[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14170-14176]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 14171]]

     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 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

[[Page 14172]]

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 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

[[Page 14173]]

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 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.

[[Page 14174]]

  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 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

[[Page 14175]]

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 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

[[Page 14176]]

     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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________