[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 154 (Friday, October 14, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H6925-H6934]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2273, COAL RESIDUALS REUSE AND 
                             MANAGEMENT ACT

  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 431 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 431

       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. 2273) to amend subtitle D of the Solid Waste 
     Disposal Act to facilitate recovery and beneficial use, and 
     provide for the proper management and disposal, of materials 
     generated by the combustion of coal and other fossil fuels. 
     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 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 (Mr. Fortenberry). The gentleman from South 
Carolina is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Thank you, sir.
  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. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their 
remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from South Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. House Resolution 431 provides for a 
structured rule for consideration of H.R. 2273, the Coal Residuals 
Reuse and Management Act, and makes in order six amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying 
bill. The underlying bill would provide for a consistent, safe 
management of coal combustion residuals, or coal ash, in a way that 
protects jobs, while encouraging recycling and beneficial use of these 
materials.
  This legislation, simply put, is one of the best job creation bills 
we can bring before the House of Representatives. By allowing States 
the opportunity to take control over their individual disposal needs, 
instead of being forced to follow an intrusive and overreaching EPA 
rule, we will save as many as 316,000 American jobs.
  The EPA proposed regulation will increase the electricity cost and 
the construction costs around the Nation, while costing electric 
utilities and business owners up to $110 billion. While we all agree we 
must be responsible in protecting our environment, I am struggling to 
understand why on Earth the EPA continues to propose rules in a vacuum, 
as opposed to considering the overall impact on our country.
  Coal ash has never been proven to be toxic. But what it has been 
proven to be is extremely useful in strengthening everyday products 
from concrete to sheet rock to bowling balls.

                              {time}  0920

  In my district, South Carolina's First, the American Gypsum Wallboard 
Plant in Georgetown County uses coal ash from Santee Cooper, our local 
electric utility, to produce environmentally friendly wallboard. 
American Gypsum has invested $150 million in this facility and created 
more than 100 jobs while redeveloping an old steel mill for their 
facility. The EPA's proposal to regulate coal ash as a hazardous waste 
threatens industry's ability to recycle this material in beneficial 
use. This, along with the increased regulatory, electric, and 
construction costs, is jeopardizing jobs all across America.
  This legislation puts in place appropriate controls--and let me 
emphasize ``appropriate''--for the safe management and disposal of coal 
ash, while still encouraging investment in recycling and beneficial 
use.
  Once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the 
underlying legislation. This is the way Federal regulations should be 
implemented, and it is the way we will protect American jobs while 
protecting the environment at the same time.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on 
the underlying bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I want to thank my friend from South Carolina for 
yielding

[[Page H6926]]

me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this 
structured rule and the underlying legislation. I should point out to 
my colleagues that Democrats yesterday introduced an amendment in the 
Rules Committee to make this an open rule, but, unfortunately, every 
single Republican on the Rules Committee voted against making this an 
open process. So much for Speaker Boehner's pledge for an open House of 
Representatives.
  This rule makes in order six amendments; six out of 16 submitted, 
less than half that were offered to the Rules Committee. Included in 
those amendments was an amendment by Mr. Kissell which would have 
required, essentially, that all the components of the infrastructure 
that would create these holding facilities for steel ash would have to 
be made with American products, so that it wouldn't be made with 
Chinese steel, it would be made with American steel, American concrete, 
and American rebar. I have no idea why that was controversial. The 
American people are worried about jobs, and there was an opportunity to 
make an amendment in order that would have protected and ensured 
American jobs, and they wanted no part of it.
  Mr. Speaker, once again, the Republicans are jamming a rule through 
the House that shuts down the debate and cherry-picks a handful of 
amendments.
  I should also point out that this bill that we're debating here today 
didn't even have a hearing--no hearings. I thought we were going to 
adhere to regular order, and that means that the committees of 
jurisdiction hold a hearing on the legislation--not a general hearing 
on the topic, but on the legislation. No hearings were held on this.
  Discussion on this bill the other night in the Rules Committee was, I 
thought, kind of comical. The chairman of the Rules Committee, someone 
who's served in this institution a very long time, said he would have 
preferred an open rule but said that the schedule forced him to vote 
against my amendment to make this an open rule. The schedule? The same 
House schedule where we go into recess every 2 weeks?
  Mr. Speaker, the American people want us to address the challenges 
that are facing our economy. They want us to be focused on the issue of 
jobs. And we're not legislating under this schedule that the 
Republicans have put into place. Since there were no hearings on this 
bill and since there were a lot of amendments that were offered, we 
should have had an open process. And if it took us a couple of days to 
debate and vote on this bill, so be it. That's the way this place is 
supposed to work.
  Yesterday on the floor, we wasted time debating an abortion bill that 
is going absolutely nowhere, a bill that is designed to inflame and 
divide our country. I would suggest to my friends on the other side of 
the aisle, instead of bringing up hot-button social issues designed to 
fire up the right-wing base, maybe they should think about bringing a 
jobs bill to the floor of the House of Representatives.
  In reality, Mr. Speaker, we should be debating the President's jobs 
bill, and yet the Republican leadership has refused to allow us even to 
have a vote on the bill. If my friends on the Republican side don't 
want to vote for a jobs bill, then they can vote against it, but we 
ought to be able to have a vote on the President's jobs bill.
  The fact is that it's been 281 days that we've been in session--281 
days without a jobs bill, 281 days that the Republicans have stood on 
the sidelines while Americans struggle to make ends meet, struggle to 
put food on the table, struggle to make house payments, struggle to 
find a job to pay their bills. We need a real jobs plan, not another 
bumper sticker bill demonizing the EPA, which is what today's bill is 
all about.
  The American people don't want us wasting time on these trivial 
bills, bills that are going to go nowhere. What they want us to do is 
to pass a jobs bill. They want, Mr. Speaker, us to pass the President's 
jobs bill. Don't take my word for it. The NBC/Wall Street Journal poll 
that was released this week shows that nearly two-thirds of Americans 
want the President's jobs bill. The poll finds that 63 percent of 
Americans support the President's bill and that only 32 percent oppose 
it. It's not even close. The American people want action on jobs. They 
want to go back to work. They want us to do something meaningful, and 
they want us to do it now.
  Mr. Speaker, if there's one thing that the new House majority has 
been consistent on this year, it's their almost religious crusade 
against the EPA. H.R. 2273 fits right in with their political agenda to 
undermine the agency at any cost and, in the process, threaten the 
health and safety of the American people, all under the guise of job 
creation. I'm appalled that that is their idea of a jobs bill.
  Mr. Speaker, coal combustion waste is enormously toxic. It contains 
an array of the most harmful chemicals out there--mercury, lead, 
cadmium, hexavalent chromium, and arsenic--that are especially 
devastating to the development of children. Over the years, billions of 
tons of coal ash have been dumped in poorly designed waste pits and 
containment sites in communities across the country.

