peoples (2 awards). Perhaps that's what folks think Congress is majoring in. $276,000 to study the pre-history of Chiapas, Mexico. $246,000 to study migration and adoption between Peru and Spain. $134,000 to study Late Bronze Age metallurgy in the Southern Urals, Russia. $195,000 to contrast the histories of Patagonian and Amazonian national parks. $281,000 to analyze the history of Izapa, Mexico. $136,000 to study life/history transitions among indigenous people of northern Argentina. $27,000 to study Mayan wooden architecture and salt industry (600-900 AD). $92,000 to study Mexico's public vehicle registration system. $373,000 to study Chinese kinship, women's labor and economy (1600- 2000 AD). $152,000 to analyze accountability and transparency in China's dairy industry. $300,000 to study Cyprus during the Bronze Age (2 awards). $226,000 to study cultural dynamics in western Turkey. $119,000 to coordinate an international archeological project in the S. American Andes. $300,000 to produce an experimental dance program about nature and physics. $516,000 to help amateurs create a video game--``Relive Prom Night.'' $200,000 to devise social media algorithms for ``Truthy.com,'' a website aimed at censoring political speech by Tea Party members, conservatives, etc. $605,000 to travel and study why people around the world cheat on their taxes. $193,000 to study human fish consumption in Tanzania (300-1500 AD). $221,000 to study use of ochre pigment for painting in Stone Age Kenya. $101,000 to pay for American psychologists to international conferences. $250,000 to educate local TV meteorologists about climate change (2 awards). $38,000 to consider whether livestock herding families in rural, undeveloped areas have more children in response to herd growth, or if increased family size drives herd growth. $193,000 to study human fish consumption in Tanzania (1300-1500 AD). $38,000 to study prehistoric rabbit hunting on the Iberian Peninsula. $1.8 million to study the potential of commercial fish farming at Lake Victoria, Africa. $330,000 to study the careers of 2,500 new lawyers in Russia. $1.5 million to study pasture management in Mongolia. Mr. Chairman, some of the more notable are: $227,000 to review animal photos in National Geographic magazine. What baboon thought that up? $350,000 to study human-set fires in New Zealand in the 1800s. The only thing being set on fire here is taxpayers' dollars. $200,000 to tour Europe for an overview of the Turkish fashion veil industry. I am reminded what a friend of mine says. He says fashion is a form of ugliness so bad that we have to change it every 6 months, and yet we want to study it over in another country. $147,000 to analyze fishing practices at Lake Victoria, Africa. Heck, folks, if y'all come on down to Galveston, Texas, we will show y'all how to fish and analyze that, and you can spend money in our country. $170,000 to study basket weaving among Alaskan Native peoples. Is it any wonder that most of Americans think Congress must major in basket weaving? These are just some of the more notable ones, Mr. Chairman. I could go on through the 41 on the list. For example, $330,000 to study the careers of 2,500 new lawyers in Russia. It is not that we don't have enough lawyers over here in America; now we are concerned about the ones in Russia. I could go on and on, Mr. Chairman. I just want to simply say, I urge my colleagues to support transparency and accountability on behalf of our constituents and taxpayers. After all, they are paying the freight for this stuff. Shouldn't we be open and accountable to them? I commend Chairman Smith for his bill and for putting hardworking taxpaying Americans first.

Mr. WEBER of Texas

Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a dear friend and compatriot, John Bentley of League City. John lost his fight to cancer on December 20. He was a mere 73 years old. John and his beloved Geri, his wife, moved to League City in 1999 where they immersed themselves into the community by getting involved in local politics, nonprofits, and the local church. John served on the Galveston County Health District's United Board of Health and served as a chair for precinct 152 for the county Republican Party. He also helped form the Bay Area Pachyderm Club where he was the club's vice president this year. John was very passionate about local politics and became a very influential figure in our county. Along with his wife Geri, they established the Clear Lake Tea Party in 2009 where John served as the group's chairman in 2010. It is with great sadness I must say good-bye to my friend, but it is important that we celebrate his life and be comforted in the fact that he is now with our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Mr. WEBER of Texas

Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak out against the proposed executive assault--I mean action--on our Second Amendment rights. The President has yet again overstepped, has fired off another round, and has taken dead aim at the Second Amendment. It is time Congress takes dead aim at his lawlessness. We have three branches of government for a reason, and one branch cannot continue to unilaterally act. It is tyrannical, and it erodes the foundation of this great Nation: our Constitution. Mr. Speaker, it is very curious to me that the President, who doesn't want his background checked into--his birth certificate, his school records, or his college grades--wants an anti-Second Amendment intrusion into actual Americans' backgrounds. When is this administration going to realize that denying Americans their constitutional right to carry won't prevent bad people from doing bad things? It simply ensures criminals a safe path to crime. That is how I see it. Lord help us last over these next 12 months.

