[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 18968-18973]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 8, NORTH AMERICAN ENERGY SECURITY 
  AND INFRASTRUCTURE ACT OF 2015; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S.J. 
RES. 23, PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF A RULE SUBMITTED BY 
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF 
    S.J. RES. 24, PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF A RULE 
            SUBMITTED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 539 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 539

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 8) to modernize energy infrastructure, build a 
     21st century energy and manufacturing workforce, bolster 
     America's energy security and diplomacy, and promote energy 
     efficiency and government accountability, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Energy and Commerce. After general debate, the Committee of 
     the Whole shall rise without motion. No further consideration 
     of the bill shall be in order except pursuant to a subsequent 
     order of the House.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House any joint resolution specified 
     in section 3 of this resolution. All points of order against 
     consideration of each such joint resolution are waived. Each 
     such joint resolution shall be considered as read. All points 
     of order against provisions in each such joint resolution are 
     waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on each such joint resolution and on any amendment thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour 
     of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce; and (2) one motion to commit.
       Sec. 3.  The joint resolutions referred to in section 2 of 
     this resolution are as follows:
        (a) The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 23) providing for 
     congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 
     States Code, of a rule submitted by the Environmental 
     Protection Agency relating to ``Standards of Performance for 
     Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, Modified, and 
     Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating 
     Units''.
       (b) The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 24) providing for 
     congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 
     States Code, of a rule submitted by the Environmental 
     Protection Agency relating to ``Carbon Pollution Emission 
     Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility 
     Generating Units''.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1 
hour.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 539 provides for a rule to consider 
three important bills that will help millions of Americans and their 
families who are having to pay or will soon be paying higher energy 
costs due to the administration's misguided and ill-conceived energy 
policies. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided 
between the majority and the minority of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee, on each of the pieces of legislation before us, including 
S.J. Res. 23, a resolution of disapproval of a rule promulgated by the 
Environmental Protection Agency on greenhouse gases from new stationary 
sources; S.J. Res. 24, a resolution of disapproval of a rule 
promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency on greenhouse gases 
from existing stationary sources; and H.R. 8, the North American Energy 
Security and Infrastructure Act of 2015, which will move this country 
in a direction of greater energy independence.
  The rule before us today provides for a closed rule on both 
resolutions of disapproval, as is standard for such measures, allowing 
for 1 hour of debate equally divided between the majority and minority 
of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, while allowing the minority a 
motion to commit on each of the resolutions.
  Further, the rule provides for 1 hour of debate on H.R. 8, also 
equally divided between the chair and ranking member of the Committee 
on Energy and Commerce. A subsequent order from the Committee on Rules 
will likely address any amendments to be made in order later in the 
week.
  The House, in taking up these measures, is doing so to reflect the 
will of the people so many of us represent who are opposed to the 
administration's actions and wish to stop this out-of-control 
Environmental Protection Agency from doing further damage to the 
economy. Further, H.R. 8 reflects a broad consensus of energy 
stakeholders who are ready and willing to move the country's energy 
future into high gear.
  S.J. Res. 23, disapproving of the Environmental Protection Agency's 
new greenhouse gas rules on new stationary sources--loosely translated, 
that means the Nation's power plants, keeping the lights on in your 
home, the heat on in the winter, and the air-conditioning on in the 
summer--and S.J. Res. 24, disapproving of the EPA's new greenhouse gas 
rules on existing stationary sources, both of these joint resolutions 
passed in the Senate in October by a majority vote of 52-46. The 
Congressional Review Act, the law which allows for the process of 
disapproval by Congress when an administration goes too far with one of 
its rules, allows us an up-or-down vote on the resolution, which cannot 
be filibustered, thus allowing the measure to be considered in the 
Senate. It is now time for the House to be heard on this measure as 
well.
  Mr. Speaker, the Environmental Protection Agency's overreaching 
greenhouse gas rules have had an extensive number of hearings in the 
Energy and Commerce Committee over the last few years. The committee 
reviewed all aspects of the proposed rules, including the impacts on 
reliability and the impacts on consumer costs, including bringing the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to discuss possible impacts on 
reliability around the country due to these rules.
  Already, in many States across the Nation, coal-fired power plants 
are closing because they see that the Obama administration's EPA has 
made it clear that it will go after them relentlessly until they are 
shuttered. This means fewer cost-effective options for consumers and 
also the potential for brownouts and blackouts during high-consumption 
times, like during the peak of the summer in Texas,

