Randy Weber

Mr. WEBER of Texas

Mr. WEBER of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment. We have heard the same sensible logic from our side of the aisle countless times over the past 24 hours as we have debated this bill and these amendments. The package is over-funded, incorrectly prioritized, and a partisan process nightmare. So in a way, I guess it is fitting that this is the only standalone amendment we will consider today. It is one that is seeking even more funding for one of this bill's most misguided priorities. The United States Chamber of Commerce said it best when they penned that this bill needed to avoid ``contentious and extraneous issues'' for this bill to be supported. Let me tell you, the Democrats' unyielding focus on massive increases to applied energy and, in particular, for the DOE's already well-funded Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy is the most contentious issue here. By now, I am sure you can all say it along with me, but I cannot stress it enough: It is basic research, not applied energy, that will put us in the best global position to develop the long-term clean energy solutions to address our changing climate and, yes, lay the foundation for our clean and affordable energy future for generations to come. The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy has grown considerably, starting with what was supposed to be a temporary recovery in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Remember that? Temporary. What was it President Reagan said? There is nothing more permanent on Earth than a temporary government program. Here is a great example. Today it is funded at $2.8 billion, with a B, which is more than DOE's research in fossil energy, nuclear energy, electricity, and cybersecurity combined. And let me just say, there is no clean energy future without nuclear energy. H.R. 4447, just the base text, would spend more than $3.7 billion on the EERE programs. Really? This amendment, which seeks to increase authorizations by an additional 50 percent, can only be labeled as irresponsible. This is a contentious and extraneous issue. The country doesn't have unlimited Federal research funds. It just doesn't. I am sorry to disappoint y'all. It doesn't. Look, it is difficult, but we must set priorities and invest strategically. That is our job, folks. That is our job. This amendment does exactly the opposite. As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy of the House Science Committee, I support an all-of-the-above energy strategy, and, yes, that includes renewable energy. Texas is number one in wind energy. But supporting an all-of-the-above energy strategy does not mean increasing Federal investment for every R&D program in perpetuity. What did Reagan say? Closest thing to eternity. I would like to ask my friends on the other side of the aisle, when-- w-h-e-n--do we let the mature technologies of wind--w-i-n-d--and solar stand up on their own in the market without continued funding to ``reduce market barriers''? Market barriers? The only barrier is commonsense thinking that we don't need to increase that funding. That is the barrier we are struggling against here. When do we acknowledge that the solar industry has an average annual growth rate of--check this out--49 percent? And wind power has tripled over the past decades, Texas being the leader. These industries don't need our support for deployment. They are already in the market and growing, for Pete's sake. This kind of duplicative and shortsighted strategy, while it may result in politically expedient talking points--I give y'all that. Madam Speaker, I hope that we will vote against this. I hope you will help us, Madam Speaker.

Mr. WEBER of Texas

Mr. WEBER of Texas. Madam Speaker, when I testified before the Rules Committee on Monday, I called the bill before us today the 900-page gorilla in the room. This is it right here. Bipartisan? It is about as bipartisan as two wolves and a lamb discussing what to have for dinner. Let me tell you, as I stand before you today, Madam Speaker, H.R. 4447, the Clean Economy Jobs and Innovation Act, has only picked up speed as it charges dangerously toward passage. Starting with the backroom process, 98 out of 176 submitted amendments were made in order, and there seems to be no rhyme or reason why. I personally submitted two that were ruled out of order. One was on nuclear research--you want to talk about clean energy, green--one on nuclear research and development, and one was a simple sense of Congress to ensure the long-term stability of fossil fuels, the bedrock of our Houston economy that the gentlewoman from Texas was just talking about. Yet my Democrat colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said this bill is a simple marker meant to pass the House and meet the Senate and their energy package at conference to iron out the details. The problem with that is that they are ignoring the real bipartisan, bicameral legislation that has already been ironed out. Let's use it. That would be a new wrinkle in their thinking. My nuclear R&D amendment, which won't even have a chance to be voted on, is composed of language that has support in the Senate and closely mirrors their Nuclear Energy Leadership Act, or NELA, a priority of Senator Murkowski. This just goes to show that today's bill and the rushed process behind it is simply another messaging exercise, that the Democrats have no intention of negotiating to the point of it actually being signed into law. There is a novel thought. On top of the hasty procedure to rush through regular order, this bill has been falsely labeled bipartisan, as our great friend from Oklahoma said. I have listened to my Science Committee Democrat colleagues boast that all of our relevant sections are bipartisan. Really? Yet, Madam Speaker, they won't mention that 7 of the 17 bills that are cosponsored by Republicans are not even on the Science Committee. When the Republican committee members who sat through hearings heard from the stakeholders and tried to amend these bills decided to oppose the legislation, the Democrats looked for any name with an ``R'' next to it just to check the box of ``working together.'' Once again, I will say it. If my colleagues on the other side were serious about ensuring that this bill is more than just an opportunity for another sound bite, they would bring together the correct parties to reach a consensus the President would actually sign into law. Madam Speaker, I am disappointed in this wasted opportunity. The United States has the ability to lead the world in technology. We have the ability to lead the world in technological solutions, and we can produce clean energy sources for the next generation, those jobs the gentlewoman from Houston, Texas, was talking about. But, sadly, today's bill misses that mark. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Mr. WEBER of Texas