Mr. WEBER of Texas

Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn the President's actions to regulate our power plants and his efforts to commit the United States to such onerous regulations through the United Nations. At no other time in our history has a President been more wrong more times on so may issues that this country is facing today than President Obama, Mr. Speaker. At a time when our country is being attacked from inside our borders and radical Islamists are gaining ground all over the world, this administration is obsessed with climate change? And, he refuses to admit the radical Islam is our enemy? It makes me wonder if he thinks that Syed Farook in English means ``global warming.'' It is clear that he is intent on regulating our Nation's economy and hurting its citizens instead of focusing on the immediate threat. You can't make this stuff up, Mr. Speaker. I guess you could say the threat he should be focused on is global swarming. He just doesn't seem to get it, Mr. Speaker. The sad fact, Mr. Speaker, is even if every country abided by its greenhouse gas emissions reduction commitments, temperatures would continue increasing 2.7 to 3.7 degrees Celsius. Without these reductions, temperatures would increase 3.0 to 4.0 degrees Celsius. The difference is miniscule. Mr. Speaker, there are no positive economic or environmental benefits to the President's unlawful regulatory actions. Instead, the administration's pledge to the U.N. threatens job creation and economic growth right here in the United States of America. According to one independent analysis, the economic cost to Americans will be approximately $29 to $39 billion each year. Electricity prices for consumers in 40 States could increase by at least 10 percent, or more. He has already been quoted during his campaign saying that under his administration, electricity prices would, by necessity, skyrocket. These are his words, not mine. This represents nothing less than a war, Mr. Speaker, on low-income families, and would further increase economic inequality. Mr. Speaker, our country is in a crisis. Instead of its foolhardy and unconstitutional plan to regulate our climate, this administration should be focusing on the livelihood and safety of this Nation and Americans. It is no secret that there are people around the world who hate the United States and wish to see its demise. There are attacks being planned and plotted even as we speak, Mr. Speaker. Yet this administration claims that that threat is contained and global warming is our main threat. Tell that to the 14 people who were tragically murdered while celebrating Christmas in San Bernardino. That is how I see it here in America, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. WEBER of Texas

Mr. WEBER of Texas. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of both joint resolutions, which will block the Obama administration's so-called Clean Power Plan, a regulation, I will add, that was never authorized by Congress, that will hurt our economy, lower our standard of living, and have absolutely no impact on the climate. Mr. Speaker, I often say the things that make America great are the things that America makes. Now, how do we do that? We do that with an affordable, dependable, reliable energy supply. According to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, which operates my State's electric grid, energy costs would increase protections by up to 16 percent due to this Clean Power Plan. This will have a disproportionate impact on the poor and on those on fixed incomes. Sadly, most of those folks don't even see it coming. According to testimony we heard today, Mr. Speaker, in the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, the Clean Power Plan will reduce global temperatures by just .023 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2100. Furthermore, the EPA's claimed public health benefits from this regulation are due solely to reductions in air pollutants that are already regulated by the Agency under existing standards. The reduction of carbon dioxide on its own has no public health benefits. I mentioned that the things that make America great are the way that we have a reliable, affordable power supply. I guess we could say that the EPA stands for an ``energy and power assault.'' Mr. Speaker, the facts are clear. This regulation will hurt our economy, and it will have none of the stated benefits the administration claims. I often say that the EPA seems to stand for ``eventually paralyzing America.'' We must adopt these resolutions of disapproval and hold this administration accountable for its regulatory assault on our economy and on our low-income families. That is how I see it here in America.

Mr. WEBER of Texas

Mr. WEBER of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, Neville Chamberlain landed at Heston Aerodrome on September 30, 1938, and spoke to the crowds. He said: ``The settlement of the Czechoslovakian problem has been achieved.'' He said, ``This morning I had another talk with German Chancellor, Herr Hitler, and here is the paper that bears his name on it, as well as mine.'' He went on to say, ``We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war again.'' Later that day, he stood outside of 10 Downing Street and read again. He said: ``My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour.'' He said, ``I believe it is a peace for our time. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. Go home and get a nice quiet sleep.'' Mr. Speaker, we all know how that turned out. My friends, if this deal passes--and make no mistake, it is quite a deal for Iran--Americans will not get a quiet night's sleep. As long as Barack Hussein Obama is in office aiding and abetting the Iranian terroristic regime, we will not be safe and Americans will not sleep well. This is a bad deal. You don't argue, you don't make deals with the devil, deals with the enemy. Do we not learn from history? Did we not learn anything from World War II? This is a bad deal. I urge my colleagues to vote this deal down. It is time to put America first.