[[Page 18969]]

where rolling brownouts are already not uncommon. The Environmental 
Protection Agency's new rules will only exacerbate this issue.
  Whether Members of this body support these rules or oppose them, the 
measures before us today will provide each Member the opportunity to be 
officially registered on where they stand on these EPA rules, and that 
is what we are all here to do.
  H.R. 8, in contrast to the EPA's regulations, moves the country to a 
place of greater energy security and abundance. Over the past several 
years, the Energy and Commerce Committee has worked towards modernizing 
the Nation's energy laws, making the government more accountable, more 
accountable to the people it is meant to represent as it makes 
decisions which affect literally every citizen in this country and 
their pocketbooks.
  The free market has long been the guiding force in moving this 
country ahead in the energy sector. Texas was one of the first major 
beneficiaries, with the oil boom in the last two centuries. Now, as new 
technologies and innovations emerge, Congress must stand on the side of 
the free market again, stopping the executive branch from picking 
winners and losers in the energy market and allowing consumers--
allowing consumers--to make those decisions for themselves.
  When consumers choose what energy sources and what technologies work 
best for them, the economy grows faster and grows more efficiently than 
ever the government could possibly drive it. That is what the 
Architecture of Abundance is all about.
  This country has the resources to be energy independent. It has the 
ability to end our reliability on oil and gas from the Middle East, a 
region that is perpetually in turmoil. But the Obama administration has 
stymied much of the progress that was made in the first decade of this 
century, slowing or stopping leases on public lands for new exploration 
of our own resources and putting up red tape and numerous barriers to 
allowing Americans to tap into what is rightfully theirs. This is a 
bill that is long overdue, and I certainly thank Chairman Upton for his 
work on the bill, H.R. 8.
  I encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and 
``yes'' on the three underlying bills. They are an important first step 
in setting this country on the path to a modern, stable, and abundant 
energy future.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) 
for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  I want to begin by congratulating the Republican majority for 
breaking a record today. Through their exemplary, heavyhanded, 
undemocratic leadership, this is now officially the most closed session 
of Congress in the entire history of the United States of America. I am 
not sure that is something to be proud of, but that is the title that 
they have earned.
  Today, we are debating the 47th and 48th closed rules of the 114th 
Congress. We are in our third legislative week since Speaker Ryan took 
the gavel, and we are already debating our third and fourth closed 
rules during his short tenure.
  Speaker Ryan promised a more open, more inclusive, more deliberative, 
more participatory process. I think he must have misspoken because, by 
any measure, the Republican leadership has already fallen short of that 
commitment.
  Today, we are considering three bills: two that seek to undermine the 
EPA's ability to protect our public health and environment and a third 
that offers many troubling provisions, including one which would 
hastily rush the natural gas pipeline approval process and allow 
pipelines to be built and run right through our magnificent national 
parks.
  On December 11, our government will run out of money. During the 
114th Congress, we have stood in this Chamber debating Republican 
messaging bills to repeal the Affordable Care Act, undermine the Dodd-
Frank financial reform law, and weaken public health and environmental 
regulations while failing to consider meaningful legislation that would 
create jobs, boost the economy, and help vulnerable Americans rise out 
of poverty. Instead of focusing on these priorities, this majority will 
bring to the floor three bills intended to prevent the EPA from 
effectively doing its job.
  Now, if anyone is feeling deja vu, that is probably because what I 
just said is from a floor speech I gave on a rule for three antiscience 
bills that the Republicans brought before us last November. The only 
difference is I changed 113th to 114th Congress. And while I hate to 
repeat myself, unfortunately, the majority is in a rut of bringing 
before us the same old same old: unproductive legislation that is going 
nowhere.
  We have 6 legislative days left to ensure that the government doesn't 
run out of money, just 6 days; but instead of focusing on that, instead 
of working to ensure the government is funded, we are on the floor 
debating more Republican messaging bills that I think were written in 
the National Republican Congressional Committee because they are poorly 
drafted. These bills have drastic and devastating effects on public 
health and the environment, and they will be vetoed by the President of 
the United States.
  I include in the Record the Statements of Administration Policy on 
these bills, expressing the administration's intent to veto these 
bills.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


 H.R. 8--North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of 2015

                   (Rep. Upton, R-MI, Nov. 30, 2015)