  I want to remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle of the 
catastrophic coal ash spill in Kingston, Tennessee, in 2008 where 1.1 
billion gallons of liquid coal waste seeped out of a contaminated pool 
and contaminated local drinking water. I would also remind my 
Republican colleagues that it cost the taxpayers more than $1 billion 
to clean up that disaster, and that residents in the Kingston area are 
still dealing with its continuing effects.
  H.R. 2273 is a bad piece of legislation, and it flies in the face of 
commonsense safety precautions when disposing of hazardous materials. 
By leaving the establishment of coal ash safety standards solely to the 
discretion of States, this bill simply encourages a ``race to the 
bottom'' where the State willing to have the least protections will 
become the dumping ground for the entire country. And H.R. 2273 leaves 
taxpayers on the hook for paying for another cataclysmic disaster like 
the one in Tennessee.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't think any of my colleagues would want their 
families, their wives or husbands or children, living anywhere near the 
vicinity of a coal ash dumping site.
  H.R. 2273 is another Republican bill that undermines commonsense 
health and safety protections from toxic chemicals and ultimately 
lowers the quality of living for millions of American families.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and instead send it back to 
the Rules Committee. Let's have an open rule. Given the fact, again, 
the bill didn't have a hearing, we should have an open rule here. I 
would urge my Republican colleagues to finally get to work on putting 
the American people back to work.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I'm confused. It doesn't take a lot to confuse me, but I'm confused 
today. The gentleman from Massachusetts consistently talks about the 
fact that there's been 281 days without a jobs bill. I want to know the 
definition of a jobs bill, because if you create jobs, my assumption is 
that we're talking about jobs bills. There is no question that the 
current legislation that we're talking about saves up to 316,000 jobs. 
I'm going to call that a jobs bill.
  There's no question that the free trade agreements create about one-
quarter of a million jobs. Those are jobs bills. The Boiler MACT saves 
jobs, and Cement MACT saves jobs. So what we've done in this Congress, 
in this House, is talk consistently about how to rein in the regulatory 
environment to not only create jobs but to retain jobs.

                              {time}  0930

  So my perspective is simple: When you have legislation that comes 
before the House that actually creates jobs, those are jobs bills. It 
is not an ultimatum. The President's jobs bill is simply an ultimatum, 
do it all or nothing at all. There is no question about it that even 
the Senate cannot find cosponsors of the President's legislation and 
pass the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia, 
Mr. David McKinley.

[[Page H6927]]