Mr. WEBER of Texas

Mr. WEBER of Texas. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, before I begin my prepared remarks, I want to say something to my mom, Jeanne Weber, in Pearland, Texas. Mom, thanks for being pro-life. Thanks for cradling even the very thought of me in your heart and mind before I was conceived; and, Mom, thanks for cradling me in your womb and then later in your bosom and then in your lap, and all my young years. I love you, Mom. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell you how deeply disturbed I am by these videos that have been unearthed showing employees of Planned Parenthood selling body parts of aborted babies. It has long been my mission to fight against any organization that will not protect the unborn. As a member of the Texas statehouse, I voted alongside other Texas House conservatives to defund the Planned Parenthood in Texas to ensure that taxpayer money would not be used on these ghastly abortion procedures. Now, as a Member of Congress, Mr. Speaker, I have fought alongside my colleagues to protect the unborn and the sanctity of life. On May 13, the House voted in strong support of my good friend Representative Trent Franks of Arizona's legislation, H.R. 36, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, a crucial piece of pro-life legislation that bans the murder of babies who are at least 5 months old in the womb and can, indeed, feel the excruciating pain of dismemberment and a ghastly death that Planned Parenthood would perpetrate on them. In 2013, we saw the horror of Dr. Gosnell, and now we see the real disturbing practices of Planned Parenthood and their black market sale of body parts of aborted babies. Mr. Speaker, I only ask this: How can organizations put a price on tissues, limbs, and livers, and then not acknowledge that there is life at the time of conception? No price can be placed upon the worth of seeing a child born and take its first breath. And, Dad, before I go, thank you for standing alongside Mom and being pro-life. I love you both.

Mr. WEBER of Texas

Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the P5+1 nuclear agreement with Iran. No longer do we have to guess at rumors or wonder what the deal is. We now know. We know that enrichment, despite earlier promises, will continue. We know that the arms embargo will be removed. We know that the entire sanctions regime, covering problems with human rights abuses, terrorism, and the ballistic missile programs, will cease to exist. We know that Iran has the capability of usurping an anytime, anywhere inspections program, thanks to required advance permission for each individual inspection, up to 24 days sometimes. After decades of animosity on the part of Iran toward the American people, we also know that our Americans are still sitting in Iranian prisons. I wonder how many 24-day periods they have been there. We know that Iran still views the United States and Israel as their enemy, as stated earlier this month by multiple members of the Iranian regime. We know that Iran's sponsorship of terrorism will continue unabated, only now they will have more money and increased market access to ensure that weapons and funds continue to flow into the very hands of those who wish our death. President Obama announced, ``America negotiated from a position of strength and principle.'' Really? That was our beginning position? Well, when did they cease to push that position? All I see is capitulation to a regime which has repeatedly violated the terms of the negotiations, all the while sitting at the very negotiation table. America's failure to truly lead is what has caused both President Obama and Secretary Kerry to state that this deal had the support of the international community. Obviously, they forget that our greatest ally, Israel, is part of the international community as well as other gulf coast countries. Aren't they all members of the same international community? Now it is incumbent upon Congress to seek answers to a number of questions prior to finalizing our votes on an expected resolution. Number one, do we really believe it will prevent a nuclear armed Iran? Answer: No. Do you really believe it will prevent a nuclear arms race in the Middle East? Answer: No. Do you really believe that the removal of a comprehensive sanctions program that brought a terroristic Iranian regime to the negotiation table in the first place can truly be ``snapped back''? Answer: No. Have we lost decades of work? Unfortunately, answer: Yes. Do you believe this deal makes the world a safer place? As for me, the answer is no. The answer to all of these questions is no. As such, I cannot nor will I support approval of Iran's deal of a lifetime. All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is it is a good thing President Obama wasn't on the decks of the USS Missouri to end World War II because, had he been, we would all be speaking Japanese.

Mr. WEBER of Texas

Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer a commonsense amendment to the Interior and EPA Appropriations bill which, I hope, all Members can and will support. First, I would like to commend Chairman Calvert for his work on this legislation and for including critical provisions to prevent the EPA from moving forward on crippling new regulations on our economy. Mr. Chairman, since 2009, our job creators have faced an onslaught of regulations from the EPA even as Congress has consistently reduced the Agency's budget year after year. The EPA has proposed a regulation to lower the national ozone standard, which is largely based on shaky scientific data and could cost our economy billions of dollars a year. The EPA has also proposed new regulations on new and existing power plants that could substantially increase energy prices for hard-working families and small businesses. The Agency has cited its authority to regulate under the Clean Air Act as the basis for many of these decisions. However, when it comes to evaluating how its regulations impact American jobs, the Agency has failed to follow the law. Section 321(a) of the Clean Air Act clearly states: ``The Administrator shall conduct continuing evaluations of potential loss or shifts of employment.'' Last year, the EPA was sued because of its failure to comply with this provision. Additionally, we heard testimony last month before the Science, Space, and Technology Committee that further reinforced the EPA's failure to evaluate employment impacts as Congress has directed under section 321(a). It is unacceptable for the EPA Administrators to cherry-pick the law based on their own ideological agenda. That is why I have introduced this amendment, which would ensure that the EPA abides by the law and conducts ongoing evaluations of just how their actions impact jobs in America. I urge the adoption of this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. WEBER of Texas

Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for her comments. In Texas, we have a great snapper fishing industry as well--anglers, recreational. We have charter boat captains. We have a lot of commercial industry as well. By the way, my daughter and first three grandchildren live in Florida, so Florida is my second home. Mr. Chairman, I rise to talk about H.R. 1335 and a proposed amendment by the gentleman from Louisiana, my great friend, Garret Graves, to change the snapper fishing system. The problem is that the plan that has been developed in his amendment is actually a plan that was developed by five people in secrecy who want to change the way NOAA does things and turn it over to the five States. That is a bad idea, and I will tell you why for just a whole bunch of reasons. The current plan has been working since 2007, which actually doubled the population of snapper. Indeed, it has provided a 30 percent increase in the quota this very season. Businesses have been working all along the Texas coast and--to my gentlewoman friend from Florida-- the Florida coast and the whole Gulf Coast area to develop lasting fisheries because their livelihoods depend on it. Mr. Chairman, I am an air conditioning contractor. We have an air conditioning commission there in Texas that regulates us. We want people on that commission who understand the HVAC industry. We do everything in the industry to promote the industry, to make sure that we have a good, stable industry that takes care of customers in Texas. I have to know and believe that it is the same way about the fishing industry. They want the fisheries to last. Restaurants depend on it. Americans depend on it. It is not just the anglers but those who want to go eat at some of the restaurants the gentlewoman from Florida referenced. There are a lot of groups opposed to Mr. Graves' amendment--the National Restaurant Association, the Texas Restaurant Association. Mr. Chairman, I have a list of 42 others. Gulf red snapper is an American treasure, and it should be accessible to all, not just to those who can get a boat and a trailer and go fish for themselves. They ought to be available to all of the restaurants. We have heard the facts and figures about the number of jobs and the amount of revenue that have been brought in and how big that industry is. My good friend from Louisiana, Dr. John Fleming, who is a member of the committee, has publicly stated that some tweaking is needed, but by all three groups of stakeholders: charter boat fishing, the commercial fishing industry, and the individual anglers. I heard with my own ears the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee state his willingness to work with all three groups in the coming days. Mr. Chairman, government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers. To allow the group of five States to implement a plan--an unknown plan, I might add--would only put pressure on those individual States to outsupply the other States with a longer fishing season to attract anglers, tourists, and their money to outcompete the other States. Fisheries would be devastated, and the livelihoods, jobs, and markets that are supplying red snapper to restaurants all across the country would be gone. Ultimately, it is the American consumers, who have come to like the local seafood, who would be disenfranchised, not to mention the businesses that supply them. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater or, dare I say, the fish with the saltwater. Let's bring all parties together in a thoughtful, deliberate, meaningful discussion that benefits all involved, not just a few. For this reason, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against the gentleman from Louisiana's amendment, well intentioned though it may be.

Mr. WEBER of Texas

Mr. WEBER of Texas. I thank Chairman Smith for yielding me time to speak on this important legislation that is on the floor today. Mr. Chair, H.R. 1806, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015, authorizes the science and energy research programs at the Department of Energy, providing funding for research and development conducted in our universities and national labs across the country. DOE is the largest Federal supporter of basic research in the physical sciences and provides user facilities for over 31,000 scientific researchers each year. The America COMPETES Act prioritizes funding for the Office of Science, which conducts critical research in high energy physics, advanced scientific computing, biological and environmental research, nuclear physics, fusion energy sciences, and basic energy sciences. This basic R&D has broad applications for our economy and for our national security, providing tools and user facilities for researchers in all energy fields. The America COMPETES Act also reauthorizes the Department's applied energy programs in nuclear energy, fossil energy, energy efficiency and renewable energy, and electricity research and development. By prioritizing research and development in these programs, we can maximize Federal dollars and leave commercialization and deployment to the private sector, Mr. Chairman, which has the most incentive to bring new, cost-effective, and efficient technologies to market. This legislation is fiscally responsible and cuts funding to lower- priority and duplicative programs like EERE, which has grown by almost 60 percent in the last decade. With our national debt of $18 trillion and rising, Congress must prioritize fundamental research to lay the foundation for the next technological breakthrough. We simply cannot afford to spend limited Federal dollars on promoting today's technology. This is so yesterday when we do that. Instead of duplicating work that could be done in the private sector, the America COMPETES Act prioritizes basic research and development with broad application to all forms of energy and energy efficiencies. Mr. Chairman, over the past 5 months, the Science Committee has held hearings on the Department of Energy research and development for advanced nuclear reactors, high-performance computing, energy efficiency and renewable energy, energy storage, and the Department of Energy budget proposal. With limited time, this Science Committee in this Congress has conducted five hearings in support of this legislation, prioritizing oversight of the DOE programs authorized in this bill. By supporting the America COMPETES Act, Congress can promote fundamental research, build a foundation for the private sector to bring innovative new technologies to market, and grow the American economy. I urge my colleagues to support the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act.

