the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 240. the nays are 180. the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are --

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 238 and the nays are 182. the resslougs is adopted. -- the resolution is adopted. and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on house resolution 406 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 74, house resolution 406, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r.

2401, to require analysis of the impacts of certain rules and actions of the environmental protection agency and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this

vote, the yeas are 237, the nays are 184. the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. >> mr. speaker, on that, i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. . this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 245. the nays are 175. the resolution is adopted. without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut rise? mr. larson: thank you, i offered a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 411, resolved, that the following named member be and is hereby elected to the following standing committee of the house of representatives. committee on small business, ms. hahn, to rank immediately after mr. richmond. mr. larson: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be considered as read and be printed in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the chair lays before the house the following enrolled bill. the clerk: senate 846, an act to designate the united states courthouse located at 80

lafayette street in jefferson city street as the christopher s. bond united states courthouse. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 2401. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. pursuant to house resolution 406 and rule 18, the chair declares the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 2401. the chair appoints the gentleman from arkansas, mr. woe mack, to preside over -- womack, to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the

consideration of h.r. 2401 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to require analyses of the cumulative and incremental impacts of certain rules and actions of the environmental protection agency, and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. the gentleman from kentucky, mr. whitfield, and the gentleman from california, mr. waxman, each will control one hour. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: mr. chairman, thank you very much, and the last time the clean air act was significantly changed was in 1990. the chair: the gentleman will suspend. the committee will be in order. would members please vacate the aisles, remove your conversations from the floor? the gentleman deserves to be heard. the gentleman may continue. mr. whitfield: mr. chair, first

off, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. whitfield: the last time the clean air act was significantly changed was in 1990 nearly 21 years ago. and since that time a lot of changes have occurred in america. first of all, we find ourselves today with the situation with over 14 million americans are unable to find work and millions more have given up trying. it appears that the only place where the job situation is good is that federal regulatory agencies. employment at federal regulatory agencies have climbed 13% since president obama took office while private sector jobs shrank by 5.6%. i believe that these two divergent trends are related because the breaking pace at which the environmental protection agency is cranking

out new regulations is creating obstacles to job creation in america and also to stimulating the economy. i don't care if you speak to small business people today or large business people today. they will tell you that one of the reasons that they are not investing is because of uncertainty. uncertainty about the health care bill that was passed last year. uncertainty about the financial regulations that are raising capital requirements and making loans more difficult to obtain. but primarily they talk about excessive regulations coming out of the environmental protection agency. now, these regulations normally are not scrutinized very much. but i believe that the legislative branch has the responsibility, particularly

when this many regulations are coming down the road at a time when it's having impact on our ability to grow the economy that the legislative branch needs to look at it. and that's precisely what we're doing with the train act. under the train act, we are establishing a government body that will look at the cumulative impact of about 12 regulations that have come down from the e.p.a. in the last year or so. for example, there are a number of costly new rules impacting coal fire-to-electric power plants. these include cross-state air pollution rules, greenhouse gas rules, coal combustion residuals and others. each of these rules alone will force some existing power plants to shut down while also blocking new ones from being

built. this is bad enough not just for jobs but also because it will raise electricity prices. but the combined effect of all these rules is far worse. in fact, it could even reduce generating capacity enough that it would jeopardize the reliability of the nation's electric grid system. and we need to know all of the information that we can obtain about these regulations so that we can move forward in a legitimate and contentious way. now, if america's going to remain competitive in the global marketplace, it is going to have to have reasonable electricity prices, and that's going to be essential if we're ever going to stimulate this economy and create jobs in america. now, the cumulative burden of

regulations really has not been much of a burden in the past because it's seldom that e.p.a. has ever come forth with this many regulations. but the obama administration's attempt to squeeze at least a decade's worth of major clone air act regulations into less than three years and do so in the midst of a weak economy creates serious problems for america. the train act, which really is very simple, will require an analysis of the cumulative impact of the rules of energy prices and reliability on jobs and the effect on american competitiveness. now the two upcoming rules that pose a particular serious threat and are a major component of e.p.a.'s agenda are the utility mack and the cross-state air pollution rule. for these two rules, we will be

offering an amendment that will put them on hold pending commetion of the cumulative impact study as well as make substantive changes to make sure that they are achievable in real life. now, i might point out that the utility mack is not in effect yet. the final rule is expected november of this year. but the cross-state air pollution rule is in effect and will become -- they'll start implementing it the first of the year. now, we're going to ask that that rule, that that implementation be delayed until the final rule of our committee that's established under the train act makes its final report on august 1, 2012. and some people are saying, well, if you delay this, then what are we going to do about our air transport rule?

well, the reality is we have an air transport rule in effect today. and i might add that e.p.a., when they implemented this bill, the care act, which was invalidated by a federal court, showed that the co-2 emissions, the nox emissions would be reduced significantly. and just about every environmental group in america supported the implementation of care. -- cair. i might also say that with care at that time e.p.a. came out with one of their benefit analysis and they said cair will result in $85 billion to $100 billion in health benefits each year preventing 17,000 premature deaths, 22,000 nonfatal heart attacks, 22,300 hospital admissions, 1.7 million work days, 500,000 lost

school days. so what we have in place today is doing a tremendous job and until a court invalidated everyone was pleased with it. and so there's little reason for us to rush forward to put in a new air transport rule when we have one that is working fine today. . i might also say and some people may have criticized to look at the cumulative impact of all these regulations that e.p.a. implemented. but president obama in his executive order 13563 said that tailor regulations and asking people to tailor to impose the least burden on society.

taking into account other things, including the cost of cumulative regulations. so this legislation, which some people are going to describe as radical is simply implementing what president obama has asked his environmental protection agency to do, and yet, they refuse to do it. so with that, i do hope that people will support 2401. it's a commonsense approach to remove regulations that are prohibiting jobs from being created in america and stimulating the american economy. and with that, i retain the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. waxman: yesterday in the energy and commerce committee, we considered legislation that will increase emissions of

mercury and other dangerous chemicals from industrial sources. today, the full house considers legislation to cut the heart out of the clean air act. mr. speaker, this is the most anti-environmental house of representatives in history. since february of this year, the house has voted again and again to block action to address climate change, to halt efforts to reduce air and water pollution, to undermine protections for public lands and coastal areas and weaken the protection of the environment in other ways. my staff prepared a data base last month on every anti-environmental vote in this congress. the tally was 125. 125 votes to weaken clean air, clean water safeguards, to make our drinking water less safe and weaken environmental standards in dozens of different ways. this is an appalling and

dangerous environmental record. the full data base is online at delem cats.energycommerce@house. gov. the train act will block and indefinitely delay two e.p.a. rules that reduce pollution from power plants, the mercury and air toxics rule and across state air pollution rule. these are critical to protecting the public health. each year, these will prevent tens of thousands of premature deaths, heart attacks and hundreds of thousands of asthma attacks and prevent over two million lost work days. if this legislation is enacted, these public health benefits will be lost and more babies will be born with birth defects and learning disabilities. and this is not all.

today, we will consider an amendment that will make this bill even worse. the whitfield amendment will aadvice rate the law's ability to require power plants to install controls. if the whitfield amendment is enacted, e.p.a. will never be able to issue a rule to prevent emissions from power plants in one state in polluting the air in a downwind state and said the amendment could destroy the agency's ability to ever reduce toxic mercury emission from power plants. the latta amendment is even worse. it will reverse 40 years of clean air policy, repealing the health-based standards that are at the heart of the clean air act. the latta amendment would allow

our national goals for clean air to be determined by corporate profits, not public health. these radical amendments were never examined in hearings or debated in the energy and commerce committee or in any other committee. members are being asked to vote on major changes to the clean air act without any idea of their terrible impact on air quality and public health. my republican colleagues will argue that we need to gut the clean air act because it is a job-killing law. that is categorically false. the last 40 years proved that we can have both economic growth and a clean environment. we do not have to choose between jobs and toxic mercury emissions that endanger our children's health and poison our lakes. the rules that are being overturned are job creators. if these rules are allowed to go

forward, the utilities that operate our oldest and dirtiest power plants will have to install new pollution controls. this will create 1.5 million jobs by 2015. this bill puts these jobs on the chopping block. i urge all members to oppose this legislation and protect the clean air act. and i reserve the balance of many my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: first of all, i would tell ms. jackson, that we are not preventing her from implementing new air transport rules. we are going to keep in place what we have today that e.p.a. said was a splendid program and even defended it in the court system and if my amendment is adopted, three years after the final report is made, they are totally free to implement a new rule.

i would like to recognize the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. sullivan, for five minutes. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. sullivan: i rise in strong support of h.r. 2401, the transparency and regulatory analysis of impacts on the nation act of 2011, otherwise known as the train act. as house republicans move forward with a bold agenda to grow our economy and put americans back to work, one issue that must be addressed is overregulation by the federal government. i strongly believe the obama administration is moving too fast and showing little regard for the economic consequences of their energy and environmental policies. they are trying to regulate what they don't have the votes to legislate and it's going to cost americans jobs. with our nation suffering under a crushing weight of 9%

unemployment and the fact that the united states failed to create a single job in the month of august, the stakes could not be higher. the simple fact is that the businesses make decisions on where to invest based upon a number of factors, but regulatory certainty ranks at the top of the list. i introduced this bipartisan legislation to protect american jobs, jobs that we are in danger of losing due to the obama administration's environmental regulatory agenda. the train act will force the e.p.a. and other federal agencies to conduct an in-depth economic analysis of the rules and regulations so congress and the american people can understand how the e.p.a.'s regulatory train wreck will impact our economy. infarct, e.p.a.'s rules and actions addressed in this legislation cost billions of dollars to the u.s. economy.

the time to address the full economic burden of these regulations is now. at its heart, the train act simply asks questions that should be asked of any expensive regulation. what do these regulations mean for our ability to compete in the global marketplace. will electricity prices climb and by how much as power producers are required to meet new requirements. how would higher electricity prices and plant closures affect jobs in the u.s.? it's really astonishing that the e.p.a. isn't doing this already. it's common sense and good governance for american workers. so of the opponents of this commonsense legislation, including president obama, say that this legislation is an assault on the clean air act. nothing could be further from the truth.