       The Administration is committed to taking responsible steps 
     to modernize the Nation's energy infrastructure in a way that 
     addresses climate change, promotes clean energy and energy 
     efficiency, drives innovation, and ensures a cleaner, more 
     stable environment for future generations. The Administration 
     strongly opposes H.R. 8 because it would undermine already 
     successful initiatives designed to modernize the Nation's 
     energy infrastructure and increase our energy efficiency.
       Increased energy efficiency offers savings on energy bills, 
     provides opportunities for more jobs, and improves industrial 
     competitiveness. H.R. 8 would stifle the Nation's move toward 
     energy efficiency by severely hampering the Department of 
     Energy's (DOE) ability to provide technical support for 
     building code development and State implementation. In 
     addition, the bill would undercut DOE's ability to enforce 
     its appliance standards and would weaken section 433 of the 
     Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which requires 
     a reduction in fossil fuel-generated energy in Federal 
     buildings.
       H.R. 8 includes a provision regarding certain operational 
     characteristics in capacity markets operated by Regional 
     Transmission Organizations (RTO5) and Independent System 
     Operators (ISOs). The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
     (FERC) and RTOs and ISOs are already well positioned, 
     especially as technologies change over time, to ensure that 
     capacity market structures adequately provide for the 
     procurement of sufficient capacity to efficiently and 
     reliably fulfill the resource-adequacy function that these 
     markets are intended to perform.
       H.R. 8 includes new, unnecessary provisions that would 
     broaden FERC's authority to impose deadlines on other Federal 
     agencies reviewing the environmental implications of natural 
     gas pipeline applications. H.R. 8 also would unnecessarily 
     curtail DOE's ability to fully consider whether natural gas 
     export projects are consistent with the public interest.
       Further, H.R. 8 would undermine the current hydropower 
     licensing regulatory process in place under the Federal Power 
     Act that works to minimize negative impacts associated with 
     the siting of hydropower projects, including negative impacts 
     on safety, fish and wildlife, water quality and conservation, 
     and a range of additional natural resources and cultural 
     values. Among the ways that H.R. 8 would undermine this 
     process would be by creating a new exemption from licensing 
     that would undercut bedrock environmental statutes, including 
     the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, 
     and the Endangered Species Act.
       Finally, H.R. 8 presents certain constitutional concerns. 
     Sections 1104 and 3004 would impermissibly interfere with the 
     President's authorities with regard to the conduct of 
     diplomacy and in some cases diplomatic communications, and 
     sections 1109 and 1201 raise concerns under the 
     Recommendations Clause.
       If the President were presented with H.R. 8, his senior 
     advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

[[Page 18970]]

     
                                  ____
                   Statement of Administration Policy


 S.J. Res. 23--Disapproving EPA Rule on Greenhouse Gas Emissions from 
   New, Modified, and Reconstructed Electric Utility Generating Units

                 (Sen. McConnell, R-KY, Nov. 17, 2015)

       The Administration strongly opposes S.J. Res. 23, which 
     would undermine the public health protections of the Clean 
     Air Act (CAA) and stop critical U.S. efforts to reduce 
     dangerous carbon pollution from power plants. In 2007, the 
     Supreme Court ruled that the CAA gives the U.S. Environmental 
     Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to regulate greenhouse 
     gas (GHG) pollution. In 2009, EPA determined that GHG 
     pollution threatens Americans' health and welfare by leading 
     to long-lasting changes to the climate that can, and are 
     already, having a range of negative effects on human health 
     and the environment. This finding is consistent with 
     conclusions of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the 
     Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and numerous other 
     national and international scientific bodies. Power plants 
     account for roughly one-third of all domestic GHG emissions. 
     While the United States limits dangerous emissions of 
     arsenic, mercury, lead, particulate matter, and ozone 
     precursor pollution from power plants, the Carbon Pollution 
     Standards and the Clean Power Plan put into place the first 
     national limits on power plant carbon pollution. The Carbon 
     Pollution Standards will ensure that new, modified, and 
     reconstructed power plants deploy available systems of 
     emission reduction to reduce carbon pollution.
       S.J. Res. 23 would nullify carbon pollution standards for 
     future power plants and power plants undertaking significant 
     modifications or reconstruction, thus slowing our country's 
     transition to cleaner, cutting-edge power generation 
     technologies. Most importantly, the resolution could enable 
     continued build-out of outdated, high-polluting, and long-
     lived power generation infrastructure and impede efforts to 
     reduce carbon pollution from new and modified power plants--
     when the need to act, and to act quickly, to mitigate climate 
     change impacts on American communities has never been more 
     clear.
       Since it was enacted in 1970, and amended in 1977 and 1990, 
     each time with strong bipartisan support, the CAA has 
     improved the Nation's air quality and protected public 
     health. Over that same period of time, the economy has 
     tripled in size while emissions of key pollutants have 
     decreased by more than 70 percent. Forty-five years of clean 
     air regulation have shown that a strong economy and strong 
     environmental and public health protection go hand-in-hand.
       Because S.J. Res. 23 threatens the health and economic 
     welfare of future generations by blocking important standards 
     to reduce carbon pollution from the power sector that take a 
     flexible, common sense approach to addressing carbon 
     pollution, if the President were presented with S.J. Res. 23, 
     he would veto the bill.
                                  ____