Mr. WEBER of Texas. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding to me. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment and in support of the underlying reforms included in H.R. 1806, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015. This amendment would remove a limitation included in the underlying bill that prevents the Department of Energy from using funding authorized for the EERE Biofuels program to conduct commercial production of biofuels for defense purposes. The fact is that EERE already spends too much of their current budget on deployment and commercialization of renewable and energy efficient technologies instead of research and development. The DOE's ongoing effort to fund commercial-scale biofuels production for military purposes in cooperation with the Department of Defense and USDA is just one example. Redirecting funds from biofuels R&D is part of a broader problem. Department of Energy research and development programs should be focused on science, not creating a market for certain types of fuels. The DOE should focus on a new idea for the market, not a market for the new idea. The Department of Defense spends billions annually on fuel costs, billions. When viable biofuels technology is able to compete with conventional fuels--trust me--the private sector can and will develop commercial-scale biofuels production to meet demand. It is just that simple, Mr. Chairman. And despite significant Federal programs to support the use of biofuels, a recent GAO, Government Accountability Office, study concluded that the long-term viability of alternative fuels is dependent on market factors, not Federal funds or mandates. That same study reported that the Department of Defense paid $150 per gallon for 1,500 gallons of alternative jet fuel derived from algal oil. Taxpayers should be outraged. The other side may be, in fact, promoting their global warming theory because when taxpayers find out about this kind of waste, there are going to be a lot of them hot under the collar. The Department of Energy should focus on research and development, not commercial biofuels production. This limitation is consistent with the broader goals of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act, which prioritizes research and development in all R&D program areas while cutting spending on deployment and commercialization. I am aghast, Mr. Chairman, that the other side somehow thinks Congress shouldn't be paying attention to the way taxpayer dollars are spent. For these reasons, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. WEBER of Texas

Mr. WEBER of Texas. I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me the time. I am glad to hear I am getting us back on subject. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule on H.R. 1806, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015. This is fiscally responsible legislation that cuts wasteful government spending and prioritizes innovative scientific research and development. A key reform included in the America COMPETES Act is reining in spending at the Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, or EERE. EERE's budget has grown by almost 60 percent in the last decade. President Obama's fiscal year 2016 budget request for EERE is over $2.7 billion, with a B, which is a requested increase of another $800 million over last fiscal year. The Department of Energy's approach to energy research and development has also become more and more unbalanced with the EERE's continued growth. In fact, the President's proposed budget for EERE R&D is more than double the budgets for nuclear, fossil, and electricity R&D combined. In addition, the work prioritized by EERE is far too focused on increasing the use of today's existing technology. Many EERE programs are focused on reducing market barriers for existing technology or funding R&D activities already prioritized by the private sector, not conducting the fundamental research to build towards future breakthroughs. With our national debt at $18 trillion and rising, and spending caps guiding budgets on everything from energy to national defense, Congress cannot rubberstamp this kind of out-of-control spending. It is time to adjust the Department of Energy's budget to reality. The America COMPETES Act refocuses Federal investment on energy research and development, not deployment of today's technology. By funding the basic research and development prioritized in the America COMPETES Act, the Department of Energy can build a foundation for the private sector to bring innovative energy technology to the market and thereby grow the American economy. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this rule and ``yes'' on H.R. 1806, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015.

Mr. WEBER of Texas

Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to speak on the recent introduction of my bill, H.R. 1332, the Deny Amnesty Credits Act of 2015, in order to put our country and our Americans first. As a response to the President's unauthorized and illegal actions granting amnesty, my bill will prevent those who are granted deferred action under Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, and the Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, or DAPA, from qualifying for the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit. As it stands, the President's illegal executive amnesty would allow illegal aliens to obtain Social Security numbers and the ability to receive as much as $35,000 of hardworking taxpayer moneys on their tax returns from the United States Treasury. The money that is from our hardworking taxpayers, don't they deserve to be put first? According to the Congressional Budget Office, this would cost American taxpayers $10.2 billion because of an illegal executive program never authorized by Congress. America can no longer be the world's ATM. This President has trampled upon our Constitution and has circumvented Congress to ensure his political legacy far too many times, and it must stop. Instead of working with Congress to secure our borders and to uphold the law of the land, this administration is offering executive amnesty and tax credits to illegal aliens. Mr. Speaker, it is time to put America first. We must hold this administration accountable for actions that circumvent Congress' constitutional power of the purse, costing billions of taxpayer dollars--our taxpayers. My bill, the Deny Amnesty Credits Act of 2015, will do just that. It will put America first. It will help put us on that path. It will help our hard-working Americans to be first and foremost in the hearts of us--of our Congress, the elected Representatives--who are, quite frankly, charged with putting Americans first. Mr. Speaker, did I mention? It is time to put America first.

