what our tradition feel usually july and august were slow but they have been extremely busy. months when we normally make money have been up and down. we are having a hard time understanding what is going on. so we're not hiring because we are not sure if this is a blip and september, october, november, december going to be do down. september, october, november for me because we are mostly a re ph remodel industry in the northea northeast. it usually is good but last year it was awful. host: we have to go with that. he leaves us with something of a ray of hope, uncertainty but more manufacturing activity. closing comment on unemployment in the united states and overall how we are doing? guest: well, we still haven't made very much progress in the recovery from the recession. we have made some progress but it has been a little slow.

last four months in particular i think allowed the job growth -- a lot of the job growth has been stalled. we are not losing jobs and there is hope things will ping up -- pick up. host: we will go now to live coverage of the house of representatives which has just begun for the day. ay. eternal and greashes god, we call on your name by your mercy as one nation under your divine counsel. dear lord, i lift up to you these men and women who have been weighted by life, by the virtue of the office they have been called to serve for such a time as this. we ask you, lord, to equip and empower these leaders to faithfully carry out the duty for which it affects our daily

lives. remind them of their divine purpose. to give peace where there is chaos. and leadership that promotes unity. guide their minds to make decisions that embody the good of all of our citizens and pilot their hands to give voice to the voiceless. this is our pray in your awesome name. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentlewoman from california, ms. lee. ms. lee: please rise for the pledge. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection -- without objection, the gentlewoman from california, ms. lee, is recognized for one minute. ms. lee: thank you very much. thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to recognize reverend dr. charley hames. dr. hames is a pastor at b.b. memorial cathedral in oakland, california. it went from over four members to over 1,400 members making it the fastest growing churches in the bay area. in addition to his 19 years in the ministry, that would serve as chair of the empowerment community, a nonprofit organization that fosters community involvement. reverend dr. hames is the proud recipient of the ninth episcopal pastor of the year, is chaplain of the 100 black men of the bay area and

director of the oakland african-american chamber of commerce bored. he's married to his wife -- commerce board. he's married to felicia. i want to thank him for his spiritual leadership and a commitment for making this a better world for all of god's children. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the chair will entertain up to five one-minute requests on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> with mahmoud ahmadinejad of iran giving his usual anti-american rant yesterday, i'd like to make my concerns about iran's strategic aims about here and the western atmosphere. medal honor winner, major livingston released the al qaeda nexus report in april,

the text of which i ask to be inserted in the record. it goes to the heart of the matter dealing that iran has forged a strong working relationship with al qaeda's leaders. i'm concerned about their relationship with south america. hezbollah has opened six embassies. in the lives of americans could face threats, why would this administration even consider giving president ahmadinejad a visa to attend the united nations general assembly meeting? i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. blumenauer: mr. speaker, last night roger was honored for his 20 years leadership as defenders ever of wildlife, where he became a key pillar of the american environmental

movement. the successful reintroduction of the gray wolf in the american west is an example of his tenacity, skill and vision. whether roger was fighting to protect our environmental laws from assault or using them for their intended purposes, he showed how even in difficult times people would respond to protect what they cherish. that is how we built defenders of wildlife in the formedible political and policy force, increasing the membership 1,500% to almost a million people. whether it's taking his phone call, taking a visit or exploring the refuge with roger, his passion was clear to me. roger provided leadership that matters which speaks volumes today and will far into the future. thank you, roger. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> thank you, mr. speaker. this week president obama went

to new york to address united nations general assembly. he did so remarkably for an american leader from a position of weakness. mr. schilling: as the palestinian authority began to campaign at the u.n., this administration waivered and vacillated and did nothing for too long. this was a failure of leadership and leaves us, our israeli allies and the ever tense middle east at an uncertain crossroads. the president might have been able to rescue the situation with the forceful speech laying down a clear marker of america's support for israel. instead, he falsely blamed israel for the stalemated peace process. mr. hultgren: i have always believed that our relationship with israel is unique and critical to both countries. those beliefs were reinforced when i had the opportunity to visit with israel and meet with the prime minister in may. president obama must stand up, not only for israel and the israeli people but also for our commitment to the peace process and the rule of law.

i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. baca: mr. speaker, the american people are hurting. they need our help now. it's time for congress to step up to the plate and live up to our responsibilities. let's do what is right for the marn people. the american jobs act contains bipartisan policy that both republican and democrats have supported in the past. economics across the -- economists across the nation agrees. it will create jobs and give our economy an immediate boost. if we live -- if we do pass the american jobs act, in my own state of california, over 700,000 businesses will receive a payroll tax cut. $3.9 billion in the

infrastructure investment will create over 50,000 new jobs and over 37,000 teachers and first responders will be saved from layoff. this debate is not about political winners and losers. it's about the struggle of everyday americans. the next election is 14 months away. let's come together and pass this bipartisan agenda. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, it is my honor today to send birthday greetings to a member of america's greatest generation, dr. r.c. goodman sr. of fort smith, arkansas. this american patriot mobilized with the arkansas national guard at the beginning of world war ii, earning two purple hearts and the combat infantryman's badge. mr. womack: you see, dr.

goodman was in charge of a trained car full of german p.o.w.'s. the train wrecked and dr. goodman was one of the few survivors. he later shared with his children the terrific sense of helplessness watching so many die that day and he made a commitment to becoming a physician so that he would always be able to help in the presence of human suffering. dr. goodman, thank you for your service to your country and to your fellow man, and on the occasion of your 91st birthday, america sends its best wishes, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from delaware rise? mr. carney: i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. carney: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize september as national childhood obesity awareness month. when i served as delaware's lieutenant governor, i spent a lot of my time helping children in our state understand the

importance of making healthy lifestyle choices. i started a program called the lieutenant governor's challenge that helped thousands of delaware students make regular physical activity part of their daily lives. one of my partners in these initiatives was a foundation that operates a.i. hospital, a world-class facility for children in wilmington, delaware. the moores works with schools, childcare centers and organizations to help children make healthy food and lifestyle choices and to stay physically active. if we can help children make healthy decisions at an early age, those habits will stay with them for a lifetime and we will save money on the country's health bill as a result of that. mr. speaker, we should follow the lead like the organization like lamoore,. thank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? >> i ask permission to address

the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. president, where are the jobs? you spent nearly $1 trillion on a stimulus bill that failed. now you want to spend another $450 billion on another stimulus bill. this is expecting a different outcome. mr. harris: solyndra is the example of a waste of your stimulus bill. this company is a crony of your administration. solyndra's backers were friends of your presidential campaign and the company received friendly treatment from your administration. solyndra was supposed to create green jobs but now more than 1,000 are laid off. they got a taxpayer subsidized loan but they are now bankrupt and their officers are taking the fifth amendment. we must help the american economy by expanding affordable

energy, stop threatening job creators with higher taxes and stop wasting taxpayers' money. mr. speaker, no more solyndras. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. members are reminded to address their remarks to the chair. for what purpose does the gentleman from vermont seek recognition? mr. welch: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from vermont is recognized for one minute. mr. welch: we have two problems in this economy. one is we have a long-term deficit that requires long-term solutions. second, we have an immediate crisis of high unemployment. we have 23 million americans who are out of work full time or out of work part time. people looking for full-time work that don't have it. 23 million americans. why can't we focus on policies that are going to put people back to work? the president's jobs plan will help us do that. what does it do? we start to invest in

infrastructure. it is disgraceful that the roads and bridges of this country, that the water and sewer systems in your town and mine are ancient andant kuwaited. they need re-- and antiquated. they need to be repaired. generations will benefit from it. part of the solution is rebuilding our schools. who -- who among us has not been to a school in our neighborhood or our district that is in desperate need of repair? we have folks in the construction industry who aren't building houses because of the housing crisis but can be rebuilding these schools and can be retrofitting our home. we have to focus on putting people back to work. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas rise? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kansas is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. this morning i rise in support of the train act, h.r. 2401. this bill provides the commonsense approach that

addresses a series of e.p.a. regulations that will cost jobs and cripple our nation's economy. train requires the commission simply to studly the cumulative impact of e.p.a.'s regulations and delay two incredible legislation, the mact rules and the cross-state rules. these two rules' impacts would be enormous. they have been trying to building an 895 megawatt coal plant for years. it will increase our energy supply using environmental controls to reduce air emissions. it's a win-win. good jobs for kansas, it's good for the economy and good for the environment. but now this project is in serious jeopardy because of these e.p.a. rules. the kansas attorney general has filed a lawsuit in the d.c. court of appeals trying to slow down and stop this rule because it will be physically impossible for kansas utility to comply with these rules. the problems for kansas are the same problems all americans

face, because of e.p.a.'s refusal to consider the real economic costs of these regulations. passing this train act saves jobs. let's do it. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from hawaii seek recognition? without objection. >> mr. speaker, let's talk about things that we can agree on. we can agree that the greatest challenge that faces all of us today is to stop the erosion of public confidence. ms. hanabusa: we can also agree that public confidence is critical because that's what's really going to kick start our economy. we can also agree that when you look and you talk to the people in our various districts what are they most concerned about? they are concerned about jobs because what does jobs represent? it represents the security that they need to provide for the most important part of their life, their families. we could also agree that if there's a plan out there that can add to g.d.p. 2%, add at

least two million jobs, cut employment by 1% that that's a plan we should consider. we can also agree that we want to put teachers, firefighters, first responders back to work. and that we want to build infrastructure so we can be the greatest country that we have always been. and we can also agree that we want tax cuts for employees and employers. so what's the problem, mr. speaker? is it the problem that this is the president's plan? that shouldn't be the problem. let's get it together and let's work for the people of this great nation. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back.