  Mr. McKINLEY. I rise in support of the rule.
  As we stand here 30 years into this discussion on coal ash, H.R. 2273 
has essentially two parts:
  The first part codifies the previous EPA studies that concluded that 
coal fly ash is nonhazardous and can be recycled for beneficial use. 
This was the essence of H.R. 1391, but in H.R. 1391, we heard from the 
constituents about the concern for disposal.
  The second part was then incorporated into the new bill, which 
provides for all new and existing landfills and surface impoundments to 
be State-run with EPA assistance, approval, and oversight. We are 
trying to finally resolve the issue.
  The issue of disposal is taken on firsthand in H.R. 2273 by allowing 
requirements for composite liners, fugitive dust controls, groundwater 
monitoring, financial assurance, and structural stability. H.R. 2273 is 
strongly endorsed by State environmental officials, including the 
Environmental Council of States and the Association of State and 
Territorial Solid Waste Officials, as well as various labor unions.
  Now let's get back to the byproduct, itself.
  Coal ash is an unavoidable byproduct of burning coal, just like 
putting logs in a fireplace. Every day, coal ash is produced in nearly 
700 coal-fired generating plants in 48 of the 50 States in America. 
Approximately 140 million tons are produced annually with 40 percent of 
that fly ash being beneficially recycled.
  Over the years, scientists and entrepreneurs have developed uses for 
that coal ash through a variety of recycling options. Businesses were 
emboldened to recycle the material after two studies by the EPA in 1993 
and 2000. Both concluded that coal ash was not a hazardous material and 
could be used by the public. The findings of the 2000 study 
specifically stated that no documented cases of damage to human health 
or the environment have been identified because of fly ash.
  As a result, industries have sprung up all across America. Hundreds 
of thousands of jobs have been created by recycling fly ash into the 
concrete of our bridges, our roads, and our buildings. It's used in 
masonry block and brick, and is in our houses by virtue of its use in 
drywall panels and roof shingles.
  Even the Tennessee Valley Authority, with the cooperation of the 
Department of Health and Human Services, comprehensively examined the 
health effects from the Kingston dam accident in 2009. Their conclusion 
was that there were no significant human health impacts from the 
Tennessee coal ash spill.
  Those companies across America using the byproduct are caught up in 
the uncertainty swirling about this issue of the recycling of the 
material, and may be forced to switch to more expensive alternatives. 
According to the Veritas report, repealing this section of the bill and 
allowing the EPA to designate coal ash as a hazardous material would 
cost the consumers as much as $110 billion and cost 316,000 jobs.
  Let's be frank. The opponents of this bill and this rule clearly have 
an anti-coal agenda. Even interagency reviews of the EPA's plan to 
designate coal ash as a hazardous material show that the idea is 
opposed by the Department of Energy, the Department of Transportation, 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the 
Council of Environmental Quality, and the Army Corps of Engineers. They 
want the continued use of recycled fly ash and want to reject its 
possibility of being treated as a hazardous material.
  This is not a time for people who dislike fossil fuels to be pushing 
their personal agendas and ideologies. To those who lack compassion and 
understanding about the real world, these are real jobs at stake here. 
It's really that simple. Therefore, anyone who opposes this rule and 
this legislation embraces the loss of 316,000 jobs and higher utility 
bills.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  To the gentleman who just spoke, I would remind him that we're 
debating the rule here. We could have this debate about whether or not 
there are health concerns here or not. I happen to believe there are, 
and I think most scientists believe that there are health concerns that 
we should take into consideration here.
  But what's wrong with an open rule? What was so wrong with bringing 
an amendment to the floor that would have required that the components 
to build these containers, if you will, be made of materials made in 
the United States? What's wrong with U.S. steel or U.S. concrete? Why 
is that a controversy?
  So I would say to my colleagues on the other side who like to say 
that they're open, let this be an open rule, especially since there 
were no hearings on this particular bill.
  My colleague from South Carolina got up and he said he was confused. 
I'm sorry he's confused. Let me try to un-confuse him about one thing, 
which is, if you want to create jobs, bring the President's jobs bill 
to the floor. Economists predict that the American Jobs Act could 
create up to 1.9 million jobs next year and boost economic growth by 
about 2 percentage points. You've got a twofer here. Not only do you 
put people back to work, but you help to reduce our deficit when you 
put more people to work. If we could lower the unemployment rate in 
this country by a few percentage points, we could lower our deficit. 
Why is that so controversial?
  Rather than focusing on partisan bills that don't mean much for the 
economy, it's time for the Republicans to take up the American Jobs 
Act, which is fully paid for, includes bipartisan ideas, will create 
jobs, and grow our economy now. What we should be doing every single 
day on this House floor is focusing on jobs, on putting people back to 
work. Instead, today is another bill attacking the EPA, and yesterday 
we did an abortion bill. I mean, we're talking about everything but how 
to put people back to work, so I would urge my colleagues to get their 
priorities straight.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts 
so much for taking the time to clarify that which is not clear as it 
relates to the President's objectives of creating a one-size-fits-all, 
take-it-or-leave-it jobs bill that doesn't create jobs but that does 
create another $500 billion hole for the taxpayers to take care of.
  What we're talking about, however, sir, is a bipartisan approach to 
legislation in the House. In the Energy and Commerce Committee, with a 
vote of 35-12, 6 of the 23 Democrats supported this bill; of the Boiler 
MACT, 41 Democrats supported that bill; of the Cement MACT, 25 
Democrats supported that bill. What we've done here is to create an 
atmosphere that is conducive to a bipartisan approach to solving the 
environmental concerns and challenges of our Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from North Carolina, 
Dr. Foxx.
  Ms. FOXX. When I heard my colleague from Massachusetts talk about the 
President's jobs bill, I couldn't resist responding to it.
  As my colleague from Massachusetts very well knows, the President's 
jobs bill was defeated in the Senate. It was introduced in the House by 
request. Only the person who introduced it has sponsored it, and there 
are no cosponsors. The Democrats are simply not serious about the 
President's jobs bill. They are using this as a political ploy. If the 
Democrats were really serious about it, they would all be signed on to 
the bill, but they are not.

                              {time}  0940

  Republicans are offering real alternatives to the situation that the 
Democrats have presented to us. We're signing on to our bills. We're 
voting for our bills.
  The Senate is controlled by the Democrats. They can't pass the 
President's jobs bill over there. It failed. It failed on a bipartisan 
vote.
  And let me point out to my colleague from Massachusetts that when the 
Democrats took control of the Congress in 2007, the unemployment rate 
was 4.6 percent. When Republicans gained control of the House again in 
January of this year, the unemployment rate had increased to 9 percent.
  What they want us to do is go back to the failed policies that 
existed in the 4 years that they were in control of the

[[Page H6928]]