Mr. WEBER of Texas

Mr. WEBER of Texas. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1030, the Secret Science Reform Act of 2015. Last December, the EPA proposed a new regulation that is widely predicted to be the costliest regulation in U.S. history--I repeat, the costliest U.S. regulation in history. It would actually cost our economy $140 billion per year, according to the National Association of Manufacturers--manufacturers, you know, those who manufacture or make things. I like to say the things that make America great are the things that America makes. Likewise, in these hard economic times, more Americans will make it in America when more things are made in America. Therefore, regulations that hamper manufacturing should really be scrutinized, and regulations that have such a big impact on our economy should not be based on secret science in order to sell it to the American people. Unfortunately, the EPA has prevented outside researchers from accessing the data behind recent regulatory decisions. The public is just supposed to trust the EPA. Apparently, their policy is trust, but evade your eyes; we want a policy that says trust, but verify. It is long past time that Congress increases transparency into the EPA's regulatory process. The Secret Science Reform Act would prohibit the EPA from proposing or finalizing regulations based upon science that is not transparent or available for independent review. Our constituents have a right to know whether EPA's regulations are based on sound science and have the stated benefits the Agency claims they have. The legislation is simple, it is straightforward, and it is a message that government bureaucrats cannot propose costly regulations without the transparency that the American people deserve. We want more Americans and more American companies to make it in America. I want to thank Chairman Smith for bringing this important legislation to the floor today.

Mr. WEBER of Texas

Mr. WEBER of Texas. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in strong support of H.R. 1029, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2015. The Science Advisory Board was established by Congress to review the science behind the EPA's decisions and to advise Congress and the EPA on scientific and technical matters. Unfortunately, the SAB is no longer functioning as designed as it is without the impartiality and expertise needed to be an effective arbiter of the EPA's use of science and its regulations. For example, the membership of the SAB has excluded individuals from State or local governments. Yet these are the folks who are often the closest to the impacts that the regulations have on job creators across America. As the EPA continues its regulatory assault on America's economy, it is critically important that Congress act to improve the quality of the EPA's use of science in its decisions. This legislation will do just that. It will improve the quality of the SAB's membership, increase public participation in its scientific reviews, allow for dissenting opinions among members, and it requires that the SAB communicate uncertainties in its findings and conclusions. Mr. Chair, I am an air-conditioning contractor. As such, we are licensed by the TDLR in Texas. Mr. Chair, I want someone on that board that understands the air-conditioning business, that has business background. It is sad, Mr. Chair, we are supposed to be a country that has a government, not a government that has a country. Opponents of this bill act like business people cannot be trusted to help their own government. They say they have a conflict of interest. That just gets all over me. Business folks, whom I call the salt of the earth, they invest money in businesses; they create jobs; they take risks; they build families and communities--and they can't be trusted? They can use their expertise to serve our community and our country. I would even offer that they are a form of a renewable resource. Mr. Chair, it is high time for this bill to pass and put some common sense and transparency in the process. I thank Congressman Lucas and Chairman Smith for bringing this important legislation to the floor today.

Mr. WEBER of Texas

Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to honor the memory of Helen Kilroy of Galveston County. Helen Kilroy was a woman of service who always put community and others first. In March of 1989, her son, Mark Kilroy--her and Jim's son-- disappeared during a spring break in Mexico. Unfortunately, the Kilroy's ultimately learned that their beloved son was murdered by a cult practicing human sacrifice. Losing a loved one, especially a son or daughter, can be debilitating; instead, Helen and Jim Kilroy decided to channel their grief into action. The memory of their son was honored through their support of causes to help those in need. In 1995, the Kilroys founded the Mark Kilroy Foundation to support the Safe Communities Coalition. The coalition works to promote drug- free communities, violence prevention, and anger management. It also provides counseling for at-risk children. Helen Kilroy's selflessness did not stop at the creation of the Mark Kilroy Foundation. Helen was a foster parent to seven children and a district leader for the Bay Area Council Cub Scouts from 1976-1983. She was a Meals on Wheels volunteer. She was a Santa Fe Parks and Recreation Board member, a dedicated church Eucharistic minister, as well as a volunteer EMT and a paramedic for Santa Fe, Texas, EMS. On December 22, 2014, Helen Kilroy lost her battle with ALS-Lou Gehrig's disease. She died after fighting that long battle. She is survived by her husband, Jim Kilroy; her son, Keith; her daughter-in- law; two grandchildren; three sisters; two brothers-in-law; numerous cousins; nieces; and nephews. The many individuals helped by the Mark Kilroy Foundation and by her many service roles are a living legacy to her selfless nature. Helen's impact on our community was unparalleled. It takes a strong person to take a family tragedy and turn it into a lasting influence on our community. Helen's servant heart truly changed and even saved lives. Helen, you are missed. Jim, your beloved life is a legacy to the both of you. Helen, may you rest in peace. Jim and family, you all are in our prayers.