the train act will not prevent, will not prevent e.p.a. from continuing to develop regulations. the train act will also not limit the e.p.a.'s authority to protect public health and welfare in any way. the fact is, e.p.a. has never, never done an analysis on the cumulative impacts of these regulations on global competitiveness, energy and fuel prices, employment or reliket of electricity supply. as we can see by e.p.a.'s actions, they are issuing multiple regulations on top of each other at an accelerated rate that makes it difficult for companies to invest and create jobs. i'm pleased that we include language to delay e.p.a.'s action on both the utility and across state air pollution rule

until six months after the train act analysis is complete. the utility rule alone has the potential to be e.p.a.'s most expensive rule impacting the u.s. economy and when combined, these proposed rules could cost almost $18 billion to i am prementplement as a result -- implement as a result. and loss of 1,450,000 by 2020. this is part of train wreck inaction. one of the actions in my bill that we stud is the regional haze issue which impacts my state of oklahoma oak which is another example of e.p.a. overreaching without analyzing its impact on electric reliket or cost. this action is expected to cost

$2 billion to oklahoma businesses and electric rate pairs. if there is one thing that can help our struggling economy, that is access to safe and reliable sources of energy. i encourage my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to support this commonsense measure ain yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: i yield five minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the energy subcommittee, jesm illinois, mr. rush. -- the gentleman from illinois, mr. rush. mr. rush: i thank mr. waxman for his outstanding leadership on this matter and other matters before our committee and before this congress. mr. speaker, i join my friend and colleague, ranking member waxman and the declaration that

this week should be known as the dirty air week in america based on the republican legislative agenda. the so-called train act is really a train wreck for the air we breathe, the environment we live in and the jobs we need. just yesterday on the floor, energy and commerce markup, my republican colleagues passed out two bills that would delay the obama administration new rules for industrial boilers and kilns. h.r. 2250 and h.r. 2281 respectively. they would delay emissions for cement and kilns, one of the largest sources that lack

federal standards and permanently weaken the clean air act so that the e.p.a. will be forced to issue weaker standards for its polluting facilities than the law currently requires. and now today, we are here debating the train wreck act, which would delay for at least three years the implementation of two new u.s. e.p.a. rules for power plants. the newly finalized across state air pollution rules and assumed to be finalized rule for hazardous toxic emissions. will republicans who hold the majority in the house of representatives? we know the train act will

ultimately collide with the health of the american people. even though the across state rule alone would prevent 34 -- prevent 34,000 deaths and 400 cases of aggravated asthma annually. . mr. speaker, since the majority took control of this congress, they have been on a relentless crusade against environmental protection laws and they have been trying to portray the e.p.a. as public enemy number one. according to the logic of today's republican party, e.p.a., the american lung society, the american public

health association, the asthma foundation of america and the physicians for essential responsibilities are all actually enemies of the american jobs because they oppose this radical new republican agenda and they advocate for policies that regulate the amount of poison that we allow industry to emit into the air each and every moment of the day. i must remind my republican colleagues that each day stands for the environment -- that the e.p.a. stands for the environment protection agency and noes knot the evil practices -- and not the evil practices agency as they would have us believe. my republican colleagues would have the american people get out of the agency's way and allow corporations to operate unregulated and they will

eventually and inevitably do the right thing for the american people. the majority party also wants us to believe that we should not face standards or rules on industry because it will ultimately lead them to do the right thing for the american people. but just think of the recent past. let me remind my republican colleagues that this philosophy has been tested under the previous, this administration, and it has totally failed. it has failed the american people, it has failed the american environment, it has failed the american air that we breathe. we simply have to look no further than the financial collapse to see -- >> i yield the gentleman 30 seconds more. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 additional seconds. mr. rush: we don't have to look

any further. just look at the financial collapse and see what this kind of unfettered regulation has done to jobs in this country and jobs for the american people. could we be this close and put our entire economy on the brink of disaster and then you are today asking us -- after the financial collapse, here you are today trying to bring forth a collapse in terms of the environment protections of the air we breathe. mr. speaker, i urge all my colleagues to oppose this egregious and dangerous bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. >> at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from utah, mr. math son, who is a co-sponsor of this legislation. the chair: the gentleman from utah is recognized for three

minutes. mr. matheson: i want to thank my colleague from kentucky for allowing me the time. you know, i think as we look at the train act today you're going to hear a lot during this debate from both sides of the aisle and there's going to be a lot of strong words from both sides of the aisle. probably beyond what the train act really is. the train act was an idea that we ought to take a look before we leap. that the idea that we have all these processes taking place on individual rules but no one's bothering to take a lack look at how they all -- take a look at how they all might fit together and what the impacts might be. that doesn't make sense. that was the genesis behind this bill to. make sure that we look at the overall impact. e.p.a. is supposed to look at the impact on each individual rule but they don't look at how they connect together. the clean air act has been a wonderful success in this country. it's made a lot of progress and i think everybody in this room appreciates the benefits and the health benefits it's created. and it's made a lot of progress on a lot of different criteria pollutants and now we're taking

on and addressing issues that reflect some of the more difficult issues to address at smaller incements at the upper end. and as we're going to do that i would suggest it makes sense for us to make sure that before we take actions that could be -- have great significance, we at least understand that significance. and so that's the idea. that's the idea behind the train act. look before you leap. make sure how all this fits together. there's a common agenda here among everyone, despite what this debate sounds like for people watching tonight, most people in this country value clean acres they value good decision making, too. and we want to make sure we evaluate these issues with the best analysis possible and with the best information possible so we can make decisions in the most efficient way. again, i thank the gentleman for yielding me. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. >> mr. chairman, i'm pleased and honored to yield five minutes to one of the strongest environmental champions in the house of representatives, the

gentleman from massachusetts, mr. marky. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five -- the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes. mr. markey: i thank the gentleman and i rise in opposition to the republican train act, the total regulatory amnesty for industry negligence act, of 2011. the very silly premise of this bill is that it's simply impossible to keep our air clean and still keep our economic engine chugging along. this republican-led house has initiated a full throttle repealathon. it's a three-part strategy. one, deny the science. two, delay the regulations. three, deter efforts to protect the health and security of millions of americans. we keep hearing from republicans about how e.p.a.'s clean air standards to reduce mercury, lead and other pollutants need to be economically analyzed and reanalyzed. they insist that even if a standard for one toxic chemical was met by an entire industrial

sector, the removal of just one more poisonous chemical would cause a domino effect of problems for the industry. and the solution for these supposed problems, it is a time-tested republican tradition. first, pass legislation that repeals regulations that have already been set. two, require endless study of the cumulative effects of all regulations, of all industries, and, finally, just for good measure, pass an amendment that guts the very underpinnings of the clean air act. make no mistake, that is what we are doing here today. our planet is warming and extreme weather is increasing. we're having record 100-year floods every few years. hurricanes have caused floods, massive power outages and deaths. texas was on fire this summer, after having the warmest summer ever recorded by any state.

the president has issued disaster declarations in 48 states so far this year. we have set an all-time high of 83 major disasters, declared in 2011. we've already had 10 weather events causing $1 billion or more in damages, another record, and we still have three months of the year left to go. and what do republicans propose? rather than saving money by cutting the hundreds of billions we spend on unneeded coal weapons, the tea party chooses to cut funds that would reduce our dependency on foreign oil. rather than cutting the tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, we give to big oil and big coal, the republicans gut programs that would manufacture energy efficient cars in america and provide clean air. republicans would have us pay for the cost of weather disasters caused by global warming by cutting funding for a program that actually reduces the very threat of global warming.

for all the talk of this so-called train wreck of cumulative e.p.a. regulation, there seems to be one cumulative effect that isn't getting mentioned by the republicans. the cumulative effect of all of their goals on the health of americans. and that is because the republicans per haps are spending so much time doing the bidding of those corporations that they have lost their train of thought. if the regulations to remove mercury from cement plants, already 13 years overdue, is delayed for even one more year, up to 2,500 heem will prematurely die. there -- people will prematurely die. there will be 1,700 cases of aggravated asthma and 1,500 people are suffer heart mr. ayotte: i -- heart attacks.

there will be 6,600 people who will prematurely die because of that. and additionally if this bill passes it would repeal mercury and cross-state air pollution rules for power plants resulting in the loss of 25,000 more lives and more than 11,000 heart attacks. and that's just with one year of delay. so what's the cumulative impact of just one year of delay on each of these regulations? 34,000 people will die and many more will be injured. in discussing these republican efforts today, lisa jackson, e.p.a. administrator, testified before our committee that if we could reduce particular matter to healthy levels, it would have the same impact as finding the cure for cancer in our country. the difference is we already know how to reduce particulate matter, we don't know how to cure cancer. the republicans are providing

the american people with a false choice. we do not have to choose between air quality and air conditioning. we do not have to choose between manufacturing and mercury poisoning. we do not have to choose between clean air and cancer. ending protections for clean air and clean water should be a third-rail issue but the republican tea party express has veered far off onto the right track. sadly, these are the kinds of antiinnovation, antiscience, antipublic health -- 30 seconds? mr. waxman: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. markey: i thank the gentleman. these are just the kind of anti-innovation, antiscience, antipublic health schemes the public has come to fear from this legislative wrecking crew. when republicans beckon you to come all aboard on the train act, i urge you to run in the opposite direction because the only train republicans seem to care about is the big oil and

big oil and big coal crazy train. and that's pulling out of the station here tonight as the republicans push this bill through the congress. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. >> i might say to the gentleman from massachusetts, there's nothing in the train act that would delay for one day the greenhouse gas regulations that e.p.a. adopted last january. there's nothing in this bill relating to the cement as well. -- mact as well. at this time i would recognize the gentleman, mr. griffith, from georgia, for three minutes. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for three minutes. mr. griffith: thank you, mr. chairman. ladies and gentlemen, i knew that i was going to speak on this important legislation and i tried to find the words that i would use this evening. and while i was attempting to do that, i came across a letter to the editor in the "virginian

leader" in virginia that was published yesterday, september 21, 2011, and sent in by john and eleanor kenny. now, they are described in their letter as an american blue collar worker, neither republican nor democrat do they support. and in that letter i will quote particulates of it and in that letter -- quote parts of it and in that letter they go on to say, i'm going to be very blunt with the following opinion. as a factory worker and a taxpayer, i am getting sick and tired of these federal agencies who have nothing better to do except sit in their washington offices and draw up rules and regulations to kill american jobs. why don't they get off their sorry behinds and go out across this nation and try to help industry save what jobs we have left? and who is paying these e.p.a. people's salary? we are. the american workers.