Congress and the 2 years that they controlled the Congress and the 
White House.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would remind my colleague on the Rules Committee, the gentlelady 
from North Carolina, that over half the Senate--over half the Senate--
voted to bring up the President's jobs bill. Over half the Senate 
supports the President's jobs bill. But under the arcane rules in the 
United States Senate, you need 60 votes to have lunch, never mind pass 
a bill.
  So it wasn't defeated. A majority actually support the President's 
jobs bill. It is the Republicans who are obstructing this legislation, 
who are using procedural tricks to keep this bill from coming up before 
the United States Senate for a clean up-or-down vote. It is Republicans 
in the House of Representatives who are saying that none of us will 
have an opportunity to vote on the President's bill.
  I mean, here's a good idea. You bring up what you want to bring up; 
you let us bring up what we want to bring up. The President's bill, as 
I said, is very popular. The legislation, I would remind my friend from 
South Carolina, is paid for, is paid for.
  The legislation's specifics as well as the idea of taxing the very, 
very, very wealthy to pay for it are popular with the American public, 
and that's according to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
  So, I mean, what are you afraid of? If you don't want to vote for 
legislation to help put people back to work, then you don't have to 
vote for it. You go home and explain to your constituents why you're 
against the bill.
  What we should be doing here in this U.S. House of Representatives 
is, every day, debating and legislating on ways to be able to put this 
country back to work. You want to reduce the deficit? Put people back 
to work. If you want to improve the economy, put people back to work. 
It's simple. And we're doing everything in this place but debating 
legislation to put people back to work.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlelady from West Virginia, Mrs. Shelley Moore Capito.
  Mrs. CAPITO. I thank my colleague on the Rules Committee from South 
Carolina.
  I would like to ask the gentleman from Massachusetts who's been 
talking a lot about the jobs bill and the President's jobs bill, and my 
question to him is: If it's such a great jobs bill, why does it only 
have three cosponsors on the bill? I don't think that says much for the 
emphasis on your side of the aisle or in this whole House behind the 
President's jobs bill.
  But today I want to rise in support of the rule of H.R. 2273, and I 
want to congratulate my colleague from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley) for 
his very dutiful work in this area. To me, this legislation is in 
response to the EPA's ideological war on Appalachian jobs.
  The EPA is intent on regulating coal as a hazardous material. It is a 
wrongheaded move, given that the material has been used in household 
construction for years.
  This bill simply allows States to regulate coal fly ash under their 
long existing solid waste disposal programs. This bill is 
environmentally and economically responsible because it allows the EPA 
to set enforceable minimum standards but leaves ultimate regulations 
and enforcement to the States, where it belongs.
  If the EPA is permitted to regulate coal ash as a hazardous material, 
it could have a devastating effect on my State's economy. We generate 
97 percent, maybe up to 99 sometimes, of our electricity from coal 
naturally, because we're a very large coal producer.
  Regulating this as a hazardous waste would result in less coal use 
and would throw thousands of coal miners out of their jobs. Electricity 
prices would skyrocket, which would hurt manufacturers and households.
  I just think that we're talking about jobs. Let's talk about creating 
jobs, but let's not destroy 316,000 jobs in the process of this 
regulatory regime that we've seen over the last several years. We know 
from the EPA's own statements that they don't really consider job loss 
or economic loss when they put forward these onerous provisions, so we 
cannot afford to let the EPA put more Americans out of work.
  I support the rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would say to the gentlelady from West Virginia, I don't know how 
many cosponsors there are on the bill, but I want to vote for the bill. 
I'm willing to propose a unanimous consent request that we amend this 
rule and we bring up H.R. 12 today. If the gentleman on the other side 
of the aisle is willing, let's bring it up and have that debate right 
now.
  I am happy to yield to the gentleman if he wants to agree to that 
unanimous consent.
  Well, the silence, Mr. Speaker, is deafening.
  The fact of the of the of the matter is that we are going to finish 
up today at 2 o'clock or 3 o'clock or whatever and then go on another 
week recess when the American people are struggling, when there are 
millions of people who are out of work, when there are millions of 
families struggling to try to pay their mortgages, when there are 
millions of families who are trying to figure out how they're going to 
have the resources to send their kids to school. This is the best we 
can do? Come on, we can do a lot better than this, Mr. Speaker.
  I would again urge my colleagues to get serious and, if you don't 
like the President's jobs bill, then vote against it. It's that simple. 
But let us bring a bill to the floor that by every measure, by every 
public opinion poll that is out there, is popular. The American people 
want it. You always like to invoke polls. Well, the polls 
overwhelmingly show the American people support this. So let's bring 
that bill to the floor.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I would just say to my good friend from 
Massachusetts that the President's jobs perspective seems to be, since 
February of 2009, a loss, a net loss of 2.2 million jobs. So let's just 
absorb that for a moment.
  We ought to get serious about not using the American people as a pawn 
for partisan politics and get serious about working in a bipartisan 
fashion, as we have on the Boiler MACT, the Cement MACT, and now on 
this current bill. If we work for Americans' future, we will find more 
jobs created and saved in America.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana, Dr. 
Larry Bucshon.
  Mr. BUCSHON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the 
underlying bill.
  I guess yesterday there was some confusion at the White House about 
the Republican plan for job creation, and I would like to just point 
out that in early June we released that, and it can be found on 
jobs.gop.gov if the President is interested.
  The Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act stops the administration 
from another attempt to enforce unachievable standards that don't 
provide the health or environmental benefits that are claimed. And in 
exchange for no benefits, we're going to give up more jobs in States 
and industries than cannot afford more setbacks. In my State of 
Indiana, 95 percent of our electrical energy depends on coal. It would 
be devastating.
  An independent study released earlier this year found that as many as 
316,000 jobs will be taken away if this rule is enacted by the EPA. At 
a time when the President is touring the country promoting his jobs 
bill, I think it's hypocritical of his own EPA to promulgate a rule 
like the coal ash rule that's been shown by outside organizations to 
kill jobs.
  So this is my question: Why is the EPA focusing on regulating coal 
ash when they, themselves, say the materials do not--I repeat, do not--
exhibit any of the four characteristics of hazardous waste? Their own 
extensive studies reported to Congress show that coal ash does not 
exhibit corrosivity, reactivity, ignitability, or toxicity. Why then 
are we forcing through a regulation that goes against EPA's own 
findings?
  The reason is because of an ideological, anti-coal agenda from the 
administration. That's why.

                              {time}  0950

  But the concern on most Americans' minds is job creation, and this 
here is

[[Page H6929]]