Mr. WEBER of Texas

Mr. WEBER of Texas. Maybe, if the people on the other side of the aisle don't vote for this bill, we will get it passed, and the President will veto it. Then maybe Americans will elect some umpteen more Republicans. It is time to move this bill and get it done.

Mr. WEBER of Texas. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act. It comes into my district, by the way. It comes into my district on the gulf coast of Texas. Over 6 years has passed since the permit was applied for. The iPad was not even introduced at that time. That is how long it has been. In contrast, this Congress is acting in less than 2 months to approve the most studied pipeline in the Nation's history. The President is creating jobs all right. It is called studying pipelines so you can deny the permit. The State Department has concluded that this pipeline will be safe and environmentally sound. Indeed, that was the first amendment I got passed on the floor of this House in Lee Terry's bill--the State Department's own language. The pipeline strengthens our relationship with an important ally, and it creates thousands of jobs for the American people. The other side is saying some funny things: They say that drilling and oil production is at a 29-year high. Great. Let's continue this process. Let's make it better. Let's make it longer. I didn't even think about that. You are right. Energy independence is right around the corner. You are onto something here, so let's continue that; The other side says there is danger from oil spills. The truth is that the pipeline industry has a 99 percent safety rating. You cannot say that about trucking. You cannot say that about rail. You cannot say that about barge; They say this is the umpteenth time the Republicans have passed this bill. On November 4, as I recall, the Americans elected some umpteen new Republicans. I think they are sending a message that they want energy independence, that they want a change. They understand that the Keystone pipeline means energy independence. Yes, this House will pass this bill. We will send it to the President. A little over a year ago, the President said, if Congress wouldn't act, he had a phone and a pen, and he would. Now Congress is acting, and he is saying: I have got a pen, and I am going to veto. Which way is it, Mr. President? You can't have it both ways.

Mr. WEBER of Texas

Mr. WEBER of Texas. Thank you. Great questions. I didn't talk about the fact that I have five ports in my district on the Gulf Coast of Texas, more than any other Member of Congress. Some have four. I have five LNG plants, LPG plants. Sixty percent of the Nation's jet fuel is produced in my district, 60 percent of the Nation's jet fuel. An extremely large amount, a classified amount of the military's fuel. They won't tell us how much, but a large amount of the military's fuel. Strategic petroleum reserves abound in my district. Again, we can't find out how much, but it is a huge amount. From a foreign affairs initiative--and I have been over to Japan, I have been over to the Philippines, I have been to Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan--they want our LNG. They would much rather buy it from us than from the Russian bear. Don't you know the people in Ukraine would much rather be dependent on us because we are not a dictatorship, at least not supposed to be, and we are not going to cut off their fuel because we have a disagreement with the way the Russian separatists activate or believe? So it is a foreign affairs, it is a foreign policy initiative. As I said earlier, it helps make the world safer. It helps create jobs over here. It helps with our balance of trade, or imbalance of trade. It is an important issue, and it is one that bears supporting. Support the rule, support this bill because it is not only important for America from an energy perspective, from a security perspective, but an international or world trade perspective, as well as world security. For foreign policy, it matters. I thank the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. WEBER of Texas. Folks, the world is an inherently dangerous place. Watch the news. Think with me for a minute. When the world has a catastrophe--and it doesn't matter whether it is a tsunami, an earthquake, whether it is fire, pestilence, whether it is war--when the world has a catastrophe and dials 911, who is it that answers? It is America, isn't it? With our military. It is America that answers that 911 call. Now, how do we do that? It is because this country has the strongest, most stable, most reliable, affordable energy capacity and capability in the world. America is able to produce goods. I often say the things that make America great are the things that America makes, and our fossil fuel energy supply is what underwrites that. You don't think that's right? And I would argue that not only is it America's security; when America is strong, the world is strong. You don't think fossil fuel energy is important, try powering a tank or a jet plane with a solar panel, Mr. Speaker. You won't get very far. We must remain strong. As I said, for the world to be safe, America has got to be strong. This rule and this bill, H.R. 351, are important not only to America's economy but also our national security and, I would argue, by extension, with the world depending on us, international security. Yes, we have a stable, long-lasting reliable source of energy here in America. We have the opportunity to export that to our friends around the globe and help them to be safe, help them to be productive. We will produce American jobs in the process. We will improve our balance of trade, as my friend from Corpus Christi said earlier. LNG is helping not only with the economy, Mr. Speaker, but with national and, by extension, international security. I have three plants in my district. The permitting process needs to be expedited and move forward. That is why I rise today in support of the rule, in support of H.R. 351. Two LNG facilities in my district and one more on the books. They mean jobs. They mean security. I urge my colleagues to support this rule, to support this bill, put Americans to work, help America continue to be a leader, to be safe, and, indeed, help keep this world safe. I thank the gentleman, the chairman of the Rules Committee.