i believe in protecting the environment but we can't shut the whole country down to achieve it. and mr. and mrs. kenny go on, i hope that anyone who agrees will write, email or call all of our elected officials in washington. tell them the e.p.a. is not living in the real world and that it's time to put some regulations on them and how they can dictate rules to what industry we still have, hanging onto in this nation. in a time of recession and americans out of work, they should be helping industry, not trying to close what manufacturing base we have left with these idiotic rules and regulations. here, here, mr. and mrs. kinny, here -- kenny, here, here.

this bill does exactly what you asked us to do. we are doing your bidding and the millions of americans out there who feel the same way you do, that it's high time we put some regulations and some constraints on the regulators in washington who don't know what it's like to have to work for a living, who don't know what it's like not knowing whether or not the particular business in your community is going to stay open. these folks are particularly concerned in their discussion about a plant there in virginia, one of the largest employers there that is in danger if we don't change some of the rules proposed by the e.p.a. and they're concerned about announced layoffs there as a result of e.p.a. regulations that will cause the power plant there to close down. . don't be fooled by folks who say we are doing bidding for big oil and big coal but for folks like john and eleanor

kennies. i look forward to meeting them because they made america great. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: i wish at this time toll yield to my fellow californiaian, an important member of the health subcommittee, the gentlelady from california, ms. capps, three minutes. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. mrs. capps: i rise to express my strong opposition to this bill that will dismantle public health safeguards and increase population. the train act may have started as a study, but has transformed into a different beast and will neither create jobs nor stimulate the economy. the train act blocks the e.p.a.'s cross state air pollution rule and mercury and

air toxic standards. these are designed to protect our children and our families from dangerous pollutants. we know that blocking these standards will lead to tens of thousands of premature deaths every single year and will lead to more heart attacks, more respiratory illnesses, more children in the hospital hooked up to rapetors. the train act means more exposure to toxic mercury. and especially in the small children and unborn. the train act will hurt the economy and make it harder for families to make ends meet and force americans to miss millions of days of work each year to care for a sick family member or themselves and waste billions of taxpayer dollars treating illnesses and disease caused by pollution, which could have been prevented and saddle families

and businesses with higher insurance premiums and it's what the train act is about. blocking e.p.a. from ridding our air from pollutants that cause asthma attacks, respiratory illnesses among children, heart disease and premature death and the other side of the aisle wants to make it worse. mr. whitfield -- later today, mr. whitfield will offer an amendment that imposes longer delays on e.p.a.'s two-saving clean air standards and rewrite the clean air act to reverse the way air pollution standards are set. instead of basing standards on the cleanest plants, but will be based on what the oldest and dirtiest plants are doing. administrator jackson testified today that this change alone would make it impossible to ever issue a cross-state pollution standard. another amendment led by mr.

latta would invert the 40--year-old requirement that e.p.a. set its clean air standards on health science and medicine alone. his amendment would eliminate that right which americans depend upon. i urge my colleagues to vote no on these dangersous amendments because americans don't want toxic pollution dumped into their lungs. they want jobs. and they aren't fooled that they need to pay for those jobs with more pollution. they want a stronger economy, not increased health care costs and suffering. and most importantly, they want their children to breathe clean and safe air. i urge my colleagues, vote no on this bill. the chair: the time of the gentlelady has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: i might say to the gentlelady from california, the air transport rule we have in effect today when it was implemented, e.p.a. said it

would reduce naaqs by 57% by the year 2015 and it's not like we don't have something in place. i would like to recognize mr. costa for two minutes. mr. costa: i would like to thank our republican colleagues for giving us time to speak on this important bill. as we have discussed, h.r. 2401, the underlying bill, is one that is important and appropriate that we consider at this time. i support the underlying legislation. and also, as my colleague congressman matheson stated, while it's ok to have strong feelings on this measure, it's not proper to overstate what this legislation does. this measure requires the

creation a committee to study the effects of the current and proposed regulations put forth by the environmental protection agency, that together have major effects, not only on our way of life by on our economy, our economy at this point in time is in a fragile recovery period. for too long, constituents that i represent, farmers and small businesses in the san joaquin valley have worked hard to meet stricter standards and making progress. we have made great progress in cleaning up the air quality in the valley even while the population is growing more rapidly than any other place in the state. yet, common sense must prevail. it's time to put the breaks on regulations and understand the effects on consumers, on energy, on manufacturing industries, on electricity, on fuel prices and our country's competitiveness in the global market.

recently, the administration has acknowledged that many regulations are having an effect on our economy. it's time they step up to the plate and work with the congress for common sense to prevail. i thank congressman matheson and sullivan for introducing this important measure and i urge my colleagues to vote in favor for it. it's not an either or choice. we can have clean air and good commonsense decision making process. the two are not mutually exclusive, as some of my colleagues are suggesting. i urge you to vote for this measure and it is a commonsense way to work through these difficult issues. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, before i yield, i want to indicate that mr. whitfield argued that this bill will not harm public health, although it blocks two critical rules to clean up old power plants, does not repeal

the clean air interrule or the cair rule. it does not achieve the health benefits lost by blocking the mercury toxics air rule. the cair rule was blocked by the courts and found it didn't comply with the clean air act because it did not effectively address pollution that crosses state lines. that means that states suffering from upwind pollution have to look for additional, more costly reductions from smaller local resources and does not require power plants to clean up mercury and other air pollution. his statement was incorrect. i yield four minutes to a -- three minutes to a very important member of our committee, ms. schakowsky from the state of illinois. ms. schakowsky: i thank the gentleman for yielding.

the republicans' assault continues and mr. waxman has rightly referred to this week as dirty air week. this will damage our environment and the health of our citizens. today, 60% of americans live in areas where air pollution has reached unhealthy levels. the health care costs are estimated at over $100 billion annually, but these statistics will be worse without the protections of the clean air act. according to the american lung association, clean air act regulations prevented over 160,000 premature deaths in 2010. over the past 20 years, the e.p.a. estimates that the clean air act prevented heart disease, 672,000 cases of bron white is, 843,000 asthma attacks and 18 million child respiratory illnesses and we are considering

a bill that a council has deemed the deadliest. the goal of the train act is to undermine e.p.a.'s ability to protect our citizens from dangerous toxins. as a mother and a grandmother, i have been a long time advocate of clean air practices, especially with regard to mercury. mercury threatens public health and particularly dangerous for pregnant women and children, overexposure inhibits a child's ability to walk, talk, read, write and comprehend and one of the most dangerous unregulated toxins, which is why i led legislation to curb mercury emissions from various facilities. in my home state, coal-fired plants emitted 5,000 pounds of mercury in 2009, making illinois the seventh most polluted state

in the nation. while illinois has taken steps to reduce air contamination. it doesn't stop at state borders. every state needs to make a good faith effort to protect its residents. the standards will prevent 4,500 cases diseases and premature deaths and across state air pollution rule will prevent 400,000 cases of asthma and 34,000 deaths per year. my colleagues across the aisle claim to be in the business of eliminating burdens. every year, these regulations have delayed over 40,000 preventable deaths. and as much as republican opponents to the e.p.a. would like to disagree, like the previous clean air regulations will grow our economy. earlier this year, the politico research institute concluded that the rules will drive

investments that could create 300,000 new jobs annually. the mercury and toxic air standard alone is expected to generate $7 billion in annual g.d.p. growth. the numbers are in favor of the clean air act and reject the republican idea that americans need to choose between jobs and health. the proven good news is that we can do both. the chair: the time of the gentlelady has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: i recognize the distinguished the gentleman from kentucky, mr. guthrie for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. guthrie: thank you, mr. speaker. the position the bipartisan position, the one that both parties working together have put forward is to support this and we have had different comments what the republicans are doing. but the truth of the matter is this is a bipartisan bill and bipartisan bill that our country

needs because for 2 1/2 years, bureaucrats have run wild with new regulations while staggering job losses. it requires the committee to study the actual effects of e.p.a. regulations and makes the finding public. most of us say that's common sense requested of e.p.a., no more regulations until we know how many jobs will be lost. mr. speaker, i have a manufacturing background and i come from a manufacturing state. in kentucky, we know what it takes to keep and grow jobs and it isn't excess regulations from e.p.a. i ask my colleagues to pass the train act and stop the havoc. a vote for this bill is a vote for jobs and transparency. thank you, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, i yield five minutes to the

gentlelady from state of colorado, ms. degette. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. degette: mr. chairman, for too long, too many people in this body have proposed that we must make what amounts to a devil's bargain, choosing between environmental protections and jobs. today, the ideology behind that false choice brings us to the gut of gutting one of our fundamental laws, the clean air act. it has safeguarded our economy and our families' health for decades and despite heated rhetoric from the other side, it does not stand in the way of creating jobs. in 2010 alone, the clean air act prevented 160,000 premature deaths, three million lost school days and 13 million lost work days. by 2020, the clean air act,

total benefit to the economy, will reach $2 trillion, outweighing the cost of 30 to 1. despite the actual numbers, today we find ourselves debating a full attack on clean air through the train act, which would represent an unprecedented up-al of our long pollution-held standards. we had a hearing in my subcommittee today talking about the alleged job loss that the majority claims to have happened. i heard no, repeat no evidence that these rules would cause a job loss. in fact, the evidence put into the record at the hearing showed that these regulations will create jobs at the same time they are preserving our citizens' health. . a key part of this act is a

dangerous measure that would indefinitely block two major clean air act regulations. first, the utility mact rule, reducing mercury and other tock toxic emissions from power plant, and also the cross-state air pollution rule, reducing sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from power plants. both of these rules are being developed after extensive cost-benefit analysis. together the two rules would prevent more than 50,000 premature deaths per year across the country. now, why would dewe delay implementation of the rules based so hely on letters from constituents and evidence? in fact, these two critical federal regulations correspondent to successful pollution regulations in my home state of colorado that are already bringing positive results for our state. now everybody in this chamber knows the natural beauty of colorado is a treasure for everyone to enjoy. people move there because of the clean air and safe water.

