[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 142 (Thursday, September 22, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H6360-H6366]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2401, TRANSPARENCY IN REGULATORY
ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS ON THE NATION ACT OF 2011
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 406 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 406
Resolved, That at any time after the 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. 2401) to require analyses of the cumulative
and incremental impacts of certain rules and actions of the
Environmental Protection Agency, 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 two hours equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce. After general debate the bill shall be considered
for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in
order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of
amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Energy
and Commerce now printed in the bill. The committee amendment
in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
All points of order against the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in
order except those printed in the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may
be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in
the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of
order against such amendments 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. Any Member may demand a
separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the
Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute. 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for
purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days during which they may revise and extend their
remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Utah?
There was no objection.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, this resolution provides for a
structured rule for consideration of H.R. 2401, the Transparency in
Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation. Fortunately, the anagram
comes to TRAIN, so it's the TRAIN Act of 2011.
It makes in order 12 specific amendments out of the 14 that were
received by the Rules Committee. Of the two not made in order, one was
withdrawn by the sponsor and the other was not germane to the rules of
the House. So what the Rules Committee has presented here is a rule
that is, quite frankly, not bad. It is going to provide for an open
discussion for those who are interested in this particular issue on the
floor. It's a very fair rule, and it continues the record of the Rules
Committee in this Congress of making as many amendments in order as
possible which simply conform to the rules of the House. That's been
the goal of our chairman, Mr. Dreier, and say what you will, he has
produced a standard of fairness in the floor discussions that we will
be having here on the floor in the past as well as in the future.
There are a lot of people that say Congress is simply dysfunctional.
I admit, the system was designed to be complex, but there are a lot of
people, especially those that have very little contact with this
system, who simply stand up and say, why can't you just
[[Page H6361]]
reach across the aisle, find some compromise, and work in a bipartisan
manner? To those people who are continually asking for that, you got
it. It's here today in this particular bill.
The discussion draft of this bill was a bipartisan bill with a
Republican and Democrat sponsor. First hearings on this bill were done
back in April, so they have done their due diligence in studying the
issue and working the bill to the point that they actually scrapped the
first bill and reintroduced another, and once again, with bipartisan
sponsorship of the bill.
{time} 1250
If you look at the cosponsors on this bill, you will find Republicans
and Democrats. Even in the final vote in committee, one Republican
voted against it, and 29 percent of the Democrats actually voted for
it. This is a process to be envied. If you want a good system, a bill
that comes through in a bipartisan manner, this is it.
We all know that business is impacted by both legislation and
regulation, and sometimes the blatant disregard for the cumulative
negative impacts of onerous and sometimes overlapping new rules and
regulations have had a disastrous effect on industry and on jobs. The
current EPA appears to be driven to regulatory excess by asserting
powers or controls in an area where that power and control have never
been expressly delegated to the agency by Congress.
So, Madam Speaker, while I'm sure that every Member wants to have
clean air and clean water and all Americans want clean air and clean
water--they are vital objectives and laudable goals--however, I also
think that many would agree that some of the current issues in some
areas have gone beyond what Congress ever intended or ever approved,
and also far beyond common sense. It has not helped the economic health
of this particular country, which is why I commend the sponsors, both
sides of the aisle, who recognize this problem and have come up with
this legislation to fix the problem.
The underlying bill, H.R. 2401, simply says to the EPA--and
potentially other agencies--stop, slow down. Take a more careful look
at what you're doing or proposing to do. Take a serious and methodical
look at whether or not what you're doing is duplicative of rules and
regulations already on the books, whether or not they are overlapping,
confusing, or contradictory rules and regulations to those already on
the books. It tells them to do an analysis of alternative strategies
that may be used to avoid damage to our fragile environment as well as
our fragile economy.
This bill tells EPA--and others--that before certain draft
regulations go into effect, it actually needs to study and consider the
cumulative impacts of these new rules and regulations on energy
production, on costs, on jobs, and on our Nation's global
competitiveness. Imagine that. Imagine a Federal agency seeking to
institute rules and regulations which actually took the time to study
the impacts of those plans and rules and regulations first. Who could
oppose such a concept? It is just common sense.