Mr. WEBER of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of my amendment, which emphasizes the need to provide adequate funding for construction of the Department of Energy (DOE)'s Versatile Neutron Source or Versatile Test Reactor. The Versatile Test Reactor is a critical piece of DOE R&D infrastructure that will allow U.S. nuclear researchers to test and validate a wide range of advanced nuclear reactor designs on U.S. soil. Any responsible U.S. nuclear energy strategy must include robust support for this user facility. Last Congress, my bill, the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act (NEICA), was the first step towards making this DOE user facility a reality. To build on the success of NEICA, the central piece of my nuclear legislation this Congress, H.R. 6796, the Nuclear Energy for the Future Act, is the authorization of full funding for this necessary work. That's why I am very concerned to see that the 2021 appropriations bill provides less than a quarter of the funds needed to keep the Versatile Test Reactor project on budget and on schedule. If we are serious about our clean energy future and if we want to decrease our dependence on competitors like China and Russia for advanced nuclear R&D, we must continue to strengthen our advanced nuclear energy industry by prioritizing our investment in essential research infrastructure. The United States should lead the world in advanced nuclear research and development. I believe that this amendment identifies one of the fundamental and immediate needs of the U.S. nuclear industry and provides a strong commitment to addressing it. Moving forward, I will continue to work with my colleagues to prioritize fundamental research that will support nuclear innovation and keep America safe, independent, and globally competitive. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. WEBER of Texas

Mr. WEBER of Texas. Madam Speaker, the cancel culture train, a/k/a/ H.R. 7573 that passed yesterday, was wrong on a deep level. I am not going to get on that cancel culture train that says we have to do away with any mention or remembrance of everybody or everything that we don't agree with; or that might have said something that we don't like, didn't like; or that might have stood for something that we don't stand for, didn't stand for. The First Amendment was put in the Constitution to prevent exactly this. I am not going to get on the cancel culture train because the next thing you know, I will get thrown off for saying something that somebody didn't like or didn't agree with or, Lord forbid, that I would do something that somebody didn't like or didn't agree with. Madam Speaker, if we are going to do this, what happened yesterday, then the building names, street names, plaques, and all remembrances of Democrats that Judge Gohmert just read about need to be removed from every street, every building, anything that honors them. Madam Speaker, that is a dangerous slope to be on, the cancel culture train. People better sit up and take notice.

Mr. WEBER of Texas

Mr. WEBER of Texas. Madam Speaker, due to COVID-19 exposure, I self- quarantined from June 29 to July 3, 2020. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 123; NAY on Roll Call No. 124; YEA on Roll Call No. 125; NAY on Roll Call No. 126; YEA on Roll Call No. 127; NAY on Roll Call No. 128; NAY on Roll Call No. 129; NAY on Roll Call No. 130; NAY on Roll Call No. 131; NAY on Roll Call No. 132; NAY on Roll Call No. 133; YEA on Roll Call No. 134; YEA on Roll Call No. 135; NAY on Roll Call No. 136; YEA on Roll Call No. 137; and NAY on Roll Call No. 138.