for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days 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 house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 2401. will the gentleman from illinois, mr. dold, kindly take the chair.

the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 2401, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: analyses of the cumulative and incremental impacts of certain rules and actions of the environmental protection agency, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose on thursday, september 22, 2011, pursuant to house resolution 406, all time for general debate had expired. pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in bit shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. no amendment to the committee amendment is in order except those printed in the house report 112-213, each such amendment may be offered overwhelm in the order printed in the report by a member

designated in the report. shall be considered as read. shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to an amendment. and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in house report 112-213. for what purpose does the gentleman from vermont seek recognition? mr. welch: i seek recognition to offer the amendment of mr. rush as his designee. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1, printed in house report number 112-213, offered by mr. welch of vermont. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 406, the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch, and a member opposed will each control

five minutes the chair recognizes the gentleman from vermont. mr. welch: thank you, mr. speaker. this amendment makes needed changes to the economic analysis mandated by the underlying bill. but fundamentally this bill itself we believe is an assault on the clean air act. not really a bill that requires a study. the legislation began in committee as a bill to require a new study on the economic impacts of e.p.a. rules to cut air pollution. at that point the bill simply requires the burdensome and redundant study of e.p.a. rules and did not affect any of the rules it proposed to examine. it changed in committee. the republican members amended it to indefinitely delay implementation of two very key rules to reduce power plant pollution. the cross state air pollution rule and the mercury and air

toxic rules. now, mr. whitfield has proposed amending the bill to further eliminate those rules altogether and prevent e.p.a. from being able to clean up power plants in the future. mr. latta has offered an amendment to force e.p.a. to listen to polluters' accountants rather than scientists when setting air quality standards. this bill is now a direct attack on the heart of the clean air act. that act has saved thousands of lives. the bill still contains the study on the economic impact of e.p.a. rules, although i'm not sure why it would do that. the rush amendment, mr. speaker, would make the study required by this legislation a little less biased and a little more useful. the bill creates a new government bureaucracy to create a complicated study of e.p.a. rules, it's not necessary. in addition, the bill ensures that the final study will be unbalanced and inherently

biased. it's one thing to take a hard look at regulations, it's another thing to cook the outcome of that examination. the rush amendment ensures that the committee will look at both the cost and the benefits of e.p.a. rules. the bill supporters originally presented this bill as a means to gather more facts on key e.p.a. rules, as amended by the republicans, it's increasingly clear that the facts really don't matter. i support the rush amendment, but i remain staunchly opposed to final passage of the bill. i refresh. -- i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? mr. whitfield: to claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. whitfield: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in opposition to this amendment for a number of reasons. first of all, the train act, the underlying bill we are talking about here, applies to 14 regulations of e.p.a.

it does not delay in any way any of those regulations except for two, and that's referred to as the utility mact and the cross state air transport rule. and even on those two acts, it only plays the cross state transport rule by three years and it delays the utility mact by one year. and the whole purpose of the train act is simply to look more closely at the cumulative impact on jobs, on electricity prices, on american competitiveness in the global marketplace, and e.p.a. has done a very thorough job on most of these regulations in calculating benefits. but they have not looked closely in all of them on cost. and under the train act, we are simply asking this independent

government agency to look at all cost and all benefits. another reason that i would speak in opposition to this amendment, one of the things that requires this independent body to do is to examine the effect on green energy companies. now, there's nothing in the train act that's selecting one industry to give some favorable treatment to. and that's particularly what this amendment does. and i might add on green energy the green energy industry has received increases of 153% of subsidies. subsidies have increased 153% for green energy. so i don't think that they should be receiving some special benefit from this rush amendment, and that's why i would oppose it and i would ask all members to oppose it. i retain the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from vermont. mr. welch: how much time do i have? the chair: 2 1/2 minutes. mr. welch: thank you. i want to talk a little bit about the clean air act, mr. speaker. you know, we have power plants that are coleburning and emit toxic into the air. that's not in dispute. but the attack on any kind of regulation says that if there is any expense associated with providing health and safety to the people downwind of the polluting emitting power plants, they are on their own. they've got to breathe that air and it's their problem. now, i live in vermont. the coleburning plants, the air -- the coal burning plants, the air all comes and falls in vermont. the clean air act has had tremendous success in actually cleaning up some of these power plants. now, of course there's some expense associated with burning

clean, but there's also, as you know, mr. speaker, enormous cost associated were burn -- with burning dirty. it may be cheaper for the power plant owner, and it might even be cheaper for the electricity users of that power plant, but the cost associated with the health, safety, the environmental impacts are simply offloaded by the polluter on to the innocent members of society who are downwind of the mercury spewing, polluting plants. sure, we can have some debate about what should be the proper expense, but should we really have a debate that is illegitimate for the federal government to take actions, regulatory and legislative, that protect the health and safety of innocent people? the law of physics has air carrying pollutants going in the direction that nature sends it. and that means everybody downwind gets affected.

it's really astonishing that in the legitimate effort to ask legitimate questions about whether a regulation is serving a useful purpose, whether the regulation achieves the intended goal, whether there's a way to achieve that goal at less expense, those are all fair questions, but to abolish the regulations altogether, to suggest that everybody who will be affected by mercury pollution has no remedy and cannot look to the federal government to provide them with some protection for their health? for the health of their children? that's extreme. and it's unacceptable. and it's expensive. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. whitfield: may i ask how much time i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman from kentucky has three minutes. mr. whitfield: i would say first to the distinguished gentleman that while we are delaying this

cross state air transport rule, we have in effect today the cair act which has been in effect since 2005. and e.p.a. itself has said that this act that is currently controlling the crosswind interstate wind movements will redues sulfur dioxide and emissions by 57% and 53% respectively. and so that regulation is still going to be in effect. and i would also remind everyone that e.p.a. when they implemented the care act pointed out that it would have $100 billion in health benefits each year preventing 17,000 premature deaths, 22,000 nonfatal heart attacks, 12,300 hospital emissions, 1.7 million lost work

days, 500,000 lost school days. and it goes on to all of the benefits. so simply because a court invalidated the cair act because e.p.a. was looking at a regional program rather than a state by state program does not mean that this is not an effective regulation that's in existence today. and even the -- many environmental groups actually supported e.p.a. in opposing the effort to invalidate the cair act. e.p.a. made strong arguments that the cair act was adequate. . so all we're trying to do is eliminate this cross-state rule which as i say respected independent analysis have indicated that these two rules, utility mact and the cross state air transport rule will have a net effect of a loss of

1.4 million jobs and increased electric utility bills by 23%. now, at a time when our economy is so weak, when we're trying to create jobs, we simply want to look at it more closely. give e.p.a. a little bit more time, and that's all that we're trying to do with our act and that's why we're very much opposed to the rush amendment. and does the other side have time remaining? >> no. mr. whitfield: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by evment the gentleman from vermont. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. >> mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: the gentleman asks for a recorded vote.

pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by vermont will be postponed. it's now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-213. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. mcnerney: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-213 offered by mr. mcnerney of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 406, the gentleman from california, mr. mcnerney, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. mcnerney: mr. speaker, i rise to offer a simple and straightforward amendment to h.r. 2401. my amendment will help make sure that the reports required by h.r. 2401 are fair, not skewed, to support the majority's favorite talking points. it's critical that the reports look at the beneficial

consequences of environmental protection, including the fact that good environmental policies create jobs in the clean energy sector. i reject the argument that the majority is making here today. contrary to what we heard members of the majority say over and over during today's debate, policies that protect our environment also create jobs. they create good family waged jobs. before i came to congress i spent my career as a clean energy engineer. i designed windmills that overlook inside district in california. and i helped create jobs in the clean energy sector. to my great distress, i watched those jobs get shipped overseas to many places like germany. i'm committed to creating jobs and seeking more goods produced right here in america, although i'm confident that every -- a

goal i'm confident every member of this chamber chairs. policies that promote a clean healthy environment creates new incentives for investments in clean energy, creating thousands of jobs, supporting new industries, promoting exports and benefiting public health. my amendment simply ensures that we include the job-creating efforts of environmental policies on the clean energy sector in the reports provided by this bill. i'm confident that a fair, unbiased assessment of environmental rules will show that they create good family wage clean energy jobs. i hope the majority will accept this amendment. thank you, mr. speaker, and i'll reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? whitney pavlik to claim time in on -- mr. whitfield: to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

mr. whitfield: while i respect the gentleman from california, i'd remind everyone that in his 2008 convention speech, barack obama promised to create five million green energy jobs, and those jobs have not been created. subsidies went from $5.1 billion to $14.7 billion. wind, for example, led -- they received a 10-fold increase, that industry, from $476 million to $4.986 billion. solar subsidies increased by more than a factor of six from $179 million to $1.134 billion. and then we know that over the department of energy there are loan guarantee programs.