There will be some that will complain, when the bill is discussed on
the floor--maybe even here on the rule itself--that this goal is to
dismantle the EPA and dismantle other organizations. No programs are
cut by this process. Nothing is changed by this process. Some will
stand up and say it's going to be a biased study. There are no limits
to what the agencies can study. What this bill simply does is it makes
sure that what has been ignored in the past is no longer ignored.
Are there some specific things that have to be considered? Yes,
that's right, because we specifically identify what has been ignored.
There is nothing in this bill that forbids any rules or regulations. It
just says to the agencies, for heaven sakes, get the facts first.
This bill holds the executive branch agencies accountable and forces
them to be reasonable and actually study what they're doing before they
implement it.
This is a good bill, it is a very good rule, and I would urge
adoption of both.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong
opposition to H.R. 2401. I do thank my colleague, Mr. Bishop, for
granting the time for the opposition.
This bill is really another attempt by the Republican leadership to
demonize the Environmental Protection Agency and dismantle any
government regulation intended to protect our Nation's public health
and the environment.
H.R. 2401 is a waste of time and an absolute insult to the millions
of Americans without jobs. Instead of crafting legislation to increase
consumer confidence, instead of helping Americans hold on to their
homes, instead of creating jobs for the millions of people who are
unemployed, instead of relieving the burden of the middle class by
making the Tax Code more fair, my friends on the other side are asking
us to vote on a bill that effectively bars the EPA from finalizing and
implementing two of the most significant air quality regulations in
decades.
Coal plants--and let me lay my bona fides out here: I do believe in
clean coal--the biggest source of unregulated mercury emissions in the
United States, pump out 48 tons of emissions every year. Mercury
contaminates more than 6 million acres of freshwater lakes, and I want
to just take the prerogative of talking about one.
I was born in Altamonte Springs, Florida, and the nearest lake to
where I was born is called Mobile. At one point, my grandfather could
pass by and say to my grandmother, I'm going down to the lake and catch
some fish--and be guaranteed that that was going to be the case--and
bring it back home in short time.
Now that lake is dead, and it's because of mercury contamination that
that lake is dead; 46,000 miles of streams, and the stream that led
into Lake Mobile is dead. And 225,000 acres of wetlands across the
United States in all 50 States have some type of fish consumption
advisory. Let me repeat that: all 50 States have some type of fish
consumption advisory.
What's more, there are substantial economic benefits to these clean
air rules that my friends are trying to block. The EPA estimates that
the Mercury and Air Toxic Standards alone could generate more than
30,000 construction jobs and 9,000 long-term utility jobs, benefiting
steelmakers, pipefitters, boilermakers, and others.
The economic value of air quality improvements totals $59 billion to
$140 billion annually. That's 25,300 lives lost to toxic air pollution;
over 11,000 heart attacks; more than 12,000 asthma attacks, and a
significant portion of them being children; over 12,200 additional
visits to the emergency rooms of our country; and hundreds of thousands
of missed work days.
Overall, the EPA predicts that the monetary value of protecting
Americans' health through implementing the Clean Air Act is projected
to reach $2 trillion in 2020 alone. Yet this bill ignores those
benefits.
Madam Speaker, all of us know that times are tough, but this great
Nation has been through tough economic times before. Environmental
regulations are not the problem. The economy was really tough--and we
are reminded of it often by my colleagues--under President Carter; yet
the EPA at the time managed to set new national air pollution standards
for airborne lead and began the phaseout of ozone-layer-destroying
gases from aerosol spray products.
Nor has protecting the environment always been a partisan issue. The
EPA has also had great successes under Republican Presidents. Upon
founding the EPA in 1970, President Richard Nixon said the following:
``We can no longer afford to consider air and water common property,
free to be abused by anyone without regard to the consequences.
Instead, we should begin now to treat them as scarce resources which we
are no more free to contaminate than we are free to throw garbage into
our neighbor's yard.'' That was in 1970.
One of the first tasks assigned to the EPA was to enforce the Clean
Air Act, also signed by President Nixon. Since its adoption, these
regulations have prevented an estimated 200,000 premature deaths.
{time} 1300
During President Reagan's administration, the EPA tested elementary
and secondary schools for asbestos for the first time and named
protecting endangered wetlands a top priority, while
[[Page H6362]]
subsequently opening the new Office of Wetlands Protection.
And contrary to what many of my friends across the aisle believe,
history did not end with President Reagan. President George H.W. Bush
implemented the new cap-and-trade policies that successfully addressed
the growing problem of acid rain.