                   Statement of Administration Policy


   S.J. Res. 24--Disapproving EPA Rule on Carbon Pollution Emission 
       Guidelines for Existing Electric Utility Generating Units

                   (Sen. Capito, R-WV, Nov. 17, 2015)

       The Administration strongly opposes S.J. Res. 24, which 
     would undermine the public health protections of the Clean 
     Air Act (CAA) and stop critical U.S. efforts to reduce 
     dangerous carbon pollution from power plants. In 2007, the 
     Supreme Court ruled that the CAA gives the U.S. Environmental 
     Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to regulate greenhouse 
     gas (GHG) pollution. In 2009, EPA determined that GHG 
     pollution threatens Americans' health and welfare by leading 
     to long-lasting changes to the climate that can, and are 
     already, having a range of negative effects on human health 
     and the environment. This finding is consistent with 
     conclusions of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the 
     Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and numerous other 
     national and international scientific bodies. Power plants 
     account for roughly one-third of all domestic GHG emissions. 
     While the United States limits dangerous emissions of 
     arsenic, mercury, lead, particulate matter, and ozone 
     precursor pollution from power plants, the Clean Power Plan 
     and the Carbon Pollution Standards put into place the first 
     national limits on power plant carbon pollution. The Clean 
     Power Plan empowers States to cost-effectively reduce 
     emissions from existing sources and provides States and power 
     plants a great deal of flexibility in meeting the 
     requirements. EPA expects that under the Clean Power Plan, by 
     2030, carbon pollution from power plants will be reduced by 
     32 percent from 2005 levels.
       By nullifying the Clean Power Plan, S.J. Res. 24 seeks to 
     block progress towards cleaner energy, eliminating public 
     health and other benefits of up to $54 billion per year by 
     2030, including thousands fewer premature deaths from air 
     pollution and tens of thousands of fewer childhood asthma 
     attacks each year. Most importantly, the resolution would 
     impede efforts to reduce carbon pollution from existing power 
     plants--the largest source of carbon pollution in the 
     country--when the need to act, and to act quickly, to 
     mitigate climate change impacts on American communities has 
     never been more clear.
       Since it was enacted in 1970, and amended in 1977 and 1990, 
     each time with strong bipartisan support, the CAA has 
     improved the Nation's air quality and protected public 
     health. Over that same period of time, the economy has 
     tripled in size while emissions of key pollutants have 
     decreased by more than 70 percent. Forty-five years of clean 
     air regulation have shown that a strong economy and strong 
     environmental and public health protection go hand-in-hand.
       Because S.J. Res. 24 threatens the health and economic 
     welfare of future generations by blocking important standards 
     to reduce carbon pollution from the power sector that take a 
     flexible, common sense approach to addressing carbon 
     pollution, if the President were presented with S.J. Res. 24, 
     he would veto the bill.

  Mr. McGOVERN. But I guess from the Republican point of view, the 
positive thing about these bills is that they are yet another pander to 
big money fossil fuel special interests. I urge my colleagues to follow 
the money because that is what this is all about here today. It is not 
about serious legislating. It is about fundraising.
  Mr. Speaker, S.J. Res. 23 and S.J. Res. 24 look to stop commonsense 
regulations that the EPA has put in place that protect us from the 
harmful pollution emitted by power plants. These joint resolutions are 
another clear message from the Republican majority that they do not 
believe that climate change is real. Over 120 environmental, faith-
based, and public health organizations have already come out opposing 
these two resolutions, including the American Lung Association, the 
Allergy and Asthma Network, the League of Conservation Voters, the 
Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, and Public Citizen. 
I can stand here forever and repeat the other organizations that have a 
lot of public support in this country that have come out against these 
bills.
  Power plants account for 40 percent of our annual carbon pollution 
emissions. They are the single biggest source of carbon pollution in 
the country. Yet the Republican majority wants to take away the 
greatest step we have taken to try to curb that major source of 
pollution. These two joint resolutions would permanently prevent the 
EPA from ever, ever limiting pollution from power plants in the future 
as well.
  H.R. 8 is also a deeply troubling piece of legislation. It favors the 
use of fossil fuels over renewable energy and favors consumption over 
energy efficiency.