a jobs bill. To let the EPA regulate coal ash rather than leaving it to 
the States' hands would only create jobs at the EPA. We need more jobs 
in Indiana's Eighth Congressional District. For that reason, I support 
the rule and I support the underlying bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My colleague on the Rules Committee from South Carolina said we 
should all work in a bipartisan way, and I agree. And that's what the 
President attempted to do. His jobs bill represents a series of 
initiatives that were all bipartisan, that were all bipartisan until he 
announced he wanted to move on it, and then all of a sudden it became a 
partisan deal. Everything in the President's jobs package has been 
sponsored in a bipartisan way. So I don't understand why now. If you 
want to call it the Republican idea, I don't care what you want to call 
it, but bring it to the floor and allow us to be able to debate these 
bipartisan initiatives that will put people back to work.
  Again, I would say about the rule, where's the openness here? I mean, 
the majority of amendments that were offered were not made in order, 
including an amendment that would require that the building materials 
for these holding tanks be made in America. Why is that so 
controversial? Why is making things in America a radical idea to my 
Republican friends? Why is it somehow a bad thing to insist that the 
steel used to build these plants be made in the United States of 
America and not China? I mean, we all should be on the side of American 
workers here, and that means standing up and making sure those jobs are 
here in the United States. So let's open this rule up so we have an 
opportunity to protect American jobs.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Illinois, Mr. John Shimkus.
  (Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHIMKUS. I'm just here to speak in support of the rule.
  First of all, on April 14, 2011, the Subcommittee on the Environment 
and the Economy, which I chair, held a legislative hearing on the coal 
ash bill, H.R. 1391. Based on this hearing and working with Democrats 
in the subcommittee, we modified the bill. We changed the bill, and 
then we had a voice vote out of subcommittee. Then we went to the full 
committee, and we had a bipartisan vote in the full committee. I think 
at least six Democrat votes, and two more that would have had they been 
there for the process. So we are working together with Democrats to 
bring a sensible bill to the floor.
  If we don't do this, it's projected in the coal ash recycling 
industry of this country we will lose 38,000 to 119,000 jobs. So we 
trust the State regulators. They do it for municipal solid waste. We're 
just making coal ash recyclable, the same as we do for municipal solid 
waste. It has bipartisan support. Thank you, Rules Committee, for 
making the amendments in order. I think five of the six amendments are 
Democrat amendments. So it's not perfect, but it allows us to move 
forward.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Again, I appreciate the words of my colleague from Illinois, but H.R. 
1391 is not H.R. 2273. There was no legislative hearing on H.R. 2273.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. It's not because of the input we got from Democrats to 
change that original bill. So that's why. I mean, it was bipartisan.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I reclaim my time.
  So the new definition of openness under the Republican majority is 
you don't have to have a legislative hearing on a bill that you bring 
to the floor, but you can say it doesn't matter or that you did, or 
whatever. This is not the way this place is supposed to work. This 
process is not what my friends on the other side of the aisle promised.
  Again, I have yet to hear a good reason why this is not an open rule. 
Given the fact that there was no hearing on this specific bill, given 
the fact that there were a number of germane amendments that were not 
made in order, given the fact that during the debate there may be 
Members on both sides of the aisle who may have ideas they may want to 
bring to the floor and amend this bill, and also given the fact that 
one of the amendments that was not made in order was an amendment that 
would have required that the materials that are used to make these coal 
ash containers be made in the United States of America, why is that 
such a heavy lift for my friends on the other side of the aisle?
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Garamendi).
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank my friend from Massachusetts.
  I don't understand. This is a very, very important issue. This is an 
issue about dealing with fly ash and how we're going to contain it and 
process it and protect the citizens. It's also an opportunity for us to 
deal with one of the fundamental economic problems we have in the 
United States, which is the loss of manufacturing. There's going to be 
a lot of different kinds of equipment, material, steel, cement, other 
kinds of materials that are going to be part of the process that this 
bill calls for, that is, adequately dealing with fly ash. Why wouldn't 
you want to put into this piece of legislation that those materials, 
those pieces of equipment, be manufactured in the United States?
  We need to rebuild our manufacturing base in this Nation. We've lost 
more than 50 percent of it over the last 25 years. We need to once 
again make it in America. And I tell you, you put this amendment into 
this bill and we'll see one more piece of American manufacturing coming 
back into place. It actually works.
  In the Recovery Act, which you like to call the stimulus bill, there 
was a paragraph put in that says if you're going to use the 
transportation funds in this bill, then you must buy equipment made in 
America. In Sacramento, California, Siemens has built and is continuing 
to expand a manufacturing plant because of that provision. Hundreds of 
people in California are employed because Congress wrote into the bill 
money spent on trains and buses and light rail will have to be spent on 
equipment manufactured in America. So Siemens is doing it.
  Write into this piece of legislation, and there will be new 
manufacturing plants in America making the equipment to deal with the 
fly ash. It is eminently sensible, so why be unsensible? Why block this 
amendment?
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Jeff Duncan.
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of 
H.R. 2273, the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act.
  As I see it, the three main problems facing the American economy 
today are the uncertainties coming from taxation, regulation, and 
litigation. This tone-deaf administration continues to propose new 
forms of taxation on American job creators to the detriment of our 
workers and our economy. The administration continues the threat of 
litigation in the form of the unprecedented and unconstitutional 
attacks by the National Labor Relations Board against my home State of 
South Carolina. And we see the EPA creating costly regulations that are 
forcing businesses not to make decisions on an annual or quarterly 
basis, but having to make decisions to comply day to day.
  Fortunately, the House has worked to turn back some of these actions, 
but there is much work left to be done. The House recently passed two 
bills, H.R. 2681 and H.R. 2250. These bills seek to prevent a pair of 
excessive regulations from going into effect that would put hundreds of 
thousands of Americans out of work. One EPA regulation, the Boiler MACT 
rule, is expected to cost businesses and consumers around $14 billion, 
resulting in a loss of over 220,000 American jobs.

                              {time}  1000

  Today we begin discussing the administration's EPA regulation of coal 
ash that will drive up electricity costs for millions of Americans, as 
well as construction costs for roads and homes all around the country.
  From 1999 to 2009, American industries successfully recycled 519 tons 
of coal ash, some 38 percent of the 1.35 billion tons of coal ash 
produced. Recycling coal ash keeps electricity costs