President Bush's EPA also started the wildly successful Energy Star
program, helping Americans save money through adopting energy-efficient
products and practices. Since then, Energy Star has saved Americans $17
billion on utility bills.
And on a more personal level, I grew up at times with asthma, as did
a cousin of mine who still suffers the effects of it. Several of the
employees that work with me now and some before have had asthma, and I
genuinely believe that if we did not have the clean air standards that
we have today, some of us may not be here.
In light of all these accomplishments, it's clear that H.R. 2041 is
nothing more than an effort, at the behest of a big, big set of
businesses, to delay and block necessary and important regulations that
will keep our country safe and clean.
Republicans claim that this bill assists agencies with their economic
analyses of EPA regulations. This is nothing more than a convenient, ad
hoc justification.
Firstly, all major regulations already receive years of extensive
cost-benefit analysis before implementation. At the same time, this
bill fails to take into account any of the health and environmental
benefits of the regulations in question, rendering the one-sided
``cost-only'' analysis set forth by this bill unnecessary.
Second, the version of the Energy and Commerce bill that was reported
out suspends two major regulations that have been the subject of
analysis, litigation, re-examination and rewriting for over two
decades. Both the National Environmental Policy Act and Executive order
12866 signed by President Clinton require Federal agencies to perform
the type of analysis required in the bill, including a comprehensive
cost-benefit analysis.
By requiring unnecessary and duplicative studies, my friends on the
other side could not make their desire to indefinitely block these
regulations any more clear.
I've introduced an amendment that carves out an exception for rules
and regulations drafted in adherence to the rules already on the books,
freeing these important regulations to proceed along as scheduled.
Madam Speaker, based on what I've seen by this Republican-led
Congress, it's clear to me that they obviously have no intention of
using their real power to create jobs. Instead, they prefer to waste
time on measures such as this bill that are designed to do one simple
thing, and that is to further delay both past and future regulations.
Now, let me make it clear. I've quarreled, as have some of my
colleagues, with the Environmental Protection Agency, as rightly we
should when the circumstances permit, and that is, in my case, with the
numeric nutrient standards that are proposed in Florida. A court has
made a decision regarding the enforcement of those nutrient standards,
and I believe that the communities involved are prepared to undertake
to do what's necessary. And I do not believe that EPA has to involve
itself at this point in time.
But when I quarrel with EPA, as I do, I don't do it in a way that
demonizes the agency. I do it in a way that's looking for a solution.
One thing that I've learned in the years that I've been in this
institution is that whether you have a right or left or center
ideological perspective, to begin demonizing certain people suggests to
me that those people probably have been successful. I don't know Lisa
Jackson, the Environmental Protection Agency Cabinet official, but I do
know that the way people are screaming about the work that she has done
suggests that she must be having some success.
It's time to call my friends out on the other side for their
shenanigans, and show the American people that they are more interested
in helping big business and the wealthy than the middle class and
working poor Americans who continue to struggle all across this Nation
every single day.
If we start cutting the regulations that protect the environment when
we are down, where will we be when we recover?
I've seen firsthand what happens in places that disregard
environmental protections for the sake of business. I remember being in
Seong, China with a departed colleague, Gerald Sullivan, who was chair
of the Rules Committee, and holding my hand in front of my face and not
being able to see it. I also had that same experience in Los Angeles,
California, in the late 1950s.
This certainly is not the kind of home that we want to leave for our
grandchildren. The air that we breathe, the water that we drink, the
soil on which we produce our crops is the earth that we call home. And,
in my view, we must keep it clean.
Let me tell you what Ronald Reagan said. If we've learned any lessons
during the past few decades, perhaps the most important is that
preservation of our environment is not a partisan challenge. It's
common sense. Our physical health, our social happiness, and our
economic well-being will be sustained only by all of us working in
partnership as thoughtful, effective stewards of our natural resources.
President Reagan made those remarks on signing an annual report of the
Council on Environmental Quality.
Additionally, he said, in a radio address, that I'm proud of having
been one of the first to recognize that States and the Federal
Government have a duty to protect our natural resources from the
damaging effects of pollution that can accompany industrial
development.
And more importantly, what he said is, what is conservative after
all, but one who conserves, one who is committed to protecting and
holding close the things by which we live? And we want to protect and
conserve the land on which we live, our countrysides, our rivers and
mountains, our plains and meadows and forests. This is our patrimony.