it is also a primary driver in our economy, through natural resources development and tourism. but because of mercury emissions from power plants, cement kilns, refineries and commercial boilers, about 20% of our pristine lakes and reservoirs contain mercury-tainted fish, including in our alpine areas. to combat that, colorado has adopted some of the most stringent mercury rules in the country, with regulations on the books to cut mercury emissions by 80% by 2012 and 90% by 2018. these state regulations have been implemented successfully and to our collective economic benefit. a federal overlay to such regulations would bring the benefits that we have in states like colorado to the entire nation. colorado also has been a leader in cutting sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions to our economic and environmental

benefit. while some states had a tough time designing haze reduction plans in response to the bush administration's now defunt clean air act rule, colorado didn't wait. we knew we could clean up our power plants and also power the economy. so in 2010 colorado enacted the clean energy clean jobs act. the law calls for utilities to reduce haze-causing emissions of sulfur dioxide by about 80% and nitrogen objection -- nitrogen oxide by 85%. as a result, colorado's largest utility is on track to -- it's going to shut four coal-powered plants, three in denver, and replace that generation with natural gas-powered units. it will also install emissions controls for another 951 megawatts of coal-fired electrical generation. and, mr. chairman, they expect that these improvements will only increase rates by 2%

annually over the next 10 years. colorado's successful experience with these types of regulations stand as even further proof that effective and efficient regulations to protect our air and water bring ever-growing benefits to our nation. and blocking these regulations is a dangerous game where america's families will pay the price. the second -- mr. chairman, the provisions of these amendments will fundamentally rewrite our approaches to the clean air act regulation that have been the gold standard of our environmental law since 1990. i urge rejection of the amendment and i urge rejection of this bill. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: i certainly have great respect for the gentlelady from colorado whom i've had the opportunity to work with on a number of issues but i would say to her and others, the only regulation that we're delaying relating to mercury is the utility mact and i might say

that e.p.a. said that the health benefits from the reduction of mercury because of utility mact was so insignificant that they did not even include it as a benefit. as this time i'd like to recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. olson, who is a member of the energy and commerce committee, for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. olson: i thank my colleague from kentucky. mr. speaker, there appears to be some funny counting at the environmental protection agency. e.p.a. justifies its major rules that will have a tremendous state of impact on our economy by relying on the concept of, quote, lives saved from premature death, quoint. -- unquote. well, let's take a look at those lives saved numbers. 90% of the 13,-- 13,000 and

34,000 theoretical lives stated from the cross-state air pollution rule are from particulate matter exposures already below the national air amobient quality standard. 90% of the 6,000 to 17,000 theoretical lives saved from utility mact are from particulate matter exposures already below the national air am bent quality standard. notice a theme? the e.p.a. should explain how they attribute a net benefit to a concentration of particulate matter below their own standards . i encourage members to vote yes on the train act, h.r. 2401, to hold the e.p.a. accountable and to stop -- put a stop to this job-killing nonsense. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, my

colleagues, mr. wit field just said that -- whitfield just said that the e.p.a. found that the reduction benefits were so insignificant by e.p.a. well, what they found is they couldn't prosecute put a price tag on -- couldn't put a price tag on the avoided birth defects and brain damage to babies. if that's insignificant i just think people ought to put this whole effort to deregulate the efforts to protect the environment in perspective. i think the republicans think it's insignificant because we can't put a dollar figure on birth defects and brain damage to an infant and so many republicans call them self pro-life. i want to yield to the distinguished chairman of the interior and environment appropriations subcommittee, who has fought so hard to protect environmental regulations, especially those who protect the public health. the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran, for five minutes. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for five minutes. mr. moran: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank mr. waxman for

his constant, credible leadership. what he brings forth is what all americans should be aware of. this is an incredibly important piece of legislation. mr. speaker, power plants emit 96,000 pounds of mercury into the air we breathe every year. yet this bill would prevent e.p.a. from regulating mercury. mercury is an extremely dangerous neuro toxin. it damages children's developing brains, reducing their i.q. and their ability to learn. at low levels of exposure it causes insomnia, neuro muscular changes, headaches, disturbances in sensations, changes in nerve responses and impairs cognitive functions. hundreds of thousands of people

have that. but at higher exposures it affects kidneys, causes respiratory failure and death. one gram of mercury, a tiny drop, can be enough to contaminate 200 million gallons of water, which is the size of a 20-acre, 30-foot-deep lake. all but one state, alaska, have issued health advisories warning their residents against eating fish caught in their waters because of mercury contamination. it goes up in the air, it rains, it goes into the water, it poisons the fish and ultimately it poisons human beings. two states, oklahoma and maine, have issued statewide freshwater advisories. think of this. despite this acknowledged danger, each year power plants release 96,000 pounds of mercury

into the air. e.p.a.'s proposed mercury and air toxic standards rule requires power plants to meet the same requirements that other industries have already met using proven emission control technologies that will reduce mercury emissions by 91%. it can be done. and the cost of meeting both regulations pales in comparison to the economic benefits americans will receive with cleaner air. the proposed mercury and air toxic standards rule has a quantityified benefit of between five and 13 times its cost. and the pollution reductions required by the cross state air pollution rule would yield benefits of 1 -- $120 billion to $280 billion per year. which is between 150 to 350 times its cost. this bill serves the interest of no one but a few c.e.o.'s and the politicians who support them

or are supported by them, who refuse to accept responsibility for the harm their unregulated power plants have imposed on the rest of us. mr. speaker, this bill itself is deliberately deceiving. in fact. the title of the bill plie implies something that is -- implies something that is not true. the environmental protection agency is fully transparent and it has already performed a regulatory impact analysis on the cost of its clean air act regulations. and the intent of the bill is not what it claims. the true intent of this bill is to slow down or block implementation of e.p.a.'s regulations, e.p.a.'s obligations under the law to regulate our environment. it specificy suspends further action on two regulations that are required under the clean air

act amendments of 1990. pass this bill and you will condemn tens of thousands of americans to a premature death. you will sentence millions more to a lifetime of health complications and you will straddle our economy with unnecessary costs and employers with millions of additional sick days. the goal of a cleaner environment and a healthier population should not be sacrificed in order to keep this nation's dirtiest power plants from doing what almost every other industry and all governments have done to reduce harmful air pollution. what we're being given here is a false choice. peddled by, as i say, a fraction of the c.e.o.'s in the utility industry who refuse to clean up their antiquated coal-fired power plants. we can have cleaner air and more jobs. history provides us with proof it's possible because it's already happened. hundreds of thousands of people owe their life today to the environmental movement and

leaders in congress like mr. waxman and the white house who pushed back in the 1970's and in the nixon administration and in 1990 that required polluters to clean our waters and reduce the pollution in the air we breathe. and the decade after the 1990 cleaner air act amendments were signed into law by george h.w. bush, our unemployment rate declined, our economy grew, and reduced acid rain -- the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. mr. waxman: i yield an additional minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. moran: i thank the chairman. i want to dish want you to listen to this, mr. chairman. the cost of meeting the emission reductions was actually 75% less than what e.p.a. had originally predicted in 1990. and it was far below what opponents had claimed. but there's still a number of provisions of the clean air act that have never been implemented and now we have much more scientific and medical evidence to inform our decision making. we know that a drop of mercury can poison an entire lake.

we know these things now. we know the harm of mercury and toxic chemicals, we know how much is coming from power plants. the rule for power plants is long overdue, it's been in development for close to 20 years. if one wants to talk about uncertainty, how about allowing certainty by letting e.p.a. formalize, finalize its rules on mercury, on air toxins and on cross-state air pollution. then we will protect the health of our people, then our plants will know exactly what is expected of them. the fact is, municipalities do this for their waste recovery plants and the medical waste incinerators, they're required to do it and no municipality ever went bankrupt over this regulation and medical waste is disposed of today in a safe and reliable manner we can do this, we should do this. thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: i would say to my friend from georgia that --

virginia that the e.p.a. is not always as transparent as they may seem. when they issued the greenhouse gas regulation in january of this year they did not give the public any information about cost or benefit and the reason they didn't is because they didn't conduct one. at this time i'd like to recognize the distinguished former chairman and chairman emeritus of the energy and commerce committee, a real leader in our economy, mr. barton of texas, for five minutes. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. . mr. barton: i thank the distinguished the gentleman from kentucky and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: so ordered. mr. barton: i would like to start off by making the point that the train act doesn't change any existing environmental law or existing environmental rule.