and as this article in "the new york times" stated, they gave an example of one company that had received $300 million to create green technology jobs. they end up creating 150 jobs at a cost of $2 million per job. now, coal, nuclear and natural gas still provide about 95%, 96% of the electricity produced in america, and the reason we oppose this amendment is it also gives special treatment to green energy. and i think it's quite obvious that government programs favor green energy right now as illustrated by the increase in the renewable subsidies available to them so our position is when the three basic -- coal, nuclear and natural gas, are providing the

base load to create the industrial growth of this country by providing low cost electricity, we do not need this amendment to instruct this independent body to look at specifically the impact on green energy exporting companies, and for that reason i would oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. mcnerney: mr. speaker, i don't dispute the facts of my good friend from kentucky. basically what i'm asking is we make sure that these jobs are counted, that they're not ignored or looked over, which is what i'm afraid will happen. at this time i yield two minutes to my colleague from oregon. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you. i want to emphasize what my friend from california just said. what the amendment does is to make sure that you add to the analysis the impact on clean

energy jobs and clean energy companies. why wouldn't you want to make sure explicitly that that is a part of the analysis? i invite you to come to portland, oregon, to look where we have an emerging wind energy -- the wind energy capital. it's making a lot of difference in our community and across america. wind energy, for instance, is one of the -- is the fastest growing in terms of installed capacity. costs are going down. it is an energy that makes a difference to the economy -- what my colleague from california's urging is to make sure that it's a part of the study. you know, we don't -- it's unfortunate that we're to this point this morning anyway. we started this odyssey in 1990 with the clean air act. after eight years of study at e.p.a., the conclusion was this is a real problem, and the

clinton administration and the e.p.a. started the rulemaking process. the bush administration drugged their feet until 2005 with an inadequate response that was thrown out by the courts. finally now after 21 years we're starting to move forward with something that wouldn't take effect until 2015. and in the meantime there would be many jobs that would be available in construction, in clean technology. at least -- at least -- at least, i hope you're not successful in stretching this out further to delay action, but at the minimum you would think you would want to have a full picture. look at the people like in my community that are producing products, making it available for export. support this amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired.

the gentleman from california has 45 seconds remaining. mr. mcnerney: thank you, mr. speaker. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: does the gentleman from california have the right to close? does he have the right to close? the chair: the gentleman from kentucky has the right to close. mr. whitfield: well, do you have anything else to say on the issue, mr. mcnerney? mr. mcnerney: i just want to emphasize, i experienced job creation in the green energy sector. i've seen hundreds if not thousands of jobs created. i want to make sure we count those jobs. i don't want this to be a white wash or anything like that. it's important that this analysis be open and fair and balanced. that's all we want on this side. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields the balance. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: i say to the gentleman, we all recognize the importance of green energy. there isn't one of these regulations that we are looking

for an analysis that has any negative impact on green energy. in fact, every one of these regulations will help green energy. and as i said, the government's philosophy right now is to do everything possible for green energy. more subsidies, studies going on all the time on the impact on jobs. and for that reason we don't -- we do not feel that this amendment would -- is necessary and would ask the members to oppose the amendment. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the no, sir have it. the -- the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. mcnerney: mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays on this. the chair: the gentleman asks for a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by california -- the gentleman from california will be postponed.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in the house report 112-213. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from wisconsin rise? ms. moore: mr. chair, i rise to offer an amendment that's at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 112-213 offered by ms. moore of wisconsin. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 406, the gentlewoman from wisconsin, ms. moore, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from wisconsin. ms. moore: and i do thank you, mr. chair. my amendment would simply ensure that low-income communities and that the public health generally of all americans are considered in the bill's section on studies about the impact of this regulation. i offer this amendment, mr. chair, in hopes that we might

have an honest debate, a debate that is inclusive of those most affected by the very policies that my colleagues are attempting to tie up and in two cases outright prevent. let me be frank with you, mr. chair. i grew up -- i was born in 1951, and i grew up gasping for breath most of my life. lived in an industrial city, a manufacturing city in milwaukee, wisconsin, and i had my first asthma attack shoveling coal into a furnace and then gasping for breath because of the smog that was generated from manufacturing. thank god for the 1990 clean air act amendment. we've seen tremendous health benefits over the years, thanks to the work of the environmental protection agency, and not only the bureaucracy but the courts that have made sure that deadlines

are enforced and not simply thrown to the curbs. according to a recent e.p.a. study, we've had substantial and hard scientific proof that protecting our nation's air quality from hazardous pollutants is a very substantial benefit. in 2010, the reductions in fine particle in ozone pollution from the 1990 clean air act amendment prevented more than 160,000 cases of premature mortality, 100,000 heart attacks, 13 million lost work days and 1.7 million asthma attacks. we do know that the clean air act regulations by the e.p.a., especially helps low-income communities who are often impacted by environmental injustices and other vulnerable populations. a recent two-year-old study by the university of

massachusetts, the university of southern california analyzed 300 different metropolitan areas and ranked them based on how pollution affects low-income and minority communities. this study cited that air pollution is unevenly distributed within states as well as within them. a growing body of research has demonstrated that people of color and low-income communities often face the greatest environmental hazards, and the area that i represent in the metro milwaukee area came in the top 10 cities in both cases. . mr. chairman, i just would like to add my own personal experience to the body of this research. and mr. chair, i would like to reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? mr. whitfield: to claim time in opposition to the amendment.

the clerk: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. whitfield: i would like to he are mind everyone once again that the train act is applied to 14 regulations coming out of e.p.a. and it's seldom that congress intervenes in these regulations, but there are so many of these and the cost of jobs and the cost of buying the equipment and the lack of achieveability of many of them to -- achievibility of many of them to meet the criteria is the reason we do this. i would remind everyone that we do not delay in any way any of these regulations except two of them. and i would say to the gentlelady from wisconsin that i agree with her. many of the communities that would most suffer high energy prices and unemployment as a result of the e.p.a. regulations are those communities that rely on affordable, reliable, coal-fired energy to light their homes and run their businesses. these communities are the least able to afford increased

unemployment, increased energy prices, and the illness that results from unemployment and being unable to afford fuel. and i might say that when the e.p.a. does their analysis, they never look at the effect of the health of the children of the people working in the coal mines and the utility plants who lose their jobs. and there is an impact on it. but i think this is a good amendment that would help the analysis and i would like to ask -- tell the lady from wisconsin we would be happy to accept this amendment. ms. moore: you would be happy to accept it, you say? mr. whitfield: yes, ma'am. ms. moore: i do thank the gentleman for accepting this amendment. do i repeat that the two -- i do repeat that the two parts this bill had formally included part to your accepting my amendment would have made it impossible for states that wanted clean

air, they would be -- find themselves helpless because it would basically eviscerate their ability to prevent pollution from crossing the border. i do appreciate the gentleman accepting my amendment and with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. mr. whitfield: i would like remind the gentlelady a that the cair act is still in effect, as i read earlier, all the benefits are there that the e.p.a. said would be there. and it significantly reduced emissions. we are not doing anything to change that existing law. thank you for making the amendment and as i said we feel like it will really help on this study. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from wisconsin. those in favor signify by saying aye. those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, the aye vs. it. the amendment --

ms. moore: i would note there is not a quorum. i would like to ask for a vote on this amendment. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from wisconsin will be postponed. mr. whitfield: did the gentlelady understand to say we would accept the amendment? the chair: the lady has asked for a recorded vote. ms. moore: thank you. the chair: it is now in order to consider amendment number 4, printed in house report 112-213, for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? mrs. capps: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in house report number 112-213, offered by mrs. capps of california. mrs. capps: pursuant to house resolution 406, the gentlewoman from california, miss capps, and

a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. mrs. capps: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. it's clear that the goal of the train act is not simply to study e.p.a. standards. the goal of the majority is to block the efforts of e.p.a. to cut mercury and other toxic pollution from dirty power plants. that's dangerous and it's misguided. the research is clear, unless e.p.a. enforces these standards, there will be more premature deaths, more heart and asthma attacks, more hospital and emergency room visits. up until recently i thought that i was safe from this pollution. i don't live next door to a power plant. i live near the coast of the pacific island -- ocean. but i learned that you don't need to live near dirty power plant to be exposed to its harmful effects. i received test results this summer showing that i have an unsafe level of mercury in my

body, and i'm not alone. tens of millions of american women of childbearing age and their children are at risk from mercury and other toxins that are released into our air each and every year. every year hundreds of thousands of babies are exposed to mercury. mercury exposure can cause learning disabilities, developmental delays, and other developmental problems. we owe it to our children to clean up toxic mercury pollution. and that's why i'm offering this amendment. the amendment would simply require that this committee designate the analysis of the true costs of including health effects in blocking e.p.a.'s lifesaving clean air safeguards. these costs are clear to mothers and grandmothers across the nation. brain damage, developmental problems, infant deaths. support my amendment. i reserve the balance of my

time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? mr. whitfield: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the clerk: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. whitfield: all of us certainly are concerned about impacts on children. one of the problems that we have with this amendment is that when you try to determine specifically what causes a birth defect, for example, there are lots of different reasons. folic acid is a b vitamin. taking supplements before getting pregnant and early pregnancy lowers the risk of having a baby with serious birth defects. drippinging alcohol increases the likelihood of serious birth defects. smoking. women who are obese when they get pregnant have a higher risk of having a baby with serious birth defects. poor control of diabetes in pregnant women increases the chance of having a birth defect. so there are lots of different reasons and it's difficult to set out a causal reason.