Mr. WEBER of Texas

Mr. WEBER of Texas. Madam Speaker, some history from our country. Yesterday was June 25. On June 25, 1788, the State of Virginia ratified the U.S. Constitution and thereby became the 10th State of the United States. Virginia willingly joined the Union. Virginia willingly left the Union and then willingly eventually rejoined the Union, a reminder from our past. Do we take down everything about Virginia? Certainly not. Madam Speaker, on June 25, 1868, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina were readmitted to the Union. Again, they had willingly joined the Union; they willingly left the Union; and, yes, they willingly rejoined that same Union. Reminders from the past. Do we do away with all reminders? On May 18, 1896, the Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation for public facilities as long as they were separate but equal. In 1962, the Supreme Court ruled that the use of unofficial nondenominational prayer in public schools was unconstitutional. They got it wrong twice, just two examples. Do we do away with any mention of the Supreme Court? Madam Speaker, in 1973, June 25, again, yesterday, John Dean, White House Counsel for President Richard Nixon, admitted that President Nixon was involved in the coverup. Do we do away with all mention of President Nixon? Madam Speaker, how about President Bill Clinton, who was accused of several sexual harassments and was found guilty of lying under oath and, as I recall, tampering with a witness or obstruction of justice? Are all mentions of President Clinton gone? No, not him, not Nixon. They were Presidents of this United States. Madam Speaker, in 1999, on June 25, Germany's Parliament approved a national Holocaust memorial to be built in Berlin, a painful but necessary reminder from the past. And we could go on. We could talk about professional entertainers-- and I use the word ``professional'' loosely--who have been accused. And the list is Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, and on down. You go right down that list. Do we demand any and all of their works, their mentions, their movies, their shows be blotted out from memory? We could talk about professional athletes--and again, I use the word ``professional'' loosely--who have been accused of sexual assault, beating their wives up, their girlfriends up, caught with drugs, performance-enhancing drugs, gambling, cheating. Do we blot them out from all memory and all mentions? No. Madam Speaker, even churches--the Catholic Church, the Baptist Church, the Methodists, other churches, other denominations--scandals, military sex scandals, Boy Scouts, congressional sex scandals, every occupation, every race, color, creed, and religion, none is perfect. Where does it end? Should we pull down and attempt to erase all mentions of countries like Japan, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, China? The list is endless. Madam Speaker, George Floyd had a criminal record, but he did not deserve execution at the hands of an errant police officer. And then again, those whose lives and/or their livelihoods are being destroyed by vandals, looters, and rioters don't deserve to have their families and their livelihoods and their lives ruined either. It is time for the violence to stop. Peaceful protests, yes; violence, no. The Governors and the President should send in troops when requested and needed. I stand with the President in that. These criminals and lawbreakers deserve to be dealt with in a manner consistent with their behavior and the law. They are pulling down statues that were paid for with tax dollars, erected with the consent of the governed, no matter what community or timeframe. These thugs simply think they can tear them down. Do we acknowledge there are those who have an improper mindset? Of course. Those are thugs tearing things down. Of course we do. Do we also acknowledge that Black lives matter? You bet we do. I cannot even begin to understand the fear of parents and their children who live in that fear that some day they may suffer that same fate. But let's have that conversation within the framework of a civilized people who earnestly desire what President Lincoln called ``a more perfect Union.'' Violence, property destruction, vandalism, arson, looting, and, yes, killing others is hardly what I think we would want or call a more perfect Union, Madam Speaker. So how about a new reset? Looking backwards will only leave us hating everyone and everything. Statues and symbols of our great country should remind us how far we have come, but, more importantly, how far we have got to go still. We should be taking pride in how far we have come. Actually, let us hope in the promises of where we can go, while being saddened as to some of the things that have had to happen to get us to this point. Madam Speaker, how about a reset? George Orwell once said: The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history. Madam Speaker, as we reassess our shared experience, let us learn from the past in order to make a better, brighter future. America's history is imperfect. But projecting contemporary norms through violence while rejecting the experiences of our past does a disservice to the sacrifices of the great men and women like President Lincoln, who fought for equality for all. We must not erase our history. We must learn from it. This is one of the promises and the highest callings of America the beautiful.

Mr. WEBER of Texas

Mr. WEBER of Texas. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman. The gentleman over there used the word ``perverse.'' There is something perverse here, all right. I will say that I support the amendment by Mr. Meadows. Among the numerous perverse power grabs in this bill offered today, H.R. 2474 seeks to eliminate right-to-work protections nationwide, superseding laws passed in those 27 States my good friend talked about, including my home State of Texas, which as he alluded to, by the way, its economy is so successful and our economy so big that if we were a country, we would be the 10th largest country in the world. That is how good our economy is. Right-to-work laws prohibit the termination of employees for refusal to join or pay dues or fees to an organization they may or may not even support. Let's protect families, not organizations. Let's protect families' incomes, not unions'. My friend Mr. Meadows' amendment strikes the provision of this bill so that States may continue to protect workers from forced unionization and ensure Americans keep their hard-earned money.