This is what we leave to our children, and our great moral
responsibility is to leave it to them either as we found it or better
than we found it. He made those remarks at the dedication of the
National Geographic Society's new headquarters building in 1984.
President George W. Bush said, our country, the United States, is the
world's largest emitter of manmade greenhouse gases. We account for
almost 20 percent of the world's manmade greenhouse gas emissions.
In addition, in a joint address to Congress he said, I also call on
Congress to work with my administration to achieve the significant
emission reductions made possible by implementing the clean energy
technologies proposed in our energy plan. Our working group study has
made it clear that we need to do a lot more.
Those words from two Presidents that are revered, rightly, by many of
us in this institution, and certainly by my colleagues that are
Republican that share the same ideological perspectives, should be
sufficient to put to rest this polluting bill that we could rename the
Toxic Polluting America measure.
I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1310
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I thank the gentleman for not demonizing me or my
colleagues and our motives on this bill.
I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I'll try to do better about that as we
progress.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, a former member
of the Rules Committee, a distinguished Member of this body from Maine
(Ms. Pingree).
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I thank my colleague from Florida for his
eloquent words and for allowing me a moment to speak on the floor.
Madam Speaker, the TRAIN Act will repeal two critical clean air
standards: the proposed Mercury and Air Toxics Standards and the final
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule for power plants that burn coal and oil.
I'm from the State of Maine, and Maine is the tailpipe of the Nation
for most atmospheric pollution. Nearly 130,000 people in Maine have
been diagnosed with asthma. Yesterday in my office, I met with a
wonderful young man named Jake, one of 28,000 children in the State of
Maine who suffer from
[[Page H6363]]
asthma. I also met with his parents, small business owners who struggle
to pay more than a thousand dollars a month in insurance and medication
to keep Jake healthy.
Since 1970, the Clean Air Act has saved hundreds of thousands of
lives and decreased air pollution by 60 percent. Implementing Clean Air
standards will mean fewer kids and parents will struggle with life-long
costs of dirty air. Improved standards will also mean reducing the
amount of mercury and toxins in the air and water.
In 2000, the government determined that major coal-burning entities
are the single largest source of manmade emissions of mercury in the
United States. It's estimated that 6 percent of women in the U.S. of
childbearing age have dangerous levels of mercury in their blood, and
more than 410,000 children born each year in the United States are
exposed to levels of mercury in the womb high enough to impair
neurological development.
Madam Speaker, improved Clean Air Act standards will dramatically
reduce atmospheric pollution and decrease dangerous healthy effects of
dirty air. The TRAIN Act would delay those standards.
Companies are prepared to meet improved Clean Air Act standards by
making further investments in technology that would create over a
million jobs in the United States between 2011 and 2015. The TRAIN Act
will delay those investments.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30
seconds.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. The TRAIN Act will delay those investments and
delay those jobs in this country. The TRAIN Act is bad for business,
it's bad for our health, and it's bad for the State of Maine. I urge a
``no'' vote on the TRAIN Act and a ``no'' vote on delaying Clean Air
Act standards.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous
question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide that
immediately after the House adopts this rule, it will bring up H.R.
1366, the National Manufacturing Strategy Act of 2011.
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), whose father I
had the privilege of serving with as well.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to
oppose the previous question so we can bring to the floor a bipartisan
bill that I reintroduced earlier this year, H.R. 1366, the National
Manufacturing Strategy Act.
I know that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle recognize our
near-term and long-term economic challenges and understand that the
American people want us to help them get back to work. So rather than
considering a bill to tie up pending environmental regulations in red
tape, we should be bringing to the floor a bill we can agree will
improve our competitiveness and help the private sector create good
jobs.
The National Manufacturing Strategy Act requires the President to
establish a bipartisan public/private manufacturing strategy board.
This board would analyze the various factors that affect manufacturing,
including trade, taxes, regulations, among others. It would also
consider the government's programs, policies, and role in promoting
manufacturing and identify goals and recommendations for Federal,
State, and private sector entities to pursue in order to achieve the
greatest economic opportunity for manufacturers in America.
The strategy will be reexamined every 4 years so it would reflect the
implementation of prior recommendations, reassess global markets and
technological development, and plot a revised strategy.