i would say to the gentlelady from california, who we know is genuinely concerned about these health issues and has distinguished her career by raising them frequently, the e.p.a. did extensive analysis of the health benefits of all these rules with the exception of greenhouse gas. they didn't do any study on anything there. but -- so we have a lot of information about the health benefits. as far as the mercury issue, i would say to the gentlelady that the utility mact, e.p.a. itself has said that this would reduce mercury by such a small amount that it would represent only .004% of the total claimed benefits of the rule. and the remaining 99.996% would be due to particulate matter reduction. and i would also remind the

gentlelady that the department of energy and other groups have indicated that 99% of mercury deposits in the u.s. do not come from utility companies, but they originate from nature and from foreign industrial sources in which the wind brings them to the u.s. so we believe that there's adequate information on health benefits. and furthermore, the train act does ask the independent body to look at benefits, can be health, whatever, and cost. so for that reason we would oppose the gentlelady's amendment. mrs. capps: i would like to -- the chair: the gentlelady from california. mrs. capps: power plants are the biggest industrial source of mercury in the united states, and i believe that the remarks of the chairman subcommittee -- chairman of the energy committee underscore the very reason that we should have the studies of

the health effects included in the study requested by the train act. and i am pleased to yield now to my colleague from oregon, the champion of livable cities, a minute, to speak on this topic. mr. blumenauer: i appreciate the gentlelady's courtesy. i appreciate your offering this amendment. my friends on the other side of the aisle can't have it both ways. there has been a lot of study. for heaven's sakes, e.p.a. has already estimated cost of compliance less than $1 billion, and the savings to americans from lives saved, health care costs devoided, and days of work and school not missed between 120 and 2 $280 billion. this is a part of the study effort that has been going on for 20 years. we had hoped that on the 25th anniversary of the clean air act in 2015 we would probably have full compliance.

and yet we are quibbling here about things that e.p.a. has been unable to monetize like a birth defect, but for heaven's sakes it's serious. in addition to the hundreds of billions that they can monetize. this is, i think, unfortunate that if this approach is approved, that will enable the chinese to -- will enable the chinese to get ahead of us again. remember i put in the record last night that -- the page of the chinese daily where they are moving ahead to reduce emissions. they are willing to incur the costs because of the health benefits. but it's not enough for my friends on the other side of the aisle to go ahead after 25 years. thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: does the gentlelady from california have any time left?

the chair: the gentlelady from california has one minute. mrs. capps: may i ask how much time is left? the chair: the gentleman from kentucky has 2 1/2. the gentlewoman from california has one. mr. whitfield: we don't have any other speakers. so i would wait for the gentlelady to close. mrs. capps: i'm happy to yield a minute to my colleague from florida, a mother of three young children, miss debbie wasserman schultz. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. wasserman schultz: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my colleague, congresswoman lois capps, and in opposition to the underlying bill. the majority's latest assault on clean air and public health. i'd like to thank congresswoman capps and all my colleagues who have spoken in opposition to this bill which puts the held of all americans, especially our children, at great risk. this amendment simply requires the recognition of the very real health consequences of air pollution. for example, curbing mercury pollution will protect children and mothers from toxins that damage developing brains. when this amendment the required report must assess the effect on birth and developmental defects

and infant mortality rates caused by the delay. what's wrong with that? who could be opposed to that? for such a small additional effort, this assessment would provide crucial information affect the health of all fements. as a mother of three young children whose health is among my greatiers concerns, my urge my colleagues who are parents and grant parents to consider the impact of this bad bill. delaying the standards will have serious consequences on their children and grandchildren. remember that we are their first line of defense in this world. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this good amendment and opposing the underlying bill. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: i would remind everyone once again that we are talking about 14 regulations. we are not delaying 12 of them in any way. we are asking for further analysis of two of them. and for that reason i would oppose the amendment. and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yield back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from

california. those in favor signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mrs. capps: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 5 printed in house report 112-213. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5, printed in house report number 112-213, offered by mr. kin zinger of illinois -- mr. kinzinger of illinois. the chair: the member from illinois, mr. kinzinger, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. mr. kinzinger: i want to thank my colleague from texas, mr.

gonzalez, for co-authoring this amendment with me to h.r. 2401, the train act. it's an important bipartisan amendment that hits directly on what americans, particularly my constituents in illinois, are facing every day. the high cost of gasoline. later this year it is expected that the e.p.a. will promulgate rules on gasoline refiners mandating they lower sulfur levels and vapor pressure by 70%. this would be even further below the already low levels mandated in 2004. . they lowered sulfur in gasoline by 70%. it could force refineries in the u.s. to slash their gasoline production by up to 14%, leaving the united states even more dependent on foreign sources of oil. our amendment would require the e.p.a. to just to study the economic costs of these new field requirements. before delivering what could be a devastating blow to the customer and to our economy, the e.p.a. should first provide data to show lowering the

sulfur content will actually achieve cost-effective real emissions reductions in air quality and health and welfare benefits. americans are fed up with the volatility in the gasoline markets. while we may not be able to control the price of oil in the global market, we can control the costs of regulations in our fuel. every dollar that's taken out of the taxpayer dollar due to new regulation is a dollar that's not going to refuel the american economy. we need commonsense regulations and we need to know the impacts of regulations on families and businesses before they go into effect. this amendment a commonsense approach to ensure americans gets the cost worthy benefits. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and at this time it's my honor to yield two minutes to the co-author of the amendment, mr. gonzalez. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. gonzalez: first off, i extend my thanks to my colleague from illinois to join me in co-sponsoring what i believe is a very important

amendment. we offer this amendment because we have concerns with e.p.a.'s intent to proceed with a tier three rulemaking which would establish new fuel specification standards without justifying these -- with the sufficient data that has already been called to be conducted under a study in a previous bill. in 2007 congress included a provision in the energy independence and security act of 2007 that directed e.p.a. to study and implement fuel changes to negate any detrimental air quality impact resulting from the renewable fuels standard. e.p.a. has not conducted this required study. i'm concerned that e.p.a. may be moving too quickly with tier three regulations. e.p.a. should complete the study first and provide for adequate comment and feedback from stakeholders before proceeding with a proposed rule. any proposed changes to gasoline sulfur content and vabor pressure should be backed

by sound data. these reductions must be justified because they have real costs. i have concerns about the effects these new regulations could have on refiners. thee costs could result in decreased gasoline supplies and possible refinery closures, both of which could undermine our nation's energy security. our amendment simply adds any proposed tier three rulemaking to the list of regulations where e.p.a. must conduct additional analysis as outlined in train. this additional study will ensure that all of the costs and impacts are known before e.p.a. proceeds with its proposal. i hope my colleagues in the house can support this straightforward amendment. it simply calls on an agency to simply do that which it was directed to do years ago before proceeding and not to basically proceed before you have the vital information on which to base some very important regulations.

i yield back and i thank my colleague. the chair: the gentleman yields back. mr. kinzinger: thank you. i reserve. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? mr. rush: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. rush: even if this amendment passes to improve the study of e.p.a. rules, that will not address the underlying problems with this bill. proponents of this bill implies that it simply requires e.p.a. to study the cumulative impact of e.p.a. rules. that is false. what began as a bill to study e.p.a. rules has morphed into a bill to actually block the e.p.a. rules. in fact, the bill blocks and definitely delays two of the most important air pollution rules in decades. first, the bill blocks the e.p.a. from finalizing the

proposed rule to cut toxic air pollution were power plants which are the most -- is the largest source of toxic mercury pollution in our nation. mercury is dangerous in small amounts and mercury can damage the developmenting brains of infants and our children. the proposed rule will prevent more than 90% of mercury and coal from being emitted into the air. the rule also renews, finds particle emissions -- producing tremendous widespread health benefits. for each year this bill delays mercury and toxic air standard

rule, it will will add 17,000 premature deaths, 120,000 cases of asthma and 850 names when people will miss work due to illness. but that's not all. the bill also blocks the e.p.a. from implementing the cross state air pollution rule to require 27 states to reduce power plant emissions to pollute the air and downwind states. each year of delay and implementing this rule will produce up to an additional 22,000 of premature deaths, 4.8 million names when people will miss work or soon due to

illness. the benefit of these rules far exceeds the costs. for the cross-state rule alone, it will outweigh the rule costs by up to 350-1. the bill creates a new government bureaucracy to produce a study of e.p.a. rules. but this study is just a trojan horse. to disguise the true spent of this legislation, to block and to delay e.p.a. rules to protect public health from air pollution. the bill that emerged from committee already is a terrible bill, but it promises to get

even worse, significantly worse as my republican colleagues amend this horrible and horrendous bill that's before us. mr. whitfield himself has offered an amendment to completely nullify the two power plant rules and force e.p.a. to start -- to start from scratch. according to the e.p.a. administrator -- an administrator, these changes could prevent the e.p.a. from ever reissuing these same rules. deny them in the future, far into the future from ever reissuing these same rules.