it simply delays proposed regulations that the e.p.a. has promulgated and requires a study of some of those regulations before moving forward with them. my friends on the democratic side would have you believe that we're going in and gutting the clean air act. nothing is further from the truth. i'm a co-sponsor of the clean air act amendments in 1991 and believe it or not, i'm a strong supporter of an active e.p.a. enforcing existing rules. i have a sister who is an enforcement attorney at the e.p.a. in dallas, texas, and has about a 99% conviction rate. so republicans want a strong e.p.a. we want strong air and water quality rules, but we also want in this struggling economy, some

common sense to be used before proposing new additional rules. there is no criteria pollute ant under the clean air act that is currently becoming worse. in fact, the air is becoming cleaner and that can be proven factually by monitoring every power plant in the country is monitored 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year as all chemical plants and major source emitters. the data is there. the question that i asked the e.p.a. administrator today, lisa jackson, is, is it better, madam administrator, to keep an existing plant that is in compliance with existing air quality regulations in production or is it better to close that plant because it

can't comply with new, more stringent regulations that are being proposed? that's the question. and that's the reason that mr. sullivan and mr. whitfield and myself and others have either sponsored or co-sponsored this legislation. we want strong air quality regulations. we want those rules enforced, but we don't want an e.p.a. that continues to go stronger and stronger and stronger regardless of the economic consequences. now, mr. whitfield, tomorrow, is going to offer an amendment that replaces the proposed cross-state air transport rule with the cair regulation that the bush administration promulgated back in the early 2000's and wants a study or

delay of the proposed boiler mact, while we have a little more time to implement that. and he also has at my suggestion put in that amendment, that we should use real monitored data as opposed to e.p.a. modeled data. how unique. let's use what is happening in the real world. this monitoring versus modeling doesn't mean the e.p.a. can't use models. we understand you have to be able to model the environment and the effects, but can use real data to put in your model, not projected or hypothetical data, real data. the whitfield amendment is a true addition to the train act and i hope we support it. with regards to mercury, mercury has been reduced since the mid-1990's by 90% to 95% in the

united states. the gentleman who spoke about mercury just now correctly stated the amount of mercury that's amendment emitted. what he did not say that that is less than 1% of the total mercury emitted in the country. most mercury emitted is by natural causes and if you enforce the new proposed mercury regulation, you will get an improvement of .0004%. 4/1,000 of 1% for an average coal-fired power plant, they emit --

mr. whitfield: i yield to the gentleman an additional minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. barton: we have reduced mercury emissions. to get another 90% to 95% is so cost prohibitive, that you would probably shut down some of those plants. in my opinion, that's not necessary. what the train act, in conclusion, is doing, mr. speaker, let's do a time-out, before we go forward with any new regulations, let's make sure there is a true benefit that jouth weighs the cost. in my district, a closure was announced of one plant and one coal mine that is going to cost 500 jobs. that is not hypothetical or modeled but real. and if these new regulations go forward, you will see thousands of jobs eliminated, billions of dollars in costs and very

problematic improvements in health. please vote for the train act when it comes up for final passage. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: i think we are getting a lot of false information. we are told that this bill doesn't weaken any existing law. that's not correct. the cross-state rule has already been finalized, which means if you are living in an area where pollution is coming from another state and nothing you can do about it, the state causing the pollution has to reduce that pollution in order not to affect you. and that's going to be repealed by -- no. this will be repealed by the legislation that's before us. we are told all that's going to happen is we are going to delay some of these rules. we will delay the rules and mr. whitfield is going to offer an

amendment that e.p.a. can't adopt any of those rules. and the statement that mercury benefits -- the benefits from reducing mercury are insignificant. while e.p.a. was unable to quantify all the environmental and health benefits associated with the proposed toxic rule, but e.p.a. believes these unquantifiable benefits are substantial. we are talking about impaired cognitive development, problems with language, abnormal development, potential for fatal and nonfatal heart attacks, association with genetic defects, other immunity effects in antibodies. this is not insignificant and it's not accurate to tell us that this bill provides some transparency. i think the authors of the bill

ought to provide us a little bit more transparency. i yield six minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, to speak on the legislation. the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. blumenauer: i appreciate the gentleman's courtesy as i enjoy listening to the former chairman's comments. he gave us part of the story. he talked about how he supported the 1990 clean air act. while many of the arguments that we are hearing here today could have been directed towards him and his support in 1990. but bear in mind what happened in 1990. it didn't impose a bunch of rules and regulations, but put in motion, for instance, a process so we would have those studies. from 1990 to 1998, e.p.a. was studying the issue. they came to the conclusion that

the study mandated under the 1990 clean air act, required that we promulgate rules to regulate this pollution. from 1998 until 2005, the bush administration, clinton and then bush administration, they kind of looked at it and came to the conclusion. the bush administration came up with rules that were so flawed, they were thrown out by the court. it didn't meet the standard that was required by your 1990 clean air act. so here we are -- i will if i have time. i would love to and i will be happy to yield on your time. so here we are now in 2011, 21 years later, talking about another study to delay it

further, delay further what the gentleman, and i would say a number of republicans on the commerce committee supported in 1990. but now, it's crunch time. we actually have to do something. my friends on the other side of the aisle are fond of saying we shouldn't pick winners and losers in the economy. well, mr. speaker, i find it ironic that this dirty air act does pick winners and losers. who are the losers? i agree with my good friend from california, the ranking member, the losers are hundreds of thousands of death, illness from cancer, asthma, lost school days, millions of work days, lost quality of life that is documented beyond belief. this is real and these people lose. who else loses? the downwind areas lose, because

they will not be able to act to be able to deal with the problems that the pollution drifts over their jurisdictions. and as my friend from southern california pointed out, that means that local communities that don't have the protection because we can't stop the drift, they are going to have to do all sorts of things that are more expensive and less effective and it's not their fault. the losers are going to be the american economy. we will lose the economic benefit of getting the work. bear in mind, pollution control devices are an export area. we have a net benefit. we make money exporting this abroad. we lose the net economic benefit of lost health. we bare the costs of unnecessary damage. but there is another area of losers. mr. speaker, i find it interesting, in december, 2010,

eight major c.e.o.'s sent a letter to the editor of the "wall street journal" saying they didn't oppose that the e.p.a. agenda would have negative economic consequences. they are compliance demonstrates that regulations can yield important economic benefits including job creation and maintaining rely built. six leading energy companies joined together to applaud e.p.a.'s release of one of their proposed rules. the losers, and the approach you take, are the early adapters, the people who took the law at its word and started cleaning up. they lose by taking the word of congress that we were serious about reducing pollution, including one of my local utilities that's moving ahead to

close down a dirty coal plant to meet their responsibilities. who wins under the republican approach? well, the winners under the republican approach are those who profit from pollution. the people who are dragging their feet who bet that we will yet again have another study, that we won't follow through. the losers -- the winners under this, the people who are cynical, who think that they don't have to comply with the clean air act, i notice that today in "china daily" dated september 22, the chinese are talking about their tougher emission standards. they are talking about the fact that there is a pushback from their utilities because there is cost of compliance. but they know there is a health benefit and can't continue to

pollute and economic benefit for people who move ahead with the compliance. and the chinese are going to make money by being cleaner, adopting technologies to reduce emissions. . i'm embarrassed that we have a proposal to delay implementation, that they're picking winners and losers, putting people who profit from pollution ahead of people who are responsible. it's just wrong. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: i might say to the distinguished gentleman from oregon that it is correct that the court invalidated the current air transport rule that we have in effect in america today. but i would also like to read from that decision because one of the reasons they invalidated this law with -- was because

e.p.a. was looking at a regional basis rather than with individual states. but the court said it is possible that cair would achieve air transport goals, e.p.a.'s modeling shows that sources contributing to north carolina's nonattainment areas will reduce their emissions even after opting into cair's trading programs. my point in saying that is, this still is a particularly effective air transport rule. at this time i recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. carter, for three minutes. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. carter: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today in strong support of h.r. 2401, the train act, and i want to congratulate my friend from oklahoma for this good piece of legislation. for the past nine months i've been on the floor of the house and it's been my mission to rein in or at least attempt to rein

in some of these out-of-control regulators in this country today who intend on keeping our economy in the ditch by placing barriers in the way of job creation. and job -- and keeping jobs. and i think that this is -- i'm so glad this bill is on the floor because this job-killing regulation is center stage at this time. mr. speaker, i'm pleased to see the train act provisions delay this e.p.a. job-killing and energy-killing rule because let's point out, we heard comments about transparent analysis. my home state, texas, was dropped into the final cross-state air pollution rule in the last minute. texas was not included in the proposed rule and our citizens were denied their right under the administrative procedures act to review the impact and

comment on the proposed rule. we just got kind of airdropped into this at the last minute. 31 members of the texas delegation have written a letter to the white house including eight of the democrats in our delegation expressing concerns about this rule and i was forced down to the citizens of texas and you know, i think that that ought to be some indication that something is wrong here. now, mr. barton indicated something that is larger than what he stated. in his district one plant has closed, but two plants have actually closed in texas as a result of this rule already. and three mines have closed and at least of the 500 jobs that mr. barton has referenced here today, but we haven't gotten the count from the other two. this is a serious loss of good-paying jobs to texas.

these are the kind of jobs that people seek after. the step of the right direction is to hold off and when you say you're doing studies about the very statements made over this floor, it's about scientific proof. but there are also human beings involved in this and we should at least do an economic analysis of what this does to our economy which i think this administration is bound and determined to drag down into the mud and i think we should know how many jobs we're going to lose. we're trying to build jobs, not lose jobs. we are in this country about growing jobs in america, not losing them. and these regulations are job-killing regulations. i'm really pleased with the work of the energy and commerce committee, on all of their hard work on these issues. this is important to american workers everywhere. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california.