                              {time}  1245

  It would ram pipeline applications through FERC in under 90 days even 
though most applications, by the way, are reviewed and approved in less 
than 1 year.
  It all but removes individuals from the process, allowing big gas 
companies to choose to build wherever they want, regardless of the 
consequences for local communities. It would even allow them to build 
through our treasured national parks. It is an early Christmas gift for 
big special interests.
  At some point, we must face the facts, Mr. Speaker.
  So I want to say something to my colleagues on the Republican side. I 
know it may make you feel uncomfortable, but it is the truth: Climate 
change is real.
  The overwhelming science says it is real, yet a huge chunk of the 
Republican Conference is in denial. They don't believe there is such a 
thing as climate change. They don't believe we have any responsibility 
to our children or to future generations to combat climate change.
  They are perfectly happy living in this fantasy world where you can 
rely on fossil fuels and rely on fossil fuels and rely on fossil fuels 
and can just make believe that it has no impact at all on the 
environment.
  Quite frankly, if climate change weren't such a serious issue, it 
would be comical, but climate change is a serious issue. It is a real 
issue. It is an issue not just for us; it is an issue for future 
generations. So their denial, quite frankly, is frightening.
  We shouldn't be propping up coal and oil industries with taxpayer 
subsidies. We shouldn't be using taxpayer money to destroy our 
environment. When the scientific community reaches a clear

[[Page 18971]]

consensus on an issue like climate change, Congress shouldn't undermine 
them with dangerous legislation like this.
  When we receive credible, peer-reviewed study after study after study 
after study that tells us we are in the middle of a climate crisis and 
that something must be done about it, we need to listen, but the 
Republican majority refuses to listen.
  Climate change is often referred to as the most pressing issue of our 
time. We know that climate change is for real. We know that. We see it. 
We live it. The scientific community has verified it.
  Climate change is not a theory, it is not a hoax, and it is certainly 
not some silly fantasy. When arctic ice is crashing into the oceans at 
record rates, that is not a hoax. When species are going extinct at 
accelerated rates around the globe, that is not a fantasy. When extreme 
weather events are becoming commonplace, that is not a theory. When the 
global temperature of the planet continues to increase every year for 
decades, we should pay attention.
  These are the exact same scare tactics that have been used for over 
45 years in opposition to climate change. It is the same old stuff. 
Opponents of clean air have been claiming for half a century that clean 
air regulations would kill jobs and hurt economic growth, but they are 
wrong.
  The truth is that the Clean Air Act alone has created $57 trillion in 
benefits since it was enacted in 1970. The Clean Power Plan will lead 
to a stronger economy, a safer climate, and better health for all of 
us.
  Why is this so difficult? Maybe it is because my friends on the other 
side of the aisle don't like the President, so anything that he is for 
they have to be against. You have got to move beyond your anger. You 
have got to look at the issues, and you have to evaluate them based on 
the evidence.
  The evidence is that climate change is for real, but you would never 
know that in listening to the majority. They have no solutions, only 
denial. Let's keep on down the road of the same old, same old, and 
their ``just say no'' agenda is a recipe for disaster.
  As we gather here, leaders from all around the world are meeting in 
Paris to talk about how to deal with the issue of climate change. What 
we should be doing here is providing some wind at the backs of not only 
our President but of all of the leaders of the world who are gathering 
to try to figure out how to deal with this challenge.
  Instead of doing that, we are doing this. It is really sad that this 
is what we have come to. If we are going to say ``no'' to anything 
today, it should be to this closed rule and to S.J. Res. 23 and to S.J. 
Res. 24.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  The Republican Party is in the majority today. There are a couple of 
reasons that is so.
  There were bills passed in 2009 and 2010, and the American people 