mr. latta has offered an amendment that requires the e.p.a. to prioritize costs on public health -- national air quality standards. these standards form the foundation for why we have been able to clean up air pollution. and mr. latta wants to point out -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. rush: i urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. the chair: the gentleman from illinois. mr. kinzinger: mr. chairman, can i inquire how much time i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. kinzinger: i yield to my good friend from texas, mr. green. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. green: it would further reduce sulfur levels. a 70% change from today's

already low standards while decreasing the gasoline volatility. they are expecting a proposed rule by the end of this year. the problem that we have is that in the energy act -- independence and security act of 2007 section 209 required e.p.a. to conduct a study 18 months after the enactment to determine whether the renewable fuels required by the section would adversely impact air quality and not later than three years after that enactment. the problem is e.p.a. has not finished that study and we require them to conduct even before these new regulations. now they're moving forward. the rule with a half baked study and that's why i support this amendment through the train act, mr. speaker. this is to make sure we don't get the cart in front of the horse and we need to have that study finished before the e.p.a. moves forward with that sulfur criteria. and that's why i support my colleague from illinois, my colleague from texas' amendment. and i urge my colleagues to support it. i yield back my time.

the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is -- is agreed to. mr. rush: i ask for a roll call vote on this amendment. the chair: the gentleman asks for a roll call vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by offered by the gentleman from illinois will be postponed. the committee will rise informally to receive a message. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has passed without amendment h.r. 2883, cited as the child and family services improvement and innovation act.

the speaker pro tempore: the committee will resume its sitting. the chair: the committee will be in order. it is now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in the house report 112-213. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. dent: for the purpose of offering an amendment which is at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in house report 112-213 offered by mr. dent of pennsylvania. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 406, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. dent, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. dent: thank you, mr. speaker. this amendment simply adds the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants, neshap to the covered rules within h.r. 2401.

reasonable efforts to limit the emissions of hazardous pollutants by cement manufacturing facilities is most certainly important, but e.p.a. has effective and efficient regulations. these neshap rules will be costly for domestic cement manufacturers to meet, severely jeopardizing their ability of their basic industry to remain competitive with foreign importers. including neshap in h.r. 2401 will allow the loss of american jobs and the weakening of domestic manufacturers' global competitiveness to become key considerations during the completion of the rulemaking process. we must understand the impacts of these rules on jobs and our manufacturing competitiveness. now, some simple basic facts about the american cement industry. i represent the largest cement producing industry in america,

along with the cement caucus. this employs about 13,000 americans, 4,000 of those jobs have been lost since 2008. there are 97 cement plants in america producing today. just about -- there's a presence in nearly every state as well, i might add. cement is an absolutely essential basic industry in american manufacturing. it plays a major role in the development of our nation's infrastructure. and i think we need to better understand some of this background, too, regarding these neshap rules. neshap, of course, amend's e.p.a. mact and performance standards for cement kilns. this is utilizing an unrealistic pollutant-by-pollutant approach for mact. mact directs industries to the technology used by the best performers in a certain industry sector. it has a range of characteristics applicable to different pollutants without determining if it is feasible

or even possible for any one kiln to comply with all of these standards. the truth is there's not a single cement manufacturing plant in america that can comply with all these standards simultaneously. so the chemical composition, too, of key cement inputs such as limestone, vary from region to region. and consequently, neshap will have disproportionate impacts on different locations across the country, based on the type of limestone being used in the process of manufacturing cement. and we should talk, too, about the impacts on the domestic cement industry. $2.2 billion worth of compliance costs and that's an e.p.a. estimate. $3.4 billion in compliance costs, that's the industry estimate. we're in the billions. there are numerous plants. there are estimates from 12 to 18 of these plants across the country that may be idle or

permanently shut down and these are massive facilities, tremendous capital investment. . we believe the national price for portland cement may increase by 5.4%. domestic production will fall by 11%. thousands of high quality jobs could or would be lost. one major domestic cement producer's already publicly announced that due to other regulatory uncertainties of this neshap and other pending regulations, is halting construction of a new state-of-the-art cement kiln, suspending over $350 million in new investment and the creation of over 1,500 construction jobs. with respect to global emissions what will this mean? the reduction of domestic production of cement will naturally lead to an increase in our nation's reliance on foreign cement. i can assure you those foreign producers are not going to be complying with a neshap rule. this is going to shift overseas production, likely increase

global greenhouse emissions in uwes. first, transpropertying -- transporting cement from the markets will require tremendous amounts of fossil fuels substantially increasing the amount of carbon elited per years. and foreign suppliers will be manufactured in countries with little protections. neshap and h.r. 2401 will help e.p.a. take into account the economic impact of its flawed regulations and more thorough economic analysis will lead to a better final rule. finally i want to say one thing, the federal spluss law is actually helping to finance the construction of a cement importation terminal in staten island, new york city, designed to re-- using a handful of money . pass this amount and pass the

underlying bill. mr. speaker, thank you. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. rush: i claim time in opposition for purposes of debate. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. rush: mr. speaker, many organizations are on record opposing the train act or opposing efforts to broaden rules from some of the country's dirtiest power plants. the american lung association, the american public health association, the american society, physicians for social responsibility, and asthma and allergy foundation of america, they all sent a letter to congress expressing their support for full implementation of the clean air act and impose

-- opposing all efforts to either delay or block progress towards continuing implementation of this vital law. the american public health association stated it opposes the train act because it, i quote again, is ill-conceived legislation that will permit the e.p.a. from protecting themselves from dangerous and deadly air pollution, end of quote. the national association of clean air agencies opposes this bill as well. nasa sent a letter expressing its concern that the train act, quote, would create regulatory delays that could lead to thousands of premature death. remove important regulatory rules upon which states and

localities depend. impose additional costs on government as well as small businesses. create regulatory uncertainty, causing job losses, and de-- cost-effective air pollution control program end of quote. representing millions of individual americans who believe that we are taking our environment strongly opposes this bill. all the efforts of clean air protections. the sierra club, national resources defense fund, environment america, the national society, the environmental defense fund, and the union of concerned scientists. they stated in a letter to congress saying, i quote,

sacrificing tens of thousands of american lives would not create more jobs. poisoning the air on our children and families we would not similarly -- stimulate the economy, end of quote. 00 sportsman organizations representing our nation's anglers that our natural resources support the e.p.a.'s effort to cut mercury pollution, and i quote them with these words, they strongly oppose any effort to whittle the clean air act, end of quote. the environmental network has been running radio ads expressing their opposition to efforts to block the mercury rule. mercury can damage the

development of the brain of citizens and children. causing learning disabilities. the president of this group stated, and i quote, we believe that mercury has a significant potential for hindering our children from developing a pure and wonderful life, end of quote. the obama administration strongly opposes the train act. the administration has threatened to veto this legislation if it ever reaches the president's desk. this is a quote from the obama administration, by blunting the e.p.a.'s ability to move forward with these two long overdue clean air act rules. end of quote.

americans don't support -- blocking efforts to reduce dangerous air pollutions from power plant. the widespread makes that perfectly clear. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to oppose this horrendous bill. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. those in favor signify by saying yoy. -- aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the aye vs. it. the amendment a greed -- ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. rush: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 7 printed in house report 112-213. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. hastings: thank you very

much, mr. speaker. i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7, printed in house report number 112-213, offered by mr. hastings of florida. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 406, the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: i thank you very much, mr. chairman. h.r. 2401 is a toxic bill that attempts to dismantle any government regulation to protect our nation's public health and environment. to set the stage for my brief remarks, let me cite two of the american pub lick, the executive order number 12866, which says

each agency shall assess both the cost and the benefits of the intended regulation and recognizing that some costs and benefits are difficult to quantify, propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its cost. we have been operating under that particular provision for substantial period of time. and quite frankly congress's decision was reference to the clean air act signed by president richard nixon in 1970 came about as a result of

continuing arguments from industry that cleaning up air pollution was too expensive or not feasible. this bill forbids the environmental protection agency from finalizing both mercury and toxic standards rules and importantly the cross state air pollution rule requiring coal-fired power plants without modern pollution controls to install controls, to reduce emissions of mercury and other toxic air polluters, fine paragraph particular lats, and the pollutants that cause smog and acid rain. in the rules committee i spoke about being in poland and

watching the pollution that was destroying the black forest in another country in germany. we have that take place in our state where one state is offering emissions that come down on another state's population. and therefore the cross state air pollution rule said that coal-fired power plants should install modern pollution controls. and guess what? 60% of them, including one of the largest producers of electricity in this country, exelon, in illinois, do favor these same rules that are being sought to be delayed. and they favor them for the reason that among other things it produced jobs and it has

cured the problems that have been reported by the american lung association and countless other organizations that favor the clean air act and are opposed to delaying further two particularly important measures that would allow for pollution to continue to be cleaned up. port everglades in florida, right outside my constituency, for all of the years i lived there, this coal power plant has been producing emissions. over the course of time, they have reduced those emissions. they have indicated they are going to do everything they can to meet the emission standards rather than sit up and try to oppose them because they recognize, one, that they do have all of the juice, if you can call electricity that, and in the final analysis those of

us that benefit from it are going to wind up paying more, but to pay more to make sure that children don't have asthma and to make sure that people don't have lung pollution and to make sure that lakes don't go dead from mercury or that fish don't have in them more mercury than they rightly should for food consumption, then i'm willing to pay more and i believe most americans are as well in order that we will have clean air. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? mr. whitfield: i speak in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. whitfield: i have great admiration for the gentleman from florida who is always eloquent in his remarks. and i would say he started off his support of his amendment by

saying that we are trying to dismantle any regulation. and i would like to remind everyone once again that this bill applies to 14 department -- e.p.a. regulations. we do not delay in any way, 12 of them. and on the other two we delay one of them -- both of them six months after the final report is due. . now, he had mentioned that exelon supported the new e.p.a. regulations. exelon is a company that we all admire and respect, but it's a nuclear energy company so there's nothing in these regulations that has any impact on them as far as i know. but all of these regulations are trying to drive the coal industry out of business that still provides 50% of all the electricity in america.