[[Page H6930]]

low, provides for low-cost durable construction materials, and reduces 
the amount of waste going into the landfills. In other words, 
continuing to recycle coal ash is good for our economy and it's good 
for the environment.
  Yet the administration continues this headlong rush to destroy 
American jobs and wreck the American engineering sector. The EPA is 
considering treating coal ash as a hazardous waste. This is simply the 
latest bureaucratic overreach from this administration on behalf of 
their friends from the left-wing fringe and environmental movement. The 
impact of this government overreach would be nothing short of 
disastrous, with an estimated impact of $110 billion over the next 20 
years and around 300,000 jobs lost. The bill we are debating today 
would end that nonsense before it can start.
  Keep in mind, America, it allows that coal ash to be regulated not by 
the left-wing zealots at the EPA, but by the States. Our Founding 
Fathers included the 10th Amendment in the Constitution so that these 
issues could be handled by the States, not a burdensome Federal agency 
with a political agenda and an axe to grind.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Yesterday the President revealed that 
he had raised $70 million for his campaign. If our President spent as 
much effort freeing job creators from excessive regulations as he spent 
raising campaign donations from environmental extremists, far more 
Americans would be able to find work today.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, a new study from Tufts University shows that we can 
create tens of thousands of new jobs by requiring safe disposal of coal 
ash. Ensuring that coal ash disposal sites protect human health and the 
environment will take work. It will take construction workers, 
equipment operators, and engineers. And this isn't a ``make work'' 
effort. These jobs will provide tremendous benefit to the communities 
in which they take place. But these jobs will not happen if we pass 
this bill. This bill basically preserves the status quo. So if we want 
to create jobs, I think we need to vote this bill down.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, we're still trying to get an understanding on 
this side of the aisle as to why we don't have an open rule and why an 
amendment that would require that job stability infrastructure for all 
of this, that all the materials be made in America. If we want to 
protect American jobs and create American jobs, we have to stand up and 
fight for American jobs and fight for American workers.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. We are prepared to close; so we reserve 
our time until then.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me close by, again, first of all, 
saying that this rule should be an open rule and that, at a very 
minimum, the amendment that would require that the materials that would 
be used to construct any of these containers be made in the United 
States of America. It's important that we stand up for American jobs. 
It's important that we make it in America. And so this rule deserves to 
be defeated based on that alone.
  This process is also bad and flawed because there was no hearing on 
this particular piece of legislation, and the ranking member of the 
full Energy and Commerce Committee did not think, based on what he 
said, that this was a particularly bipartisan, open process. In fact, 
there are some Members who supported this bill in committee who will 
not support it on the floor because of promises that were supposedly 
made that were not kept. So, for a whole bunch of reasons on process, 
we should defeat this rule.
  Secondly, Mr. Speaker, on the underlying bill, I would remind my 
colleagues that part of our job here is to protect the safety and well-
being of the people we represent. Coal ash contains arsenic, lead, and 
many other toxic materials that can escape into the air or water if the 
material isn't properly contained. We should be concerned about the 
safety implications here. We should be concerned about any consequences 
that may result in poor regulation and poor oversight. And to 
basically, again, take this time on the floor to again take another 
slap at the EPA because that's the favorite punching bag of my friends 
on the Republican side of the aisle, I think, is not a credit to this 
institution and is not doing what we were elected to do, and that is to 
make sure that we are upholding the safety and protecting the people of 
this country.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that the problem is 
all regulation, only EPA regulation. There was an interesting opinion 
piece that appeared in The New York Times by a fellow named Bruce 
Bartlett--he had held senior policy roles in the Reagan and George H.W. 
Bush administrations, served on the staff of Jack Kemp--who did a piece 
for The New York Times entitled, ``Misrepresentations, Regulations and 
Jobs.''
  I'll read a couple of the lines from his piece. He says:
  ``Republicans have a problem''--and he's Republican himself. 
``Republicans have a problem. People are increasingly concerned about 
unemployment, but Republicans have nothing to offer them.''
  He further says: ``No hard evidence is offered for this claim'' that 
all the uncertainty within business is tied to regulation.'' He says 
that notwithstanding the lack of evidence, the Republicans repeated 
this assertion ``endlessly throughout the conservative echo chamber.''
  He also says: ``While concerns about regulation have risen during the 
Obama administration, they are about the same now as they were during 
Ronald Reagan's administration, according to an analysis of the 
federation's data by the Economic Policy Institute.''
  He ends by saying this: ``In my opinion, regulatory uncertainty is a 
canard invented by Republicans that allows them to use current economic 
problems to pursue an agenda supported by the business community year 
in and year out. In other words, it is a simple case of political 
opportunism, not a serious effort to deal with high unemployment.''
  I bring that up not to say that regulation isn't a problem and that 
we should not deal in a constructive way with needless regulation--the 
President said that in his speech to the House when he introduced his 
jobs bill--but it is not the only problem out there. And to suggest 
that bringing bills like this to the floor are going to somehow create 
jobs is just patently false.
  If we want to create jobs in this country, we should bring the 
President's jobs bill to the floor. Again, the American people 
overwhelmingly support what the President outlined in his speech before 
the Congress; and all the things that he articulated, I say to my 
friend from South Carolina, were bipartisan ideas. Republicans and 
Democrats all cosponsored legislation on various pieces of his 
proposal. Why now they have become controversial is beyond me.
  I'll just close with this: At some point I hope my friends on the 
other side of the aisle will get serious about the issue of jobs; at 
some point I hope they will bring something meaningful to this House 
floor that, if passed, will actually put people back to work, because 
up to this point the Republican leadership has failed miserably. And I 
think people all across this country--and you see this reflected in the 
public opinion polls--have had it. They're tired of this constant 
agenda of hot-button issues and of trivial matters that we debate 
passionately and important ones not at all.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to defeat the previous 
question. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment 
to the rule to make in order an amendment by Mr. Garamendi of 
California which was submitted to the Rules Committee. They didn't make 
it in order even though it is germane and fully paid for and meets 
every requirement of the rules of the House. The amendment would make 
sure that construction materials used to build holding facilities for 
coal ash are made in America.
  Mr. 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 Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.

[[Page H6931]]

  Mr. McGOVERN. Again, Mr. Speaker, let me repeat, the amendment we 
want to make in order would make sure that construction materials used 
to build holding facilities for coal ash are made in America. Why that 
should be controversial is beyond me. Why anybody on either side should 
oppose that is beyond me.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the 
previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.