The Federal Government already has significant and broad influence on
the domestic environment for manufacturing; and certain areas of the
government rely greatly on a strong manufacturing base, particularly
our national defense. Yet there's little to unify the multitude of
programs and policies that exist throughout the government toward the
common goals and agenda for promoting our domestic manufacturing base
and securing our place in the world's markets.
Unfortunately, the government's promotion of manufacturing has been
ad hoc. Instead, we need to be proactive and organized and efficient
across our government.
Most of our competitors understand the need for a strategy. Not just
China and India but also Germany, Canada, the United Kingdom, among
others, have developed and implemented strategies.
This idea enjoys widespread support in America from a wide range of
industrial sectors, labor, and the public. A poll conducted last year
by Alliance for American Manufacturing found that 86 percent of
Americans favor a national manufacturing strategy aimed at getting
economic, tax, labor, and trade policies working together.
This public support already has been echoed in this Chamber where
last year we passed this bill by a bipartisan vote of 379-38.
I urge my colleagues in the House to join me in calling for action on
jobs and the economy. We cannot continue to sit idly as our
manufacturing base and quality, well-paying jobs depart for China,
India, or elsewhere.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional 1
minute.
Mr. LIPINSKI. We must take action to provide a competitive and
focused foundation for those who will continue to make it in America,
and we can do so now by defeating the previous question and then
passing the National Manufacturing Strategy Act. The American public is
waiting. They need jobs. They want us to act. So let's move forward
together on something we can agree to and get Americans back to work.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I am pleased to yield as much time as he may
consume to the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I thank my extraordinarily quick-witted,
thoughtful and hardworking colleague from the Rules Committee for
yielding me the time. I rise in strong support of this rule, and I take
the floor to do my doggone-est to help us put in perspective why it is
that we're here and what it is that we're doing.
Let me say that at the outset I think most everybody acknowledges if
you're a job creator, that often government regulation and government
control has undermined your potential to create new jobs and streamline
your operation and make sure you can deliver a product or a service to
a consumer at a lower price.
Let's just at the outset say that the notion of trying to tackle the
issue of the overreach of government overregulating businesses and
individuals is a challenge that needs to be addressed. That's really
what came to the introduction by our colleague, Mr. Sullivan, and the
very hard work done by Mr. Whitfield in the Energy and Commerce
Committee of this so-called TRAIN Act, T-R-A-I-N. Don't ask me to say
exactly what the acronym means. I'd have to read it to see it.
It basically means that we're going to have an entity put into place
that's going to look at both the costs as well as the benefits for
dealing with the issue of regulation.
Now, my friend from Fort Lauderdale regaled us in the Rules Committee
when we were marking this up a couple of days ago about the time that
he spent in Los Angeles. He told the story about awakening and not
being able to open his eyes because the air pollution was so great in
Los Angeles. He may have shared that with our colleagues here on the
House floor as he did in the Rules Committee. I don't know. I haven't
followed the debate that closely. I was in another meeting.
I will say that I live in Los Angeles today, and I represent the Los
Angeles basin. I'm a Republican. I'm a Republican who likes to breathe
clean air, and I'm a Republican who likes to drink safe water. I don't
have as a goal, as a priority, the obliteration of air quality or water
quality. It's not a priority for me, and I frankly don't know of any
Democrat or Republican in this institution who has a desire to do that.
{time} 1320
I am also one who recognizes that many of the things that have been
done at the governmental level have played
[[Page H6364]]
a role in actually improving air quality and in playing a role in
improving drinking water. I will say that there is no desire on the
part of anyone to undermine the assurance that we have of clean air and
safe drinking water.
Now, having said that, I think it's important for us to recognize
that we are going to do everything that we can, though, to say when we
see duplicative regulation. When we see the kind of burden that has
been imposed, we should see action taken. But guess what? This
committee is not empowered to do anything--anything at all--like what
has been described or implied by my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle. This committee will not be able to repeal any regulation as it
relates to drinking water or clean air or any of these ideas.
I also want to say that I happen to believe that good environmental
policy happens to be good business. I know there is often this sense
that, if you're pro-environment, you must be anti-business, and if
you're pro-business, you must be anti-environment. I see the two really
going hand in hand; but it's important for us to make sure that we
don't go overboard in undermining businesses' potential to address
environmental needs with a regulatory burden that is as great as some
have reported it to be.