mr. waxman: mr. chairman, the republican spinmeisters would like to come up with slogans so they come up with the slow gaann job-killing regulation. let mel tell what you we're talking about. children-killing pollution. when we hear the statements that they're not going to weaken or delay any rules that protect public health and the environment, we shouldn't take their word for it. i have a letter here from the national association of clean air agencies, they represent the state and local air pollution control people who are on the groupped every day working to improve the nation's air quality and what they say is that if this bill is adopted it will create regulatory delays that could lead to thousands of premature deaths, remove important regulatory tools which states and localities depend, impose additional costs on government as well as small businesses, create regulatory uncertainty, cause job losses

and defund an important and cost-effective air pollution control program, end quote. mr. chairman, at this time i want to yield to the distinguished gentleman from the state of virginia, mr. connolly, five minutes. the chair: the gentleman from virginia voiced for five minutes. mr. connolly: thank you, mr. chairman, and i thank my good friend and the distinguished ranking member of the energy and commerce committee. mr. speaker, mr. chairman, this bill is extraordinary even for the most antienvironmental house of representatives in american history. republican leadership has attempted already to pass over 110 environmental -- antienvironmental bills, amendments and riders, but the train act would be one of the most destructive for america's environment and our public health. it appears that the republican leadership took every antienvironmental bill, rider, amendment and nighttime fantasy

of the koch brothers and drafted it into a single legislative package called the train act. this bill would block clean air public health standards for mercury, smog, soot and other toxic pollutants and we're supposed to believe no, no, all we're doing is just delaying and studying. 21 years is a long time to study. and if you have a loved one whose health is at stake, that delay can be life-threatening. by increasing the incidence of manufacture seema, lung -- emphysema, lung cancer and cardiac diseases, this bill will kill 25,000 americans every year . nearly as many as it killed in highway accidents -- as are killed in highway accidents. just one standard that this bill would repeal, the cross-state air pollution control rule would have significant ramifications for my district and the national capital region from which i

come. the wind transporter power plant and other harmful emissions from polluters to the west in our community is one of the reasons the capital region is listed as a nonattainment area for air quality, but we have to clean it up. the preponderance of harmful grown level ozone threatened seniors as those with respiratory conditions and it threatens our eligibility for long-term transportation funding. monitoring and responsibly -- responsively regulating cross-state air pollution here and in other regions would save, not cost, save $280 billion a year in health care costs, but not if the republicans pass this bill. but of course they don't want you to look at the other side of the ledger. there are benefits to be had by implementing the e.p.a. standards rather than delaying them. $280 billion worth.

but they don't want you to know that. they don't want to talk about that. i was proud to work with a number of my colleagues to lead a group letter sent by 60 mens of -- members of this body, reaffirming our support for the cross-state air pollution control rule. this public health standard is critical for economic human health in our region. that rule is just one example among many successful public health standards established under the clean air act. since its inception in 1970, the clean air act has produced economic benefits that far outweigh the cost of compliance by as much as 8-1. the small business majority credits the clean air act with widespread economic benefits both across urban and rural communities. improving public and worker health and creating jobs, millions of them. each year the clean air act prevents 22,000 hospital visits which would otherwise be caused by pollution-induced respiratory

diseases. 67,000 chronic asthma and bronchitis attacks and saved over 1 -- $110 billion in health care costs. the train act would block nearly every major public health standard being implemented by the clean air act. i heard my colleague and friend, mr. griffith from virginia, talk about a letter he read in a local newspaper in virginia. this couple reportedly couldn't understand why bureaucrats sitting on their rear ends somehow come up with these fantastical regulations that are just burdensome and serve no purpose. perhaps if that couple had sat with a child in a hospital room fighting for his or her breath, they'd understand why we need these regulations and why those professionals at e.p.a. are doing their job to protect public health. perhaps if they had seen a loved

one or spouse hooked up to tubes, fighting for her life because she's severely asthmatic, they'd understand why we need these standards. perhaps if they understood a friend had copd and has to walk around now all the time with oxygen in a mask to function and to be mobile they'd better understand the life and death struggle of people who live in areas affected by dirty, polluted air. and with better respect -- would better respect why the e.p.a. is protecting our health even if that couple doesn't understand. i urge opposition to this bill. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: yes, may i ask how much time we have remaining? the chair: the gentleman from kentucky has 25 minutes remaining. the gentleman from california has 12 minutes remaining. mr. whitfield: at this time i recognize the distinguished gentleman from mississippi, mr.

harper, who is a memberf energy and commerce committee, for four minutes. the chair: the gentleman from mississippi is recognized for four minutes. mr. harper: i thank the gentleman from kentucky. and i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection, so ordered. mr. harper: mr. speaker, the train act is on the house floor today as part of the republican regulatory relief agenda to reduce job-killing government regulations on businesses. americans are tired of big government and a majority believes that government regulation coming out of washington, d.c., has a costly impact on life's essentials such as food and gasoline. too many americans are unemployed and a recent survey shows that 70% of voters believe that increasing regulations on american businesses will result in more jobs moving overseas. that is unacceptable. no government agency is more to blame for an absurd increase in regulation than the

environmental protection agency. we all want clean air, we all want clean water, we're all conservationists and want those things, but the effect and actions of the e.p.a. is clear that it's killing jobs and job creation. we've asked our colleagues on the over side of the aisle over and over -- on the other side of the aisle over and over, where the are the jobs? i submit that a thorough investigation of e.p.a. regulations could answer that question. i encourage a yes vote on the train act so that americans will have an even better understanding of the negative impact that the e.p.a. is having on each of our lives? and with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: i will continue to reserve our time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves his time. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: at this time i recognize the gentleman from illinois for four minutes. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for four minutes.

mr. hultgren: thank you very much to my colleague from kentucky and thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of the train act which will help give small businesses and our nation's job creators the certainty they need to hire, expand and invest. this is an excellent bill which will help create a progrowth environment our economy needs. upcoming e.p.a. gasoline regulations along with other regulations impacting domestic refiners have the potential to raise the price at the pump, reduce domestic gasoline output and increase reliance on imports and destroy domestic refining jobs. fuel prices changes create a ripple effect throughout the economy, increasing the price of food, goods and services that are transported to our communities, increasing the prices of driving to work each day. these broad impacts would be taken into account when we seek to understand the cumulative impact of e.p.a. regulations on the energy prices, jobs and our global competitiveness.

i hope my colleagues will join with me on both sides of the aisle in supporting the train act. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: mr. speaker, at this time i wish to yield three minutes to the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for three minutes. mr. ellison: mr. speaker, let me thank the gentleman and also all of us who are here on the floor tonight to talk about the state of our lungs. the state of our health. talk about how the deprivation of protection will lead to our harm and our health. it's a sad day. i'm just glad we're here to debate this issue so the american people can see who is for them and who is not. what my friends on the other side of the aisle we call protecting our lungs.

what we call government interference we call staying out of the hospital and getting asthma treatments and being able to eat the fish we catch in our rivers and streams across the nation. what we call job-killing regulation -- they call job-killing regulation, we call child-killing pollution. it's amazing how different the world would be if we focused on what matters. what we should be doing is arguing about how to get americans back to work. we're trying to say if we got rid of all the health and safety regulations and all the taxes, then the business community would have enough certainty to actually hire somebody. but i don't think anybody really believes that. we've got a nation in this world that's gotten rid of all the regulations and doesn't really tax anybody. it's called somalia. i don't think that's a good business environment for much of anybody. unless you're a warlord.

the fact is, instead of focusing on creating jobs, republicans are bringing up another assault on our public health in the clean air act. we should have the american jobs act here, we should be debating that. we should be passing bills to create jobs and improve economic growth. we should not be telling the american worker that the only thing between them and a job is a regulation to protect their lungs. they're trying to say a paycheck or your lucks. you can have a paycheck or you can have asthma but you can't have a paycheck and be well. that's what they're arguing today and this is what we have to reject. instead of bringing up bills to create jobs, the g.o.p. is bringing up another assault on the clean air act, bringing up two of the most life-saving acts in decades, the mercury and air toxins rules and the cross-state pollution rule. the mercury and air toxins rule

will prevent 17,000 premature deaths per year. i couldn't agree more with the gentleman from virginia,ierry connolly who reminded us if you have ever held the hand of a loved one suffering thru a asthma attack, it would be hard to see how you could vote for this train act, which i call the train wreck act, because it's that bad. death pers year, the cross-state air pollution rule will prevent 34,000 premature deaths per year. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one additional minute. mr. ellison: i thank the gentleman and i wrap it up with this. we can have energy and jobs. the clean energy group, a coalition of energy and power companies, has said that the changes in energy practice can be accomplished and are not a burden to industry.

not all tri-agrees we need to get rid of every regulation. a study released by the environmental defense fund said the cross state air pollution rule would create 1.5 million jobs over the next five years. let me crust say, it's time for the american people to say we want good health, we want good jobs, we want clean air, and we want helly lungs and we don't want the train wreck bill aftered by the republicans. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. >> i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. farne hold. -- farenholt. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. farenholt: i request unanimous consent to revise and extend may remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. farenholt: despite what my friends and colleagues across the aisle say, we are not out to

poison america. my children, my wife, i, breathe the air and drink the water in this country. what we are looking for is to look at regulations with a scientific analysis, not an emotional analysis. do what every business in this country does, what every family in this country does when they are faced with tough decision or any decision. when i go to the grocery store i can byramen noodles or lobster and i settle somewhere in the middle on chicken. businesses look at the cost and benefit of everything they do just like families do. what we are asking is to take a look at what these oppressive regulations cost. we've got great regulations in place now. we've improved the air immense he. let's see if it's worth going the next step. we can factor in all the things that our friends on the other side of the aisle want. but we need to to the study and

we need to have the information so we can make informed decisions. the money this these excessive regulations cost businesses are passed on to the consumer. american families are asked all the time to make sacrifices, make ends meet. as these regulations run up energy costs, our families' electric bills and gas lean bills foe up and they have to make decisions about whether they're going to fill their car with gas or what kind of food they're going to buy, if any, to put on their tables. we have got to keep people working. if these regulations put people out of work, the families, the wage -- the families that the wage earners support suffer too. they don't have the money to pay bills or buy foord buy medicine. we have got to be intelligent as we are compassionate. and the intelligent thing to do is to do a cost-benefit analysis

of what regulations do. that's what we're asking in the train act. let's use our brains. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from kentucky. >> i yield four minutes to the gentlelady from wyoming, mrs. lummis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for four minutes. mrs. lummis: thank you, mr. speaker. the language in this bill does not prevent the e.p.a. from regulating emissions from coal-fired utilities and does not prevent the e.p.a. from dealing with cross-state pollution. the e.p.a. must regulate emissions under its current rules. so let's focus on the facts as presented by the e.p.a. thanks to the clean air interstate rule, emissions from fossil fuel power plants in the lower 48