now, in the train act we simply ask this independent government agency, composed of obama administration appointees to examine the cumulative impact of all of these rules because e.p.a. has never been quite this aggressive. and i might add that the two rules that we ask to delay for further analysis, an independent research group said that the annualized costs would be almost $18 billion that utilities would have to spend to buy equipment that may not be able to even achieve the standards because the technology is not available. and the issue is not about mercury. the utilities do a great job of cleaning up mercury, and e.p.a. itself said its utility mact would only benefit the benefit

of the utility mact would be only .004%, attributable to mercury because 99% of mercury in our -- in america comes from nature and from outside other countries that the trade winds bring in to our country. so utilities don't object to the mercury part of this, but they're now adding hydrogen floride and hydrogen chloride of which there is no technology available to achieve the standard that e.p.a. is setting. so because of the costs, because of the unique vulnerability of our economy today, 12 of these regulations we don't delay at all. we just say, let's stave the cumulative impact, which the president asked in his executive order that he issued

recently. he said, we need to look at the cumulative impact. that's what we're trying to do so for that reason this amendment would basically say you don't look at the cumulative amendment. you just take the existing studies that have been made. and i would also say that e.p.a. didn't even do any study on the greenhouse gas which we're only trying to analyze the full cost of that. so for those reasons i would respectfully oppose the gentleman's amendment and would retain the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida has used all of his time so -- mr. whitfield: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. as many as are in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the nose have it and the amendment -- the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote and ask for support of my amendment. the chair: pursuant to clause 6

of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by offered by the gentleman from florida will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 8 printed in house report 112-213. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. connolly: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk and ask for its consideration. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in house report 112-213 offered by mr. connolly of virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 406, the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. connolly: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, deutsche bank, the biggest bank in europe, recently issued a report on global clean energy investment opportunities in which it stated, and i quote, countries with more t.l.c., transparency, longevity and certainty, in their climate policy frameworks

will attract more investment and build new clean industries technologies and jobs faster than their policy lagging counterparts, unquote. the train act is one more step in the wrong direction. by the same republican house which has held over 110 anti-environmental votes. this unprecedented assault on the environment has devastating consequences for our economy. as the deutsche bank report said, germany and china have emerged as global leaders in low carbon technologies and investment. the net effect is that while congress stumbles the u.s. stands to fall behind, unquote. this investor report from europe's largest bank identified several policy failures that are impeding job

growth here at home. first, congress' not established a carbon reduction target or required polluters to pay for the cost of greenhouse gas pollution. congress does not have a national renewable energy standard or even an energy efficient standard. the deutsche bank report notes that the lack of these regulations have actually forced investors to make investments elsewhere, including in china and other countries rather than here at home in america. as a result we have lost solar and other advanced technology market share to our competitors. my simple amendment to the train act establishes a simple process to identify policies that should be adopted and implemented by the united states to provide domestic job growth and to ensure that our nation is internationally competitive in the $5 trillion

global energy industry for clean energy technology, development and manufacturing. business leaders have urged congress to adopt both the regulatory framework and a system of incentives to spur clean energy job creation. in addition to the regulation that deutsche bank identified as supporting investment, they need public financing for clean energy. this month members of the american energy innovation council invested capitol hill to express their strong support for just that concept. this group included john dohr, former lockheed martin c.e.o., and bill gates of microsoft. the american innovation energy council recently issued a report which stated as business leaders we believe this current energy system is deficient in a way that causes serious harm to our economy, our national security and our environment. to correct these deficiencies

we must make a serious commitment to modernizing our energy system with cleaner and more efficient technologies. this republican house is an anchor that's dragging down the american economy. its continued obsession with austerity and opposition to any economic recovery programs including clean energy means america falls behind while china surges ahead. we cannot afford to let china and germany dominate industries such as clean technology. my simple amendment will establish a process to start restoring american leadership in this important sector for economic growth. rather than refueling commonsense standards, we need to focus on amendments like mine which support high-tech job growth. i ask my colleagues to support the amendment, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? mr. whitfield: to speak in opposition to the amendment.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. whitfield: while i have great regard for the gentleman from virginia, i must rise to oppose this amendment. in his 2008 convention speech, barack obama promised to create five million green energy jobs. the article in "the new york times" headlines, "where the jobs aren't," and the whole article talks about all the government money that's being spent to subsidize green energy today and they gave an example of one government program that provided $300 million to a company and they created 150 jobs at -- turns out to be a cost of $2 million for every job. the reason that solar and wind are not taking off is that they are too expensive and too inefficient. now, having said that, i recognize that they have a part in our economy. they have a part in producing

electricity, but they can never be the base load. that cannot be attained. we could not provide enough electricity without coal, nuclear and natural gas. now, this amendment gives special attention to the green energy field. and i would remind everyone once again that renewable energy subsidies increased over the last three years by 186% from $5 billion to $14 billion. renewables saw by far the largest increase in federal benefits. wind alone received a 10-fold increase in subsidies from $476 million to almost $5 billion. solar incapriced by more than -- let me just finish this one sentence. solar increased by a factor of

six from $179 million to $1.2 billion. so these industries can't work without government support, and i don't object the government supporting them, but they do not need to get even more special privilege from this amendment. and i'd be happy to yield to the gentleman. >> what -- mr. connolly: what would be the comparable number for oil and gas and coal in the united states? you talk about the growth trend but in absolute numbers, is it not true that actually the fossil fuels industry gets $70 billion a year? mr. whitfield: well, i can -- the direct expenditure for coal was $42 million last year. wind was $3 billion,556,000,000,000. i would tell you, oil and gas and coal are willing to give up all their subsidies if the green energy wants to give up

their subsidies because they're getting a lot more than anyone else. but at this point i would retain the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman retains. the gentleman from virginia. mr. connolly: i would inquire of the chair how much time is left on this side. the chair: the gentleman from virginia has one minute remaining. mr. connolly: i thank the chair. to conclude on this matter, you know, i find it very sad, and i have enormous respect for my colleague on the other side, but to oppose a simple study, to require that we look at the benefits of clean energy technology i find very troubling and that resistance sadly is going to impede american growth and competitiveness and is actually going to cost us jobs. there is no question in the coal industry in particular we've kind of reached a plateau. in fact, in the state of kentucky we've lost a lot of jobs relative to, say, 30 years

ago. whereas, as my colleague from massachusetts pointed out last night, in wind, in wind energy just in the last four years we're up to 80,000 jobs. it's a fast-growing, lucrative part of our economy. it's clean and it actually helps jobs concretely. that's a worthwhile thing to study if not invest in, and i regret the fact that the manager on the other side finds even a study something to be resisted. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: once again, i oppose the amendment. the green energy is getting every benefit possible from this administration, money, studies in every other way and will not be able to meet the base load of our electricity needs and therefore, unless we can continue to have low-cost electricity, we're not going to compete in the global

marketplace and we're going to continue to lose jobs. and this e.p.a. is making direct attacks against an industry. and for that reason i respectfully oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. connolly: mr. chairman, on that matter i would ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by offered by the gentleman from virginia will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 9 printed in house report 112-213. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9 printed in house report 112-213 offered by ms. jackson lee of

texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 406, the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much, mr. chairman. i rise today to support my amendment. i call my amendment, can we all get along. it is an amendment simply to ask that all of those who are impacted by this proposed legislation to have an expanded time to be able to present their views. . it is a can we all get along-type amendment because it is important to note, again, that those of us who come from different states whether it's illinois or texas recognize that the environmental protection agency and the clean air act were formulated under a bipartisan congress. signed, as my colleague reminded us, by president richard nixon,

republicans and democrats voted for the clean air act and the environmental protection agency 's jurisdiction. it's important to note that there is not only a value in what the e.p.a. does, but there are organizations such as the american lung association, americans for ethics society, physicians for social responsibility, american public health association, asthma andal letter gi foundation of america who need their input and are concerned about this legislation. mr. chairman, i would like at the appropriate time to submit this letter from those organizations into the record, please. the chair: without objection, so ordered. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much. so my concern as we move forward on the transparency and regulatory analysis is how much time is given for the public comment. my state in fact has been impacted for the lack of public comment. i believe that there are civilians who -- not businesses who should be protected and given the opportunity to have input. for example, it's important to note that the mercury and air toxic standard rule, which i

don't think my colleagues can in any way disway me from believing, has been the basis of preventing 11,000 heart attacks, 120,000 cases of aggregated asthma, 12,000 household emergency room visits, 11,000 cases of bronchitis, and 850,000 missed days. the idea of putting a superlayer over the already existing regulatory scheme to me sounds like we are adhering to the supercommittee concept which many of us by way of absolute necessity voted on during the debt ceiling debate. but we realize the responsibility of the pursestrings is in the united states house of representatives. well, the law has given authority to the e.p.a. and the clean air act as its authorizes aspect to be able to control and balance. i believe we should create jobs. but the question becomes whether

or not the train act in the format of adding another layer of review does that. or does it create another level of bureaucracy that we need -- neither want nor need? at the time these regulations were voted to create thousands of jobs, why would my colleagues propose a bill that would slow job growth. it has been 260 days and i think we should, as i started out, get along. try to create jobs, recognize the value of the e.p.a. find a way to be able to resolve the president's conflict on the prostate air pollution rule but not eliminate the authority and the oversight of the environmental protection agency. what i would say to my colleagues is that the e.p.a. has protected all of our constituents. therefore i think it's important to pass this amendment because it's about constituents. it's about constituents no matter what side of the aisle they are on. this is an amendment that moves the public public from 90 days to 120 days.