Mr. WEBER of Texas

Mr. WEBER of Texas. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and of the two underlying bills, one of which is H.R. 3, the Keystone XL Pipeline Act, which comes into my district. I thank Congressman Cramer for introducing legislation approving this project and for the leadership in making it a priority at the beginning of this Congress. It has been 2,302 days since the first permit application was filed for Keystone XL. Now, folks, that is before the Apple iPad was released 6 years ago. The State Department's exhaustive study of this project has led many to conclude that the Keystone XL is the most studied pipeline in history. It looks like the only job this has produced has been for those who are studying it. The Department has concluded that this pipeline will be safe and environmentally sound. Despite this favorable review, the administration has failed to make a decision on a project that will strengthen our relationship with an important ally and create American jobs--40,000, to use their number. In addition to Canadian oil, this pipeline will also transport American oil from North Dakota and Montana. This will make our roads and communities safer as fewer trucks and fewer railcars will be needed to transport oil to energy-hungry communities all across our great country. The Keystone pipeline is supported by over 70 percent of the American people, and there is no further reason for any kind of delay for this project. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3.

Mr. WEBER of Texas

Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, you may have heard about the revered Halls of Congress, but let me say that there is no more revered Hall of Congress than that of Ralph Hall. Let me tell you why that is. Ralph Hall was a true Texan and a great American. He is a great example to us all. As a true Texas gentleman, time and time again, I have seen him demonstrate the art of tact. He once described that art of tact as making someone feel at home when you wish they were. As a true Texas gentleman, he could do that. As a true Texas gentleman, I saw him time and time again use the art of diplomacy. He explained to me: ``Randy, you know, diplomacy is being able to tell someone to go to Hades and make them happy to be on their way.'' Ralph had that gift. Let me tell you, Ralph Hall--and I am going to list some descriptions of him alphabetically. He was American through and through. He was charming. He could turn that charm on. You have heard many of our speakers talk about that. He was committed. He was serious about what he did. Elegant. He was a picture of elegance. You could just see it in the way he moved and the way he worked. Funny. Gosh, he was so funny. The fact is I think he was cut out to be a comedian, but he was probably sewn together wrong. Gosh, he was funny at times. Gracious. A true Texas gentleman. A mentor to us, he could be stern when necessary. Strong. Did I mention Texas through and through? Witty. In short, Ralph was a great example. Mr. Speaker, I end with this acronym. When I think of Ralph--R-A-L-P- H--I think of R, he was real, he was Republican. I think of A, he was American. I think of L, he was a leader. And then I think of P, Ralph was principled. And then I think of H, and he is a hero. I will end with this--his last name Hall. H stands for hero, A stands for American, and both the Ls stand for the lasting legacy he is going to leave here in the Halls of Congress. When it comes to the Halls of Congress, there is none better than Ralph Hall. Ralph, we love you, we bid you a great American and a great Texan farewell, but only temporarily. Don't be a stranger.

Mr. WEBER of Texas

Mr. WEBER of Texas. I thank the gentleman from Arizona. Mr. Chairman, our constituents have a right to know whether EPA's regulations are based on sound science and do these regulations actually benefit the American public. The Secret Science Reform Act, which I have cosponsored, is a simple and straightforward message to government bureaucrats that they cannot propose costly new regulations without the transparency that the American people deserve. It makes you kind of wonder if the opponents of this legislation believe, like Mr. Gruber, that the American people are too stupid to understand the cost of the EPA overreaching regulations. Trust me when I say Americans are not stupid, and they deserve and demand the truth from the start. When given a bad prognosis from their doctor, I wonder how many of the proponents of the bill would say they don't really care about the details or the data. That is interesting. EPA's regulatory agenda should not be based on secret science and 30- year-old data in order to sell it to the American people. It is long past time that Congress increases the transparency of the EPA. This legislation will do exactly that by prohibiting the EPA from proposing or finalizing regulations based upon a science that is neither transparent nor available for review. I want to thank Chairman Smith and Congressman Schweikert for bringing this important legislation to the floor today.