To me, we have made every single amendment that complied with the
rules of the House in order, so we're going to have an opportunity for
a free-flowing debate with Democrats, including an amendment that the
Democratic floor manager of this rule will have that has been made in
order by the Rules Committee.
We're going to have an opportunity for a free-flowing debate, and I
urge my colleagues to support this very commonsense measure.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My colleague from California spoke about what our committee would do.
I would urge him to understand that Congress is doing it for them with
this measure.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record 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 Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, the day before yesterday,
Frances Beinecke, the president of the Natural Resources Defense
Council, said the following:
``GOP lawmakers would have us believe that the public health and
environmental safeguards stemming from the Clean Air Act--a 40-year-old
law signed by President Nixon--are thwarting economic growth. It's not
the unregulated market in mortgage debt, the U.S. trade deficit with
China, or the shaky state of European banks that is freezing growth.
It's the EPA's effort to reduce toxins from old power plants.''
Madam Speaker, millions of Americans are hurting and are in desperate
need of our help. Instead of working to create jobs, my colleagues on
the other side would rather consider ``do nothing'' bills. We've been
doing nothing around here for a very long time now and have been
considering ``do nothing'' to get our economy back on track. This ``do
nothing'' bill does not create jobs, and it does nothing to help the
struggle of middle class and working poor Americans. Let me just give
some examples of the time line on the Environmental Protection Agency's
laws and list them, in part, by administration.
I spoke earlier about the Clean Air Act of 1970 and the Clean Water
Act that President Nixon vetoed. His veto was overridden, and then he
signed it on October 18, 1972.
Under President Ford, we got the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the
cancer-causing pesticides were banned. There was the Toxic Substances
Control Act in 1976 under President Ford.
Under Jimmy Carter, we got the Clean Water Act of 1977. Then the EPA
set a new national air pollution standard for lead, and I'm sure
families with children understand that dynamic. The phaseout of
chlorofluorocarbons took place in 1978.
Under President Reagan, in 1982, we got the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
and the asbestos testing in schools, which was critically important
throughout this Nation. We got the Chesapeake Bay pollution cleanup and
a 90 percent reduction of lead in gasoline. During that same period of
time, although it was not his discovery, the ozone layer problem was
discovered. Then in 1986, President Reagan signed the Safe Drinking
Water Act Amendments, the wetlands protection measure, and the Right-
to-Know Laws for chemical safety. The Montreal Protocol was signed by
the President in 1987 and standards for underground storage tanks in
1988. The sewage Ocean Dumping Ban also came about in 1988.
The Alar pesticide ban for use on foods came under President Bush.
Toxic waste control came under President Bush as well as the Pollution
Prevention Act. Acid rain controls were enacted as well as the Energy
Star program.
Those are just a few, and I won't go into the many under President
Clinton and the few that have taken place under President Obama.
With that said, there seems to be this act against the Environmental
Protection Agency that suggests that they have been harmful in some
way--that's another word for ``demonize''--that they've been harmful,
the EPA, in all of these things that have been done throughout all of
this time that have helped our environment.
I just, for the life of me, don't understand why it is now we want to
slow down this process and allow for an analysis, that is already being
done, to be delayed. We want to protect and conserve the land on which
we live--our countryside, our rivers, our mountains, our plains, and
meadows and forests. That's what Ronald Reagan said. This is our
patrimony. This is what we leave to our children, and our great moral
responsibility is to leave it to them either as we found it or better
than we found it.
Does the bill that we're considering today leave the land better than
we found it? I think you know the answer.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, ``no''
on this rule and the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
I have to admit that in a prior existence, when I was a debate
teacher in high school, one of the things we taught our kids--because
every team did it--was, regardless of what the bill was that the
affirmative presented, to come up with a series of problems. In every
instance, the negative team would always end with this plan, whatever
the plan was, resulting in a melting of the polar icecap, which would
trigger a thermonuclear war. It didn't matter what the affirmative plan
had. One of the negative arguments was it will melt the polar icecap
and trigger a thermonuclear war.
Sometimes when we're here on the floor, I feel that we're doing those
same kinds of debate cases, because it doesn't matter what the bill is;
it's going to do all sorts of things. This bill simply says that,
before you implement a rule or regulation, you're going to study
everything, including its impact.