states were 44% below 2005 levels by 2009. in the past four years, our population has grown 48%. gross domestic product has increased and coal-fueled electricity has increased by 148%. during that time, emission from coal-based electricity generation have dropped by 60%. despite this success, e.p.a. is still pushing for the most expensive rules ever imposed on utilities. every single dime of which isn't paid by the utilities, it's paid by everyday americans who use electricity and by america's manufacturers. just the two rules in this bill,

the ones that the train act seek to delay, would increase the nationwide average price of electricity by 11.5% and it's even worse in this nation's manufacturing states. look at this map. the upper midwest could see their electricity rise by 17%. michigan by 20%. one of the states that's really hurting. kentucky and tennessee by more than 23%. these are where our manufacturing jobs reside. raising energy costs would remove one of the few remaining advantages that u.s. manufacturing has over low cost foreign competitors. that is access to affordable, reliable energy. my own industry people tell me that the one advantage they have

over foreign countries when it comes to competing head-to-head is the availability of affordable, reliable energy. and on the environmental side, president obama's former environmental czar carol brown herself said this the rule would provide no health benefits associated with addressing nonmercury emissions. the rhetoric, mr. speaker, used to attack this bill has reached a fever pitch. but it is not backed by the facts. i urge my colleagues to support the train act and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. guthrie: i'd like to yield two mr. holes camp, the gentleman from kansas, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. hulse camp: thank you, mr.

speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding to me on this -- mr. huelskamp: thank you, mr. speaker. the last thing we need to be doing is making it more difficult to grow the economy. but that seems to be the operating question of this administration. the question is this, they ask, how can we make it more challenging for america's job creators to hire. america's energy sector is under direct assault. energy companies, looking to heat the rapidly growing nrnl needs of our nation are either being forced to put on hold their efforts or self-imposing barricades on future construction or expansion as a result of new or anticipated regulatory requirements. it has been reported recently that 351 stalled energy projects cost the nation $1.1 trillion in g.d.p. and 1.9 million jobs.

yes, jobs. on this list is the sunflower electric power plant in kansas. it's a rural co-op that with a needed expansion can provide many new jobs in western kansas. most importantly it will allow kansas to have the energy it needs to prevent brownouts, which are a very real possibility and a threat to our part of the country. not only do families, schools and hospitals depend on this energy production, but so does our ag secor a key and vital component of rural kansas. sunflower faces considerable unnecessary and excessive regulatory scrutiny not only for its existing operations but for the plant expansion as well. whether it's the cross state pollution rule or others, each one has a major impact. the bigger problem, an that's what the train act wants to demonstrate is that these rules will be devastating and expensive to america's energy

industry and all of americans. the president came before the house a few weeks ago and talked about the need for america to improve its infrastructure. power plants in america are the type of infrastructure that our company needs, particularly when energy con sums is growing rapidly. these private companies are willing to add to the company's -- country's infrastructure without the help of the federal government. all they need is for washington to take a step back. a kansas business leader summed up the administration's guilty until innocent approach to regulation saying, quote, we have a regulatory environment that assumes businesses are crooks and government must catch them at it. this only raises the cost on business and makes it more difficult to operate. end quote. i think his analysis says it all. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from kentucky. >> how much time do i have

remaining, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky has 14 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from california has eight minutes remaining. >> at this time i would like to recognize the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. lankford, for eight minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. lankford: thank you, mr. chairman. i congratulate my counterpart from oklahoma, mr. sullivan, for bringing this forward. we both come from the beautiful state of oklahoma. i invite anyone to come to oklahoma and be able to drink our water, breathe our air and see the beautiful land but also see a very successful state in dealing with energy. we've done tie hie drawlic fracking in our state since 1949. while it may be new to other state it's not new to oklahoma. over 100,000 times in oklahoma we've done hydraulic fracking. yet i invite you again, come drink our water, come breathe

our air, come see our land. our state leadership has done a tremendous job in dealing with environmental quality issues and done great in relationships with companies whether it be power companies, utility companies, whether it be producers or service companies through the process. it's a great model. much of the united states to get a chance to come and be able to see what's going on there. what we're currently experiencing is this whole sense that if the federal government doesn't come down on oklahoma and every other state around the united states, surely children will die. surely people will be thrown out of work because they have wonderful compliance jobs required by the e.p.a. and other areas. it's a frustration to hear people say, if those republicans get what they want, 25,000 people will die next year. because of those mean republicans, they're going to shut everyone down. people should know, i have

children who live in this state. i have a child who has asthma. if you want to talk about a dad who loves his children and wants to see a great future for them, that's me as well. it's not as if republicans are wanting dirty air and water, we just want basic common sense in our regulations. if every company, whether it be an energy producer or some utility, is constantly looking over their shoulder, worried every day that some new restriction is going to come down on them and change their plan, they can't function, they can't go forward, they can't find investors into that business. what they're doing is very capital intensive and if the rules change constantly and the regulations are constantly shifting, no one can really do investment and the cost of all of our electricity goes up. the cost of every product that we buy goes up. the cost of every bit of our food goes up. because we've added regulations, many of which make no sense. and they spend years and years trying to fight them in the courts just to not be shut down from doing what is best and right for the community.

i understand there are bad actors. i do. and those bad actors should suffer consequences. but to be able to say that every energy producer and every utility out there is suspect and they will never do the right thing unless we stand over them with thousands of regulators i think overlooks the reality of a great-hearted group of americans scattered around the country, they're doing their best to do the right thing. some would also say these regulations arnts all that large or expensive. they're just a bunch of small regulations. it reminds me of a friend of mine who was hiking through central africa and he and a guide were hiking through it and he made the mistake of swatting a be, that was one of those killer bees that we hear so much about. as soon as that bee swung him and he swatted it, thousands of bees came down on him and began to sting him. those bees kill, not from a single sting, but from thousands. that's what our utility companies are facing right now. it's not one little regulation, it's hundreds of them coming at them all at once and they're

trying to figure out through lawyers and through adding additional staff and compliance people, how do we manage all of these regulations coming? this train act does a simple thing. it begins to pull all these regulations together and look at them in totality. and say, i understand you just say that's one little piece, but let's look at them all together and find out the consequences of them, rather than having all these things coming from everywhere. let's simplify the structure. i urge this chamber's support of some common sense back into our regulatory scheme. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, i want to correct some of the statements that have been made. if that gentleman from oklahoma talked about the clean air in his area, that's fine. they have attained the standards for protecting public health. but there are a lot of otheryy -- areas where they don't have that attainment of health-based standards. the market forces alone will not

correct. market forces alone will not correct problems that hurt our public health and the environment. why should any business spend money to install pollution control devices if they don't think their competitors are going to do the same thing? so government must establish some standards so that everybody knows what the rules are going to be and the investments will be made. 2/3, approximately 2/3 of the coal-burning power plants in this country have the up-to-date controls in those power plants. what we're talking about for the most part are those 1/3 we were told were going to be retired. but they're not being retired. they're still being used. they're still polluting.

and those power plants ought to come up to compliance with the reductions in their emissions. one of the speakers on the other side of the aisle said, well, we don't have a real economic nail sis of all these regulations. that's not true. there are thousands of pages of economic analysis before these regulations have been promoted. another person on the other side said that a lot of these rules are so onerous that they should be blocked because we're going to be threatening the reliability of the nation's electric grid by causing these old, inefficient power plants, to put modern pollution controls on them. well, that's not the testimony we received from the -- on september 14, 2011, in the energy and commerce committee, where the federal energy regulatory commission chairman

took a different position, as did former d.o.e. assistant secretary for policy. a stack of independent analyses confirmed that these protections will require controls on these power plants, will not threaten the reliability of our grid and that eefer and over again we've heard that unless we adopt this train act we are going to lose jobs. well, the train act blocks and indefinitely delays two of the most important clean air regulations of the past few decades, the mercury and air toxic standards, which are again directed at those power plants that emit toxic air pollutants including mercury and carcinogens, and then the other rule is the cross-state air pollution rule to reduce power plant emissions that cause pollution problems in downstate -- downwind states.

i don't believe they're telling us the facts when they say we're going to lose jobs. the truth of the matter is, according to the economic policy institute, they reported in june that the air toxics rule would have a positive net impact on overall employment, creating up to 158,000 jobs between now and 2015. the political economy research institute at the university of massachusetts released a report showing that the utility investments driven by cross-state air pollution rule and the air toxic rule would create nearly 1.5 million jobs by 2015. moving toward a cleaner, more efficient power sector will create capital investments such as installing pollution controls and constructing new capacity. these new investments create a wide array of skilled, high-paying jobs. and i must say to my republican

friends, if we want to create jobs, let's pass the president's jobs bill. i'd like the republicans not to block every effort by this administration to create new jobs in this country. there are numerous groups that are on record in opposition to the train act. obviously the public health groups are opposing the bill, the american lung association, the american public health association, the american thoracic society, the asthma and allergy foundation of america, the american public health association who called this an ill-conceived legislation that would prevent the e.p.a. from protecting the public's health from dangerous and deadly air pollution. the national association of clean air agencies, the ones that are doing the job of protecting our environment groups, that represent million ofs of -- millions of americans, particularly environmental

groups, but scientists have told us, i know a lot of republicans deny science, but scientists i think are to be respected and they say sacrificing tens of thousands of american lives will not create more jobs, poisoning the air our children and our families breathe will not stimulate the economy. 300 sportsman's organizations representing our nation's hunters, angers and the businesses that depend on our -- anglers and the businesses that depend on our wildlife and natural resources support e.p.a. efforts to cut mercury pollution and strongly oppose any efforts to weaken the clean air act. the evangelical environmental network oppose these efforts to block the mercury and air toxics rule, because they point out that the developing brains of fetuses and children that will create learning disabilities, neurological problems, are not something that people who claim to be pro-life ought to support. the obama administration opposes