Mr. WEBER of Texas

Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today also to commemorate what is an anniversary we shouldn't have ever had to commemorate and be here for, again, the 75th Anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz- Birkenau. Mr. Speaker, I have been to the concentration camps. I have seen the train tracks where they brought in loads of people in railcars and they herded people like they were cattle. I have seen the ovens. I have seen the gas chambers. Mr. Speaker, I saw where Dr. Josef Mengele performed experiments on people as if they were lab specimens; many of them women. It is something that we should never have experienced and should never experience again. Mr. Speaker, today, we do remember what the gentleman from New York said, the six million Jews who tragically lost their lives in the Holocaust. To keep that mind-numbing number in perspective, if we were to take a moment of silence for every Holocaust victim, I would stand up here for 11\1/2\ years. It is so imperative that we remember all of those who fought tirelessly to defeat the Nazi regime. With rising levels of anti- Semitic sentiment attacks spreading in the West today, we should emulate those brave men and women that my good friend, Lee Zeldin talked about, the Greatest Generation who, in their spirit, they fought, and many of them gave all to combat and liberating those downtrodden by the Nazis, those families who were forever destroyed under the German Nazis; liberating them from anti-Semitism in all forms. Anti-Semitism needs to be defeated today. So, Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues today as we recommit ourselves to the protection of our Jewish brothers and sisters and the State of Israel against all those who seek to destroy them, no matter what form. Come what may, BDS, anti-Semitism, all of those, may God protect Israel and the Jewish people, as we proudly say; and remind our children--what I call the latest generation--who need to understand what the Greatest Generation knew, and that is that it can never be tolerated, never again. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Marshall).

Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer).

Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart).

Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Kustoff).

Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider).

Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill).

Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his remarks. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Trone).

Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for being here tonight. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Shalala).

Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for her comments, and I yield to another gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for being here for tonight's Special Order, and I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch).

Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to my friends on both sides of the aisle for being here to express those sentiments. Mr. Speaker, President Roosevelt said that December 7, 1941, was a day that would live in infamy. On this day, 75 years ago, a horrific infamy was revealed--one that should never have been allowed and one that should never ever be allowed. Mr. Speaker, 6 million Jews and their families were subjected not just to a day of infamy, but a lifetime of the memory of that kind of infamy and the effect it had on their families. They will be remembering that horror for a long time. My friend from Florida talked about the people who come back and meet each other since before World War II. Anti-Semitism, BDS, that kind of infamy should not be allowed anywhere at any time. Mr. Speaker, let us covenant together that not now, not tomorrow, and not ever, never again will it be allowed. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WEBER of Texas

Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. WEBER of Texas

Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, because of Roe v. Wade, we are killing a baby a minute. Mr. Speaker, another baby just lost its life.

Mr. WEBER of Texas

Mr. WEBER of Texas. Madam Speaker, it is very interesting to hear the socialistic left Democrats that have a newfound appreciation for the Constitution and our Founders' principles. Would that those same socialists, Madam Speaker, afford unborn babies the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as well. Madam Speaker, history tells us, in the first three impeachments in this country, crimes were involved. Johnson violated a law that Congress had just passed, over his veto. Nixon was involved in a coverup in Watergate. Clinton lied to a Federal grand jury and expected Monica Lewinsky to falsify an affidavit. Crimes, all instances of crimes. Now come the socialistic-leaning D's, in my opinion, Madam Speaker, ostensibly reading the President's mind, knowing what his intent was, and dictating to us and the witnesses that were in the hearings what his mindset was. Quite frankly, they didn't believe that he had the right to be in charge of foreign policy. We heard Ambassadors, and, yes, we heard career bureaucrats, career diplomats, whatever you want to call them. They get to ride the bus; they don't get to drive the bus. The President is in charge of foreign policy. They said that the President had the audacity to use his judgment on foreign policy instead of theirs. Opinions. Opinions. Suppositions, indeed. The very swamp he is draining is objecting. Who knew? Today, now, during the earlier rule debate, comes the floor manager of the other side from Massachusetts citing not facts, nor fact witnesses, but newspaper articles from CNN and USA Today, opinions and editorials. Unbelievable, Madam Speaker. Americans are watching. The D's are delusional, deleterious, delirious, and in deep yogurt.