                [From the New York Times, Oct. 4, 2011]

                Misrepresentations, Regulations and Jobs

                          (By Bruce Bartlett)

       Bruce Bartlett held senior policy roles in the Reagan and 
     George H.W. Bush administrations and served on the staffs of 
     Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul.
       Republicans have a problem. People are increasingly 
     concerned about unemployment, but Republicans have nothing to 
     offer them. The G.O.P. opposes additional government spending 
     for jobs programs and, in fact, favors big cuts in spending 
     that would be likely to lead to further layoffs at all levels 
     of government.


        Today's Economist Perspectives from expert contributors

       Republicans favor tax cuts for the wealthy and 
     corporations, but these had no stimulative effect during the 
     George W. Bush administration and there is no reason to 
     believe that more of them will have any today. And the 
     Republicans' oft-stated concern for the deficit makes tax 
     cuts a hard sell.
       These constraints have led Republicans to embrace the idea 
     that government regulation is the principal factor holding 
     back employment. They assert that Barack Obama has unleashed 
     a tidal wave of new regulations, which has created 
     uncertainty among businesses and prevents them from investing 
     and hiring.
       No hard evidence is offered for this claim; it is simply 
     asserted as self-evident and repeated endlessly throughout 
     the conservative echo chamber.
       On Aug. 29, the House majority leader, Eric Cantor of 
     Virginia, sent a memorandum to members of the House 
     Republican Conference, telling them to make the repeal of 
     job-destroying regulations the key point in the Republican 
     jobs agenda.
       ``By pursuing a steady repeal of job-destroying 
     regulations, we can help lift the cloud of uncertainty 
     hanging over small and large employers alike, empowering them 
     to hire more workers,'' Mr. Cantor said.
       Evidence supporting Mr. Cantor's contention that 
     deregulation would increase unemployment is very weak. For 
     some years, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has had a program 
     that tracks mass layoffs. In 2007, the program was expanded, 
     and businesses were asked their reasons for laying off 
     workers. Among the reasons offered was ``government 
     regulations/intervention.'' There is only partial data for 
     2007, but we have data since then through the second quarter 
     of this year.
       The table below presents the bureau's data. As one can see, 
     the number of layoffs nationwide caused by government 
     regulation is minuscule and shows no evidence of getting 
     worse during the Obama administration. Lack of demand for 
     business products and services is vastly more important.


                       Bureau of Labor Statistics

       These results are supported by surveys. During June and 
     July, Small Business Majority asked 1,257 small-business 
     owners to name the two biggest problems they face. Only 13 
     percent listed government regulation as one of them. Almost 
     half said their biggest problem was uncertainty about the 
     future course of the economy--another way of saying a lack of 
     customers and sales.
       The Wall Street Journal's July survey of business 
     economists found, ``The main reason U.S. companies are 
     reluctant to step up hiring is scant demand, rather than 
     uncertainty over government policies, according to a majority 
     of economists.''
       In August, McClatchy Newspapers canvassed small businesses, 
     asking them if regulation was a big problem. It could find no 
     evidence that this was the case.
       ``None of the business owners complained about regulation 
     in their particular industries, and most seemed to welcome 
     it,'' McClatchy reported. ``Some pointed to the lack of 
     regulation in mortgage lending as a principal cause of the 
     financial crisis that brought about the Great Recession of 
     2007-9 and its grim aftermath.''
       The latest monthly survey of its members by the National 
     Federation of Independent Business shows that poor sales are 
     far and away their biggest problem. While concerns about 
     regulation have risen during the Obama administration, they 
     are about the same now as they were during Ronald Reagan's 
     administration, according to an analysis of the federation's 
     data by the Economic Policy Institute.
       Academic research has also failed to find evidence that 
     regulation is a significant factor in unemployment. In a blog 
     post on Sept. 5, Jay Livingston, a sociologist at Montclair 
     State University, hypothesized that if regulation were a 
     major problem it would show up in the unemployment rates of 
     industries where regulation has been increasing: the 
     financial sector, medical care and mining/fuel extraction. He 
     found that unemployment rates in these sectors were actually 
     well below the national average. Unemployment is much higher 
     in those industries that one would expect to suffer most from 
     a lack of aggregate demand: construction, leisure and 
     hospitality, business services, wholesale and retail trade, 
     and durable goods.
       Gary Burtless, an economist at the Brookings Institution, 
     asserts that if businesses were really concerned about rising 
     regulations, they would be investing now to avoid them. But 
     there is no indication that this is the case. ``The real 
     reason for anemic investment and hiring is that businesses 
     are not confident there will be enough potential customers to 
     justify expansion or even routine capital replacement right 
     now,'' he says.
       In my opinion, regulatory uncertainty is a canard invented 
     by Republicans that allows them to use current economic 
     problems to pursue an agenda supported by the business 
     community year in and year out. In other words, it is a 
     simple case of political opportunism, not a serious effort to 
     deal with high unemployment.

                              {time}  1010

  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, history is a measure of 
progress. And when it comes to the two topics that I keep hearing from 
Mr. McGovern, my good friend to the left, it's openness and job 
creation. So let's examine history.
  In the 111th Congress, I would like to ask the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, can the gentleman tell me how many open rules he brought 
to the floor in the last Congress as the vice chairman of the Rules 
Committee? The answer is none; no, not one. Under Speaker Boehner, our 
record of openness in this Congress is one we can be proud of. All of 
the general appropriations bills have been debated under completely 
open rules--all of the general appropriations bills, open rules. We've 
brought several authorizing bills to the floor under modified open 
rules, only requiring preprinting of amendments.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I would just remind my friend that you have already 
brought up 30 measures under a closed rule since you took over. Again, 
I'm just trying to keep you to your promise that you made about all 
this new openness, which we haven't seen. And today is an example of 
that.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. The good news is the gentleman from 
Massachusetts has once again highlighted the fact that while he looks 
in one direction, he refuses to look in the mirror and answer the 
question that simply, no, not one, not one in the 111th Congress, one 
open rule did he bring to the floor of the House. But I would say that 
the Democrats in the last Congress simply gave up on openness. They 
just gave up on openness and allowing the American people to see real 
debate on the floor of the House.
  On the issue of job creation, since February of 2009, the current 
administration lost 2.2 million jobs. Two million Americans now out of 
work since February 2009, and my good friends from the left continue to 
talk about demagoguing and demonizing an issue when they simply have 
nothing to prove and nothing to show for what they've done.
  I would say this, though: that this week alone in the House of 
Representatives we have had the opportunity to empower the job creators 
of America to create over 500,000 jobs in just this week. We compare 
our record every day to the current administration.
  Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks, the House has passed multiple bills 
which would stop burdensome government regulations from destroying jobs 
all across America. I ask that we do so today.
  Enough is simply enough. We cannot allow the EPA--or any other 
government agency for that matter--to unnecessarily kill hundreds of 
thousands of jobs when our national unemployment is as high as it has 
been in the last 25 years. This is a responsible, forward-thinking bill 
which everyone in the Chamber should support.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