this train act. they've threatened to veto this legislation, if it reaches the president's desk. americans don't support weakening the clean air act or blocking e.p.a.'s efforts to reduce dangerous air pollution from power plants. i think my colleagues, -- i think, my colleagues, that this train act and some of the amendments that are going to be added to it are reason enough to oppose this legislation and i urge opposition to it and i am going to reserve the balance of our time, if the gentleman, the chairman of the subcommittee, is not ready to close. on the legislation. mr. whitfield: i did tell the gentleman that i was prepared to close. we do have one other speaker and then i would close. he just came in and we were not totally aware. mr. waxman: i'll reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves his time. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: at this time i

would like to yield five minutes to the distinguished gentleman from illinois, mr. shimkus, who's a valuable member of the energy and commerce committee and a chairman of one of our subcommittees. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for five minutes. mr. shimkus: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection, so ordered. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. speaker. and i do apologize for my friend from california for coming late and kind of disrupting, you know, what was planned to be a closing. but this is an important debate and my colleague from california and i have crossed sabres many times on these issues. and i don't question his commitment to the environment and the regs and rules and the like, but as he knows, i'm from southern illinois. i'm from an area that was devastated in the jobs issue and during the 1992 clean air act. and i'm from an area of the

country that still is not being all it can be based upon the excessive rules and regulations that come out of washington, d.c. so the train act is really a first start to help us ask a simple question. shouldn't we as an interagency process, shouldn't we at least ask the basic question of what is this going to do on the effect on jobs? and what is it going to do on the effect of our competitiveness worldwide? so it's really a basic debate. it's a good one to have. i applaud the chairman for bringing this to the floor. we need an up or down vote because as much as we want clean air, we would like jobs. they're not exclusionary. we can do both.

we have the cleanest environment that anyone has seen in decades in this country. and it's attributed to the work that past congresses have done but the difference is this, that in today's environment, well, let's go back. three decades ago when you wanted to clean up 50% of the emissions, you could make the capital investments and you could do it. the debate now is, how clean is clean and what is the cost -benefit analysis and what is the effect on jobs if we get to a limit that you don't find naturally? so what the train act basically does is says, before we promulgate more rules, more regulations, we ought to at least admit the fact that it may effect our competitiveness in our economic position. we ought to accept the premise that if you continue to put more

rules and regulations on an electric generation, that electricity costs are going to go up. what does that do to the manufacturing sector? i think that's what this bill is just asking. if we -- if we find out these answers and we figure out that, you know, the cost, the economic costs outweigh the environmental benefit, well, maybe we better slow down. if we decide the environmental benefits are so great that we're willing to accept the cost, then we ought to move forward. but for us not to have this debate is not doing our job and is not doing our duty. so i'm really pleased that we, you know, we brought this bill to the floor, we've had numerous hearings, we've gone through the legislative process. i appreciate speaker boehner and the openness because we've had

hearings, we had a subcommittee mark, we've had a full committee mark, we've had this debate on amendments to this bill, and now we're ready to have this debate on the floor. the last, you know, hearing we had, in chairman which the field's committee was on the -- whitfield's committee was on the reliability issue and i took the task as the chairman of the ferc who in their own analysis said that if we continue to move on this regulatory regime, 80 giga watts of power is going to go offline. now, e.p.a. did the analysis and they said eight soufment got a 10-fold difference. maybe they're both wrong, maybe it's 40 gigawatts. my friends, 40 gigawatts is a will the of power.

we rely on that reliability for a lot of things, rewe lie on the manufacturing sector and the manufacturing facility but we also rely on the reliability in the safety of -- and the safety of our citizens who are in the hospitals and in long-term care who need power to those facilities just for their livelihood. so if our aggressive environmental movement takes away 80 gigawatts of power will that affect our electricity? i think it will. thank you, mr. chairman, for the time. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has -- the chair: the gentleman tissue the time of the gentleman from -- has expired. the gentleman has one minute remaining. >> the e.p.a. said the cost would be less than $1 billion but the benefits would be up to $280 billion per year, 150 to

350 times its cost. mr. waxman: i want the chairman of the subcommittee to answer a question when he closes. i believe the republicans have misrepresented this bill during the debate but false information was put on their website tonight, they claimed hundreds of groups support the train act and immediately two groups came forward and maybe others will as well, saying that they would never support the train act, clean water action committee and the clean air watch. i'd like to know if the information that is on the website is being checked for accuracy because i know there's a lot of things that have been said in this debate on the other side of the aisle have not been accurate. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: i thank the gentleman for the debate today.

i was not aware we'd sent out a letter of supporters and in that letter, evidently in that letter, there was a letter of opposition that should not have been in there and if that created any hardship for anyone or problems, we certainly apologize for that. we should remind ourselves that by every public health measure from infant mortality to life expectancy, we are healthier today and exposed to fewer hazards than ever before. our present-day air is much cleaner now than years ago, thanks to e.p.a. and our air quality is among the best in the world. we recognize the importance of e.p.a. however, when e.p.a. becomes so

aggressive as this e.p.a. has become, and in a very short period of time they've come forward with 14 regulations, and we know that when you look at cost benefit analysis, different entities come up with different figures on the costs and benefits and we, for example, have come up with analysis on the utility and air transport rule alone saying that the annualized cost of that will be $17 billion, that industry will have to spend that kind of money to get new equipment. that the total cost between 2011 and 2030 would be like $184 billion. but one of the figures that really scares you in this is that they say there will be a

net loss of like $1.-- of like 1.4 million jobs. we know some jobs will be created in trying to build this equipment that these regulations will require. but most of the only sis that we've seen indicate that there's going to be more of a job loss. so all the train act is doing is that we're saying, let's have an independent government agency, including the e.p.a., do an analysis of cost benefits of all these rules. and we would also like them to look at what impact does it have on america's ability to be competitive in the global marketplace. we also want to look at what would be the net job loss and look at what impact it's going to have on electricity prices as well as the reliability of

electricity. and on 12 of those regulations, we do not stop them in any way but on two of them, the ones that are most costly, utility and the air transport rule, we do in this legislation delay the effective date of those, the implementation of those, until six months after the report is due that this legislation requires. now, in my view, that's not being unreasonable. some people think it is because it is the first time that congress has ever come to the floor to question some of the e.p.a. regulations. and i really think that that's our responsibility. they issue the regulations but if they reach a point where we think they're being unreasonable then we have an obligation to

come and let's examine these, let's look at them, before we move totally forward with it. now, lisa jackson, when she's come before us and testified, she's always made the comment, i'm creating jobs with these new regulations an as i said earlier she does create new jobs but the net effect is there's a loss of jobs. now some of these rules may be great in areas like california and new york and the northeast and elsewhere. but in the areas of the country where coal and by the way coal still provides 50% of all the electricity in america, and our electricity demand is going to increase significantly in the next 30 years so we're going to have to rely on coal but a lot of regulations are going to put coal miners out of business

because they're going to close some of these coal mines. it's going to put some coal-fired utilities out of business because they're going to close these utility plants because the cost is not going to be worth what they have to do to meet these air quality regulations. on the air quality regulation the question becomes if you're 98% pure already, is it worth this much money to go 2% more. so that's the question we come down to an that's why we ask for this analysis and i would urge everyone to support this train act legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: all time has expired. pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for purposes of amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read.

for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? mr. whitfield: i move that the committee do now rise. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion that the committee do now rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 2401 directs me to report it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r

to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. dreier: we are dealing with extraordinarily challenging times. the american people have been sending a message to us, which is powerful and overwhelming, and it's one that i believe that both democrats an

republicans have heard. that is we need to get our economy back on track. we need to make sure that we have a climate that will create jobs so that people, many of whom i represent, sadly, and i know the speaker faces the same thing in missouri and my friend in his state of massachusetts faces this, we have friends and neighbors who have lost their jobs, who have lost their homes, who have lost their businesses, and the message that has come to us overwhelmingly is that we must put into place policies that will encourage job creation and economic growth. we obviously have a very troubled global economy. the developments that have taken place in rurep have played a big role in leading to today's huge drop in the stock market. i vn looked at it in the last few minutes.

earlier today it was down over 400 points. i know we have obviously difficult decisions that lie ahead for many. we as an institution, the united states congress, have a responsibility to address the fiscal needs and channels that are before us. one of those challenges and one of the factors that's played a role in the economic downturn, i believe, very -- i believe very strongly, has been the $14.5 trillion national debt that looms before us. in a bipartisan way, democrats and republicans alike decry the $14.5 trillion national debt we have and the fact that we have deficits going as far as the eye can see. now we know that last july, just before we adjourned for

the month of august, we had to deal with the question of whether or not we were going to increase the debt ceiling. and we tackled that issue. and we ended up coming to a bipartisan consensus. we all knew it was necessary for us to increase the debt ceiling because there was responsibility to pay the bills that have been accumulated in the past from this side of the aisle, we complained about fought against the 82% increase in nondefense discretionary spending we've seen over the past four years, but that money having been spent, we recognize that the bills had to be paid. and so that led us, madam speaker, to come to a bipartisan consensus. a bipartisan consensus that we would in fact increase the debt ceiling, but we had to tackle, in a bipartisan way, the deficit and debt issues that are looming before us.

so we put into place a joint select committee, which as we all know is going to be charged with, by november 23, completing its work and by december 23, having a vote in the house and senate and if they're not successful, we will deal with sequestration, which will be across the board spening cuts that i don't think anyone wants to see happen because we want to be in a position where we make those decisions for $1.5 trillion and as many said, a group of senators the other day said, $4 trillion -- what is the number? $4 trillion, excuse me, the proverbial everett dirksen line, a billion here a billion there, before long you're talking about real money. that was five decades ago he said that. the plan as proposed would take us to as much as $4 trillion in us to as much as $4 trillion in spending cuts.