looked at what was happening in their legislative body and said: We 
need a change. We need a change from the direction in which we are 
going.
  One of those bills, I will submit, was the Waxman-Markey bill, the 
cap-and-trade scheme that was drawn up in the Energy and Commerce 
Committee, of which I am a member. I sat through the debate on it. I 
remember it very well.
  That bill was brought to this floor, and that bill was forced through 
this House in June of 2009, right before Members went home for the 4th 
of July weekend.
  A lot of people will look at the Affordable Care Act and say that is 
the reason Congress changed from a majority-Democrat institution to a 
majority-Republican institution. It is because of the passage of the 
Affordable Care Act.
  Yet, Mr. Speaker, I submit that it was actually that activity in June 
of 2009 that caused people to look at what was going on in their 
Congress and to look at that bill that was drafted in the Energy and 
Commerce Committee by Chairman Waxman and Chairman Markey and say: No, 
not for us. We are not going along with this. This is not a direction 
in which we want you to take this country.
  We still function under that quaint notion that we have government 
with the consent of the governed, but the governed did not consent to 
what they saw being passed in Congress late in June of 2009. So it is 
no accident that things are the way they are today.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 1 minute.
  I want to read a passage from columnist George Will from earlier this 
year, January 7, of his writing in the Washington Post. Mr. Will 
writes:
  ``We know, because they often say so, that those who think 
catastrophic global warming is probable and perhaps imminent are 
exemplary empiricists. They say those who disagree with them are 
`climate change deniers' disrespectful of science.
  ``Actually, however, something about which everyone can agree is 
that, of course, the climate is changing--it always is. And if climate 
Cassandras are as conscientious as they claim to be about weighing 
evidence, how do they accommodate historical evidence of enormously 
consequential episodes of climate change not produced by human 
activity? Before wagering vast wealth and curtailments of liberty on 
correcting the climate,'' perhaps they should consider the past.
  Then he goes on to detail those episodes in the past: the Little Ice 
Age and the Medieval Warm Period.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
  There are, indeed, recent episodes in recorded history that can be 
looked to where the climate has changed and, yes, has affected human 
behavior and the human condition, but those were not climate changes 
affected by the result of human activity. Those were caused by natural 
cycles, within the Sun cycle, within things over which none of us had 
any control.
  Again, I would take the words of Mr. Will to heart. Before we wager 
vast amounts of wealth and curtailments of liberty, we would do well to 
consider those facts.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I inquire of the gentleman as to how many 
more speakers he has, for I am prepared to close.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I believe I am the only speaker.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  With all due respect to George Will, with whom I don't agree on very 
much of anything, quite frankly, if he or anybody else really believes 
that there is no correlation between human activity and climate change, 
I would suggest that maybe he go back to school, because the 
overwhelming science tells us that there is a connection. The 
overwhelming science tells us that our reliance on fossil fuels, in 
particular, has accelerated the climate change on this planet.
  Again, it just astounds me that, on an issue on which the scientific 
community has come together overwhelmingly, there is such a disconnect. 
Again, at a time when all the world's leaders are gathered in Paris 
trying to figure out how to deal with this challenge, the House of 
Representatives is dealing with this. I think that is sad and 
regrettable.
  I ask my colleagues to defeat the previous question. If we defeat the 
previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up 
bipartisan legislation that would grant law enforcement the authority 
to block the sale of firearms and explosives to individuals who are 
suspected of international or domestic terrorism.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the 
text of the amendment, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.