there may have been some who wanted to comment who could not comment because they did not have the amount of time. so i'd ask my colleagues to support this can we all get along amendment and i reserve my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? mr. whithfield: to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. whitfield: first i would like to say to the gentlelady from texas who does such a great job on all these issues that we do not intend in any way to remove any of the authority of e.p.a. to regulate the cross state transport rules. as a matter of fact, of the 14 rules that we are examining that e.p.a. has issued, 12 of them we do not delay in any way, and on the air transport rule, we simply go back to the original air transport rule which e.p.a. talked about all the marvelous benefits of it. e.p.a. defended it in court. the environmental groups

supported it. 67% and 53% reductions in so-2 and nox emissions. so that will remain in effect. and as far as the gentlelady's amendment we would be happy to accept it. because i think it's a good amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from texas. ms. jackson lee: let me indicate to the gentleman, first of all, i thank him for accepting the amendment and i conclude my remarks by saying that my asking for roll call vote is not in any way a reflection of my black of acceptance, but i am just so gratified for this time frame that i hope that the gentleman will encourage those to support the amendment and therefore let me say to the gentleman, i finish on this note, there is

some thought that we are putting another regulatory scheme, but i think the important point from my perspective is that there was value in richard nixon signed the bill on how do we find a way to make this work so that we save lives and create jobs. i think my amendment provides the opportunity for that kind of input. i thank the gentleman. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas. those in favor signify by saying aye. those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the gentlelady from texas. ms. jackson lee: roll call. the chair: friction, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 10 printed in house report 112-213. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek

recognition? mr. whitfield: speak in favor of my amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 10, printed in house report number 112-213, offered by mr. whitfield of kentucky. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 406, the gentleman from kentucky, mr. whitfield, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: thank you. it's already been stated today that the train act examines 14 e.p.a. regulations. on 12 of them we do not delay in any way, but we do ask for a study of the cumulative impact on jobs on american competitiveness, on the price of electricity and reliblingt of electricity. -- relinalt of electricity. we do that because we are at a fragile time of our economy. we are at a high unemployment,

unable to get out of it. in order to do it we have to have some certainty on these regulations. businesspeople tell us they are not investing right now because of uncertainty about health care. uncertainty about the new financial regulations, uncertainty about the plethora of e.p.a. regulations coming down the road. so although we don't touch 12 regulations, the two that we are concerned about and the reason we are concerned about them is that they are the most expensive ever issued by e.p.a. independent analysts indicated that there would be a net after including job gains, a net loss of almost 1.4 million jobs. so my amendment would do this. it would provide that the cross state air pollution rule has no legal force or effect. and it does direct e.p.a. to continue to apply the clean air interstate rule, which is in effect today.

and as i had indicated earlier e.p.a. when they adopted cair, they talked about the billions of dollars in health benefits, 17,000 premature deaths that they would prevent, 22,000 nonfatal heart attacks they would prevent, and i could go on and on and on. and e.p.a. defended the cair act in court. the environmental groups supported the cair act. so our air transport rules and regulations are still going to be in effect. and we simply say that for at least three years e.p.a. cannot change the cair act, but during that time a more detailed analysis of the cross state air pollution rule because of the enormous costs, enormous impact on jobs and so forth. the amendment also requires that the proposed utility maximum

achievable control technology rule has no legal force and effect. and that any subsequent utility mact rule be issued no sooner than one year after the study and call for in the train act. so we simply ask e.p.a. to repropose the utility rule. people are saying, oh, my gosh, if we don't have this utility rule in effect, mercury is going to doual of these horrible things -- do all of these horrible things. i would remind everyone once again, e.p.a. says 99% of mer curery in america comes from nature and from trade winds coming in interest other countries. and e.p.a. itself said utility mact benefits, mercury reductions, of that whole bill would be .004%. so i would also say utility companies have no problem with

mercury. they are doing a good job on that and they can do even better. but the two gases that they are asking them to regulate have never been regulated before. i had the name a while ago and can't remember them, but the technology is not available to meet the requirements of the utility mact. you are asking these companies to spend this money, provide this uncertainty, and -- so that's what my amendment does. it basically delays the implementation of utility mact. ask for reproposal and it also maintains the existing cair air transport rule. with that i retain the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman retains his time. -- the chair: the gentleman retains his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

mr. waxman: i rise in strong opposition to this whitfield amendment, mr. chairman. the amendment is objectionable from the standpoint of public health and the legislative process. throughout the debate on this bill, mr. whitfield has claimed that his bill just requires a study. and delays two rules for further analysis. the indefinite delay of these two rules is terrible for public health, but this amendment would be a disaster. because this amendment nullifies these two critical e.p.a. rules to cut air pollution from old dirty power plants by requiring them to install modern pollution technology. first, the e.p.a. amendment abolishes e.p.a. mercury air toxic proposal by requiring e.p.a. to start from scratch on a rule that's long overdue. there are two rules at stake. the e.p.a. mercury air toxic rule, which was proposed by

e.p.a., would prevent 17,000 deaths, 11,000 heart attacks, 120,000 cases of aggravated asthma, and 850,000 loss work days each year. -- lost work days each year. that doesn't even include the benefits that are harder to put a dollar figure on such as reducing toxic air pollution that can lead to birth defects and developmental delays. the e.p.a. rule would also prevent 91% of the mercury and burned coal from being emitted into the air. mercury is dangerous in tiny amounts. it's a powerful neuro toxin that can damage the developing brain leading to learning disabilities and developmental delays in children. while we heard about the delay in letting this rule go forward, that was in the bill, but this amendment he knee gates these benefits -- negates these benefits and assures the --

these power plants don't have to reduce their emission for at least seven years. the amendment also tosses aside the way e.p.a. has long been setting these emission limits for toxic air pollution for two decades. and it replaces it with an entirely new approach for power plants that is completely unworkable. it guarantees years of litigation. and according to the e.p.a. administrator, may well prevent e.p.a. from ever requiring power plants to clean up thirp mercury pollution. this isn't just a delay as we were told for further study, it may well lead to no rule ever being put in place to stop these mercury emissions that cause such terrible public health disasters. the whitfield amendment also nullifies the cross state air pollution rule which is designed to reduce emissions from power plants in downwind states.

this rule has tremendous health benefits. the e.p.a. cross state rule prevent 34,000 deaths, 15,000 heart attacks, 100,000 cases of aggravated asthma, and 1.8 million lost days of work each year. the whitfield amendment negates these benefits and ensures that power plants will not have to reduce their pollution for at least eight years. . but this rule will ensure it will never happen. the language in the amendment barring the alliance on modeling likely will result in e.p.a. from ever issuing another cross-state pollution rule to address ozone and particulate problems in the downwind states. these are two radical proposals, and they're coming to the floor without a single day of hearings in the energy and commerce committee.