One of the speakers who came to the floor said there are two rules
that are going to be prohibited in this bill. Now, there are two rules
specified in this bill that say, before you implement them, see what
they will do to the jobs and the economic cost. I mean, these rules
could increase the electricity costs for everyone, rich or poor, by 3,
4, 5 percent or more. We don't know. Study it first before you do it.
There was a rule that was passed in my State dealing with particulate
matter. In my area, in one of the very remote rural areas, we do
testing on solid rocket motors.
{time} 1330
That testing could violate this rule. No one knows for sure because
the EPA didn't do that kind of analysis.
One of the private sector groups said the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency disturbingly admitted that the impact on American
jobs is not a consideration in rulemaking, even while the United States
continues to struggle through the recession and unacceptably high
unemployment.
I'm sorry, that's one of the things that should be considered in
rulemaking. Is there an executive order
[[Page H6365]]
that mandates it? Yeah, but it's not being done.
So what we want to do is to have a law passed that says, yeah, what
is not being considered should be considered. It doesn't stop the
rulemaking, it doesn't stop the rule, it doesn't roll back anything, it
doesn't kill anybody, it doesn't melt the polarized cap, and it doesn't
start thermonuclear war. It simply says we will have a commission,
interagency, together to look at specific things; and we will consider
it.
So before you come up with another rule or regulation, you know the
total impact, what it does to the environment, what it does to the
economy, what it does to human beings.
Studying is something we should all recognize and we should all want.
This is what the bill does. It doesn't destroy anything, it doesn't cut
anything, it doesn't stop anything. It just says before you proceed,
you know what you're doing, and that should be common sense.
That should be what we were doing in the first place. And if it takes
a piece of legislation to make sure we do what we should have been
doing in the first place, let's pass this legislation, this bipartisan
legislation with Republican and Democrat sponsors that was passed with
Republican and Democrat votes--and actually one Republican voted
against it as well.
This is a bipartisan process, this is a bipartisan bill, this is a
good piece of underlying legislation, and it is an incredibly fair rule
because, remember, 12 of the 14 amendments, every one that could be
made in order, was made in order to be discussed and debated on this
floor, which is the way we should be doing things at all times. It's a
great process, and I look forward to listening to the debate on all 12
amendments as well as the base bill when we finally get to the position
of debating this bill on the floor.
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of
this rule and the underlying legislation, H.R. 2401--the TRAIN Act. At
a time when we have 14 million people out of work in this country, we
must enact commonsense policies that will reduce the regulatory burden
on job creators so that they can put people back to work.
Unfortunately, over the past 30 months under the Obama
Administration, the EPA has issued a wide array of large, expensive
regulations that affect virtually every facet of the U.S. economy, from
homeowners, hospitals, and farmers to small businesses and
manufacturers. H.R. 2401 addresses two of the more egregious of these
regulations. First, the Utility MACT is designed to limit emissions of
mercury, acid gases, and non-mercury metals from power plants. Next,
the Transport Rule is designed to establish specific statewide caps for
sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from power plants.
Madam Speaker, through these proposed rules, the combined cost on job
creators will be $17.8 billion annually and will jeopardize 1.4 million
jobs by 2020. The Utility MACT rule alone is estimated to increase
electricity costs on families by nearly 4% at a time when our economy
can least afford it.
As a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I commend the
leadership of Chairman Upton and Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman
Whitfield for their leadership on this issue. H.R. 2401 would put the
brakes on several of EPA's most damaging regulations until an
interagency committee can fully study the cumulative effect of all
proposed rules. This study would analyze both die health and social
benefits as well, as the actual impact on economic competitiveness,
trade, energy supplies, consumer spending, and jobs.
Madam Speaker, millions of out-of-work Americans are desperately
crying out for us to help put them back to work. During these
challenging economic times, we should not allow burdensome federal
regulations from the EPA to add more people to the unemployment rolls.
For this reason, I ask all of my colleagues to support this rule and
the underlying bill.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as
follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 406 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 2. 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.
1366) to require the President to prepare a quadrennial
national manufacturing strategy, 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 among and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy
and Commerce and the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Budget. 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. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of the bill specified in section 2 of this
resolution.
____
(The information contained herein was provided by the
Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
110th and 111th Congresses.)
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 opposition, at least for the moment, 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.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican
majority they will 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. BISHOP of Utah. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move
the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
[[Page H6366]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________