[[Page 18972]]


  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, to me, this should not be controversial, 
but in this Chamber that is so beholden to the National Rifle 
Association, this has become a point of controversy. We are talking 
about people who are suspected of international or domestic terrorism. 
I don't think any reasonable person feels comfortable with selling 
those people weapons.
  We ought to be able to come together by putting the security 
interests of the people of this country first and enacting this. I hope 
that there is a strong, bipartisan vote to defeat the previous question 
so that we can actually bring this up, debate it, and pass it.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter from 120 
organizations--many environmental organizations, many faith-based 
organizations--all who oppose S.J. Res. 23 and S.J. Res. 24.

                                                November 30, 2015.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members, 
     the undersigned organizations urge you to oppose Senators 
     McConnell and Capito's Congressional Review Act resolutions 
     of disapproval (S.J. Res. 23 and 24) that would permanently 
     block the EPA's Clean Power Plan.
       These resolutions are an extreme assault on public health, 
     the clean energy economy, and modernizing our energy sector. 
     The Clean Power Plan puts in place commonsense limits on 
     power plant carbon pollution, developed with the input of 
     thousands of stakeholders, and provides the flexibility 
     states need to develop their own plans to meet pollution 
     reduction targets. Blocking these commonsense safeguards puts 
     polluter profits before the health of our children.
       Power plants are the country's single largest source of the 
     pollution fueling climate change and the Clean Power Plan is 
     the single biggest step we have ever taken to tackle climate 
     change. This plan is expected to deliver billions of dollars 
     in benefits and will prevent nearly 3,000 premature deaths 
     and more than a hundred thousand asthma attacks per year by 
     2030.
       Not only would these resolutions undo all of the health and 
     economic benefits of the Clean Power Plan, they would also 
     bar EPA from issuing any standards in the future that are 
     substantially similar. This means that Americans would 
     continue to be exposed indefinitely to carbon pollution and 
     the impacts of climate change.
       The world's leading scientists agree that failing to act on 
     climate change will ensure worsening extreme weather events, 
     threaten food supplies and increase public health risks. We 
     strongly urge you to oppose these resolutions that put the 
     health of our children and families at risk, threaten the 
     quality of our air, and strip the EPA of the tools to address 
     dangerous carbon pollution.
           Sincerely,
       350.Org, ActionAid USA, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy 
     Environments, American Rivers, Appalachian Voices, Arizona 
     Interfaith Power & Light, Arkansas Public Policy Panel, 
     Center for Biological Diversity, Clean Air Task Force, Clean 
     Water Action, Climate Action Alliance of the Valley.
       Climate Law & Policy Project, Climate Parents, Coalition on 
     the Environment and Jewish Life, Colorado Interfaith Power & 
     Light, Conservation Voters for Idaho, Conservation Voters of 
     South Carolina, Defenders of Wildlife, Delaware Interfaith 
     Power & Light, Earthjustice, Earth Ministry/Washington 
     Interfaith Power & Light, Elders Climate Action,
       Environment America, Environment Arizona, Environment 
     California, Environment Colorado, Environment Connecticut, 
     Environment Florida, Environment Georgia, Environment Iowa, 
     Environment Maine, Environment Maryland, Environment 
     Massachusetts, Environment Michigan, Environment Minnesota, 
     Environment Missouri.
       Environment Montana, Environment Nevada, Environment New 
     Mexico, Environment New Hampshire, Environment New York, 
     Environment North Carolina, Environment Ohio, Environment 
     Oregon, Environment Rhode Island, Environment Texas, 
     Environment Virginia, Environment Washington, Environmental 
     Advocates of New York.
       Environmental Investigation Agency, Environmental Justice 
     Leadership Forum on Climate Change, Environmental Law and 
     Policy Center, Environmental and Energy Study Institute, 
     Environmental Defense Action Fund, Georgia Interfaith Power & 
     Light, GreenLatinos, Health Care Without Harm, Hoosier 
     Interfaith Power & Light, Illinois Interfaith Power & Light, 
     Interfaith Power & Light, Interfaith Power & Light (DC. MD. 
     NoVA), Iowa Interfaith Power & Light, Iowa Chapter Physicians 
     for Social Responsibility.
       International Forum on Globalization, KyotoUSA, League of 
     Conservation Voters, League of Women Voters, Maine Interfaith 
     Power & Light, Maine Conservation Voters, Maryland League of 
     Conservation Voters, Massachusetts Interfaith Power & Light, 
     Michigan League of Conservation Voters, Minnesota Interfaith 
     Power & Light, Missouri Interfaith Power & Light, Montana 
     Conservation Voters, Montana Environmental Information 
     Center, Natural Resources Defense Council.
       Nebraska Interfaith Power & Light, New Jersey League of 
     Conservation Voters, New Mexico Interfaith Power & Light, New 
     Virginia Majority, New York Interfaith Power & Light, New 
     York League of Conservation Voters, North Carolina Interfaith 
     Power & Light, North Carolina Council of Churches, North 
     Carolina League of Conservation Voters, Ohio Interfaith Power 
     & Light, Oklahoma Interfaith Power & Light, Oregon League of 
     Conservation Voters, PDA, Tucson, PennEnvironment, 
     Pennsylvania Interfaith Power & Light.
       Physicians for Social Responsibility, Physicians for Social 
     Responsibility, Arizona, Physicians for Social Responsibility 
     Maine Chapter, Polar Bears International, Protect Our 
     Winters, Public Citizen, Rachel Carson Council, Rhode Island 
     Interfaith Power & Light, Sierra Club, Southern Environmental 
     Law Center, Southern Oregon Climate Action Now, Sunshine 
     State Interfaith Power & Light, Tennessee Interfaith Power & 
     Light.
       Texas Interfaith Power & Light, Texas Physicians for Social 
     Responsibility, The Climate Reality Project, Union of 
     Concerned Scientists, Utah Interfaith Power & Light, Vermont 
     Interfaith Power and Light, Virginia Interfaith Power & 
     Light, Virginia Organizing, Voces Verdes, Voice for Progress, 
     WE ACT for Environmental Justice, Western Organization of 
     Resource Councils, Wisconsin Environment, Wisconsin 
     Interfaith Power & Light, Wisconsin League of Conservation 
     Voters, World Wildlife Fund.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter that was 
sent to every Member of Congress who is opposed to these two bills. It 
is signed by the Allergy and Asthma Network, the American Lung 
Association, the American Public Health Association, the Children's 
Environmental Health Network, the Trust for America's Health, the 
National Association of Hispanic Nurses, the Asthma and Allergy 
Foundation of America, and the Health Care Without Harm.
  Again, they are all opposed to the legislation that we are bringing 
before the House today.