 An amendment to H.R. Res. 431 offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, the amendment printed in section 3 shall be in 
     order as though printed as the last amendment in the report 
     of the Committee on Rules if offered by Representative 
     Garamendi of California or a designee. That amendment shall 
     be debatable

[[Page H6932]]

     for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent.
       Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as 
     follows:
       Page 8, after line 5, insert the following subparagraph:
       ``(H)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), the coal 
     combustion residuals permit program shall require new 
     structures, and changes and additions to existing structures, 
     to be constructed and maintained with materials manufactured 
     in the United States.
       ``(ii) The Administrator may waive the requirement of 
     clause (i) if the Administrator determines that--
       ``(I) applying such requirement will be inconsistent with 
     the public interest;
       ``(II) materials used to construct and maintain structures 
     are not produced in the United States in sufficient and 
     reasonably available quantities and of a satisfactory 
     quality; or
       ``(III) such requirement will increase the cost of the 
     construction of, or the change or addition to, the structure 
     by more than 25 percent.
       ``(iii) If the Administrator determines that it is 
     necessary to waive the requirement of clause (i) based on a 
     determination under clause (ii), the Administrator shall 
     publish in the Federal Register a detailed written 
     justification as to why the requirement is being waived.
       ``(iv) This subparagraph shall be applied in a manner 
     consistent with--
       ``(I) United States obligations under international 
     agreements; and
       ``(II) applicable labor agreements.
                                  ____

       (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. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, 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. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 237, 
nays 166, not voting 30, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 792]

                               YEAS--237

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Bass (NH)
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kelly
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--166

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Price (NC)

[[Page H6933]]


     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--30

     Bachmann
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Clay
     Costello
     Cummings
     Emerson
     Engel
     Fattah
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Jordan
     Kildee
     Marchant
     McIntyre
     Meeks
     Olver
     Paul
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Polis
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Schrader
     Slaughter
     Stutzman
     Wilson (FL)
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1038

  Mr. CRITZ changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. SHUSTER and CULBERSON changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 792, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 792, I was unavoidably detained. 
Had I been present I would have voted ``yea.''
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Yarmuth was allowed to speak out of 
order.)


                          Roll Call Ryder Cup

  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, on October 3, eight Democrats and eight 
Republicans met in an epic competition here at Columbia Country Club in 
Washington to contest, for the 10th time, the battle for the Roll Call 
Ryder Cup. This is a competition which is intense but with great 
sportsmanship, and, of course, the ultimate beneficiary is The First 
Tee of Washington for whom this competition has now raised more than $1 
million over the last 10 years.
  Despite an average age of 58.6 years, which means that all but one of 
our players was eligible for the seniors tour, we were able to parlay 
our experience and caginess into a great victory--our sixth 
conservative victory on the Democratic side. I want to congratulate our 
team of Baca, Clyburn, Courtney, Sires, Cooper, Doyle, Richmond and 
myself. We look forward to an even tougher competition next year.
  But I do want to say that the principles that The First Tee espouses, 
things like honest, integrity, sportsmanship and responsibility, were 
all on great display during this competition, even to the extent that 
Trey Gowdy and Mick Mulvaney called a penalty on themselves during one 
of the team matches. So, I think the competition lived up to the 
principles of The First Tee, and we look forward to next year's match.
  With that, I yield to the gentleman from Florida, the captain of the 
Republican side.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  On behalf of the Republican participants, I want to congratulate 
Captain Yarmuth and his team for their outstanding play and for their 
narrow victory, and I want to thank all the members of the Republican 
team for participating and for showing up.
  I think the big winner is The First Tee.
  I want to thank all the sponsors because, over the years, they've 
raised over $1.5 million for this organization that is involved in all 
50 States and that touches the lives of about 5 million young people in 
order to teach them through the game of golf about honesty, integrity, 
character, and about sportsmanship.
  So, again, I thank everyone for being involved.
  I just remember the words of those people who watched the University 
of Florida football team, which are: Wait until next year.
  Mr. YARMUTH. I thank the gentleman.
  It was an incredible competition. As Trey Gowdy said just this 
morning, if you were there during this event and during the event 
preceding, the night before, you could not have told who was a 
Republican and who was a Democrat, because the comradery was so nice.
  Once again, congratulations to The First Tee.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoder). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, this will be a 5-minute 
vote.
  There was no objection.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 244, 
noes 163, not voting 26, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 793]

                               AYES--244

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     DeGette
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kelly
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--163

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore

[[Page H6934]]


     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--26

     Bachmann
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Clay
     Costello
     Emerson
     Engel
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Johnson (GA)
     Jordan
     Kildee
     Marchant
     McIntyre
     Meeks
     Paul
     Pelosi
     Polis
     Rivera
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Schrader
     Slaughter
     Stutzman
     Wilson (FL)
     Young (AK)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1048

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. RIVERA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 793 I was unavoidably 
delayed. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

                          ____________________