                                                November 16, 2015.
       Dear Representative: The undersigned public health and 
     medical organizations strongly urge you to oppose 
     Congressional Review Act resolutions H.J. Res. 71 and 72. The 
     measures are excessive attacks on public health protections 
     from carbon pollution from power plants.
       The Congressional Review Act resolutions are an extreme 
     tool that would permanently block the U.S. Environmental 
     Protection Agency (EPA)'s actions to reduce dangerous carbon 
     pollution from power plants. These resolutions would prevent 
     EPA from moving forward with any substantially similar action 
     in the future. Carbon pollution from power plants greatly 
     contributes to climate change, which is widely recognized as 
     one of the greatest threats to public health. To protect 
     public health, it is vital that our nation make progress in 
     the fight against climate change.
       As U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, MD, MBA, said during 
     2015 National Public Health Week, ``We know that climate 
     change means higher temperatures overall, and it also means 
     longer and hotter heat waves . . . higher temperatures can 
     mean worse air in cities, and more smog and more ozone. We 
     know that more intense wildfires will mean increased smoke in 
     the air. And we know that earlier springs and longer summers 
     mean longer allergy seasons.''
       The science is clear: communities across the nation are 
     experiencing the health effects of climate change now. 
     Climate change is impacting air pollution, which can cause 
     asthma attacks, cardiovascular disease and premature death, 
     and fostering extreme weather patterns, such as heat and 
     severe storms, droughts, wildfires and flooding, that can 
     harm low-income communities disproportionately. Bold action 
     is needed to protect public health, which is why our 
     organizations support the Clean Power Plan.
       EPA's action to reduce carbon pollution from power plants 
     will help the nation take important steps toward protecting 
     Americans' health from these threats. Not only does the Clean 
     Power Plan give states flexible tools to reduce the carbon 
     pollution that causes climate change, these crucial tools 
     will also have the co-benefit of reducing other deadly 
     pollutants at the same time, preventing up to 3,600 premature 
     deaths and 90,000 asthma attacks every year by 2030.
       Please make your priority the health of your constituents 
     and vote NO on these Congressional Review Act resolutions, 
     H.J. Res. 71 and 72.
           Sincerely,
         Allergy and Asthma Network; American Lung Association; 
           American Public Health Association; American Thoracic 
           Society; Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America; 
           Children's Environmental Health Network; Health Care 
           Without Harm; National Association of Hispanic Nurses; 
           Trust for America's Health.


[[Page 18973]]

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I close as I began, which is by reminding 
my colleagues that we are at an important crossroads. We still have an 
opportunity to do something about climate change.
  We still have an opportunity to be on the right side of history. We 
have the opportunity to do something that is good not only for all of 
us but for our children, for our grandchildren, and for generations to 
come.
  We have an opportunity to provide some wind at the backs of the 
leaders from all over the world who are gathered in Paris and who are 
trying to figure out how to deal with the issue of climate change.
  If we want to take advantage of that opportunity, we need to reject 
the same old, same old. We need to understand that we need to 
transition from our historic reliance on fossil fuels.
  There is a correlation between our reliance on these forms of energy 
and what we are seeing right now in our environment. It didn't begin 
that way, and we didn't think we were doing harm to the environment 
when we were utilizing these resources, but science, over the years, 
has shown us, undeniably, the damage that has been done to our planet. 
It is up to us to try to reverse this trend, not to bury our heads in 
the sand, not to deny science, not to deny climate change, but to do 
the right thing.
  I hope that my colleagues, even some of my Republican colleagues, 
will join with us in rejecting this legislation and will instead work 
with this White House and will work with other world leaders to deal 
with the issue of climate change

                              {time}  1300

  We all talk about national security as being our top priority. Well, 
national security is more than just the number of weapons we have in 
our arsenal. It also includes the cleanliness and the purity of our 
environment. It is about time we become good stewards of this planet.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and to 
vote ``no'' on this backward-thinking legislation that really should 
not be on the floor today.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I do feel obligated to point out that, in the absence of 
the Waxman-Markey bill, during this administration and the previous 
administration, between 2005 and 2012, carbon emissions in this country 
fell by 10 percent because of market-based activity.
  That puts the United States halfway to the goal that it set for 
itself in the United Nations agreement, a goal that we would reduce 
carbon emissions by 20 percent in the year 2020.
  We are halfway there, a 10 percent reduction. That is without Waxman-
Markey. That is without any international agreement that the President 
might think he is entertaining or entering into over in Paris.
  Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of three 
important bills for our energy future, two resolutions disapproving of 
the Environmental Protection Agency's greenhouse gas regulations and a 
bill that is forward looking that will set this country on the path to 
greater energy security.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts 
is as follows:

  An Amendment to H. Res. 539 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

       Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
       That immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     1076) to increase public safety by permitting the Attorney 
     General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of 
     firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected 
     dangerous terrorist. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the 
     next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the 
     third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, 
     resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 2. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 1076.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas). The question is on 
ordering the previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________