the amendment's sponsored, mr. whitfield, is the chairman of the relevant subcommittee, but he didn't ask for a single day of testimony or debate on these proposals. instead, he took a bill that asked for a lot more analysis before rules go into effect and then just drop this amendment on that bill because it was a moving train. he didn't insist that the train act was requiring a study. he insisted it was only going to do a study and now is preventing them from implementing anything. today we have 10 minutes to debate whether this body should eliminate two critical e.p.a. rules that prevent premature death, asthma attacks and other respiratory diseases and fundamentally alter the clean air act. i find that inexcusable, both on the substance and the process. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment, and i reserve the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman has 30 seconds. mr. whitfield: 30 seconds. i was going to let this gentleman close but 30 seconds is not enough. i would just say that the two gases i was trying to think is hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride. these are the real problems in this utility mact, the lack of technology, the unacheefblet of the standards and that's why -- unachieveability of the standards and that's why this amendment is asking that the implementation be delayed for three years of this air transport rule. and with that i would urge members to support my amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from kentucky. those in favor say aye will signify by saying aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, i ask for a vote of the yeas and nays, a roll call vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by offered by the gentleman from kentucky will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 11 printed in house report 112-213. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? mr. latta: mr. speaker, amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 11 printed in house report 112-213 offered by mr. latta of ohio. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 406, the gentleman from ohio, mr. latta, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from ohio. mr. latta: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to urge my colleagues to support my amendment to h.r. 2401. this amendment should be one of the most noncontroversial

a.p.a. related votes because it doesn't appeal any e.p.a. regulations. it doesn't block the e.p.a. from doing anything. it simply requires the e.p.a. administrator to consider the implementation costs and feasibility of complaints when setting national ambient air quality standards. we all want clean air. the clean air act requires the e.p.a. to review these standards in five-year intervals and make revisions or set new standards if appropriate. under current law the e.p.a. administrator is forbidden from taking the economic consequences of these rules under consideration when setting these standards which means every five years the e.p.a. is required to create new regulations. but does not have the legal authority to consider how they will affect the economy. this approach to regulation is a contributing factor to why unemployment numbers refuse to budge in many parts of our country and we have millions of americans still looking for

jobs. last year the e.p.a. decided to volunteer reviews for ozone despite being a full three years away from the clean air act requirements in 2013. the standards they discussed would have a devastating effect on my home state of ohio, putting every one of the 33 counties monitored into a state of nonattainment status as well as over 85% of the other counties monitored nationwide. states and localities in nonattainment required meet expansive regulatory requirements, more stringent requirements. fortunately, president obama realized the urgency of this situation and asked the e.p.a. not to propose a more stringent standard. perhaps if the e.p.a. administrator had considered the cost of feasibility of the tighter standard we would have avoided the situation entirely.

now with this e.p.a. we have the opportunity to make sure it doesn't happen in the future. i sent the president a letter commending this and help get it passed both here in the house and in the senate. now, i'm requesting your support. this is not a republican idea or a democrat idea. considering the economy and the well-being of the americans who looking for jobs, it is the right thing to do. i urge support of the amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. waxman: i rise in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. waxman: i rise in strong opposition to this amendment. this is a bad bill for air quality and public health. but this bill appears doomed to get even worse as we continue to amend it on the floor. if the latta amendment were adopted, it would eviscerate a cornerstone of the clean air

act without a single committee hearing to discuss the implications of this action, and that's nothing short of reckless policymaking. the clean air act requires e.p.a. to set national ambient air quality standards based on the science of how air pollution affects health and the environment. e.p.a. scientists and an independent scientific advisory committee then recommend the health-based standards that's peer reviewed and they look at the impact of air pollution on health overall and then on sensitive groups such as children and the elderly. because we don't want a society where the sensitive people, like the children and the elderly, can't live with the rest of us. these national air quality standards essentially identify the level of ambient air pollution that's safe for people to breathe. with these health-based standards as the goal post,

states develop plans to crolet pollution and meet these goals. cost is front and center in this planning. states can identify which pollution control measures are more cost-effective and rule out measures that produce more costs than benefits. the latta amendment turns this whole approach upside down. the amendment would require e.p.a. to consider industry costs upfront when determining what level of air pollution is safe for human health. that's like a doctor basing your diagnosis on the cost of the treatment. if the treatment is expensive, the doctor would tell you that you are healthy. for a doctor that would be malpractice. it's no different here. the latta amendment would allow pollutors would override scientists and allow them to set standards on profits rather than the public health. the scientific determination of

what is safe to breathe doesn't depend on the costs of cleaning up the pollution. my republican colleagues throughout the debate on this bill, be happy to come to the floor and talk about the tremendous progress of air pollution in this country. that's true. that doesn't mean we have no longer need for the tools that got us here. and that job is already done. we made progress because congress enacted a strong and effective clean air act. if we weaken the law, air quality will suffer, and anyone who thinks clean air is enough or the air is already clean enough suspect thinking about the kids that can't play outside on a summer day without risking a potentially life-threatening asthma attack. for 40 years, and we are celebrating the 40th anniversary of the clean air act, the essential basis of the law is to set health-based standards as our goals.

despite the progress we made, that job isn't done on air pollution, but the latta amendment, if it becomes law, would reverse decades of progress can in cleaning up the smog and soot pollution that triggers asthma attacks, heart attacks, other respiratory diseases and the mercury pollution that causes brain damage and learning disabilities in children. it's prepostruss that we only have 10 minutes to debate this fundamental change to the clean air act that would up end 40 years of progress. i urge my colleagues to vote this amendment down based on its impact on public health as well as the mockery it makes of the legislative process. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. mr. latta: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman from california, the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. >> thank you. mr. speaker, i rise in support

of the underlying train act. the train act is a bipartisan plan to analyze cumulative economic impacts of e.p.a. regulations. to better understand how these policies affect american manufacturing, energy prices and private industries' ability to create jobs. mr. denham: the question is why are our jobs leaving? why aren't we making things? and this bill will help us to define that. here today in support of the train act are jennifer frazier and jeff rose up here in the gallery from advantage data centers, a nextgen data center and a small business from my home state of california. this has become an industry leader in performance efficiency and environmental stewardship. since its inception in 2010, advantage has sought to minimize electricity consumption at their data centers as electricity is far and away their greatest cost. the price of electricity has caused many companies in their industry to flee to other countries with a more welcoming

business climate and cheaper electricity prices. despite this existing competitive disadvantage for the united states, the e.p.a. proposes new utility mact standards, will raise electricity prices and will have an adverse effect on even the environmentally friendly center like advantage and force more jobs overseas. the e.p.a. has proposed regulation after regulation that will stifle job creation, hurt economic competitiveness abroad and increase energy prices on families already strained by the tough economy. the house republican jobs agenda focuses on removing these barriers to job creation and includes necessary reforms like the train act. the support of job creators like the national association of manufacturers, the association of builders and contractors, the u.s. chamber of commerce and small business entrepreneurship council further proves the need for the train act to ensure that the administration does not continue to hamper the economic

recovery and job creation of private industry. mr. speaker, i yield back. the chair: the chair would remind all members to not refer to occupants of the gallery. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. waxman: may i inquire how much time is left on each side? the chair: the gentleman has one minute remaining. mr. waxman: and the other side? the chair: mr. latta has 30 seconds remaining. mr. waxman: well, i urge my colleagues to vote against this latta amendment. this is a radical, extreme agenda that reverses the clean air act which was signed by president nixon, has been enforced by democratic and republican administrations, voted almost unanimously on a bipartisan basis in the house and the senate and it would strip away the goal post of achieving health-based standards. i think to have only 10 minutes to debate on this extreme proposal is an affront to the lg process. i urge my colleagues to vote

no. -- affront to the legislative process. i urge my colleagues to vote no. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. latta: thank you, mr. speaker. i urge passage of this amendment. when we were back in our districts in august, i went to 18 different plants with facilities in my district and the million one issue out there was creating jobs for e.p.a. regulations. e.p.a., that's all i heard. e.p.a., e.p.a., e.p.a. we're not going to move this country forward unless we get these regulations under control, and it's about time they start looking what they have to do to make sure understand this amendment to make sure we got things back on course. i mentioned this yesterday in committee that we lost 180,000 manufacturing jobs alone in the energy and commerce committee since earlier this year. we got to get this economy moving. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. waxman: mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio asks for a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 12 printed in house report 112-213. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? ms. richardson: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 12 printed in house report 112-213 offered by ms. richardson of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 406, the gentlewoman from california, ms. richardson, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. ms. richardson: mr. chairman, my amendment is intended to strike

the provision that reduces the amount of funding for the december of reduction program. five years ago congress passed the diesel emission reduction act as a part of the energy policy act of 2005. the program was authorized at $200 million per year for five years. in 2011 the congress acted responsibly and in light of our fiscal crisis situation we reduced that amount by $is 100 million per year. this amendment brings into question whether it makes sense to reduce a proven successful program that is not increasing regulations as my former colleague just mentioned but in fact is helping companies to be able to meet those regulations in a cost effective way. it has helped fund more than 360 retrofit projects to date, which has reduced well over 1.6 million tons of emissions and provided more than $4 billion in public health benefits, while employing thousands of workers who manufacture, sell and repair diesel vehicles. and their components in each of

our states. recognizing today's budgetary challenges, industry, environmental and public sector representatives support the return of full-year 2008 funding levels for the program or $50 million for 2012. the united nations relies upon diesel power to transport, compute -- transport commuters, tourists and students, harvest our crops, build infrastructure and move our freight. new clean diesel technology is reaching near zero emissions but fleet turnover will take us many more years to come. emissions from older diesel vehicles and equipment can be reduced and we can help to make that happen. some of our program results have been 119 projects affecting more than 14,000 diesel power vehicles and equipment. new state clean diesel grant programs in over 50 states, 2,200 tons of particulate matter emissions reduced, 580 million

benefits to health and this is a very important one, 3.2 million gallons of fuel that has been saved per year by implementing this program. so this is why in the last congress i introduced legislation that extended dera for five more years. the legislation received bipartisan support on both sides of the aisle and was signed by the president. in february during a debate on h.r. 1 there was an amendment put forward by a representative on the other side of the aisle that would have eliminated full funding for the program. the amendment in the continuing resolution at that time was soundly defeated by both of us, both sides of the aisle, 352 members. in fact, the chairman on the interior environment and related agencies appropriations subcommittee, mr. simpson, called the cuts to deara, and i'm talking about my clear from the -- colleague from the other side, the wrong choice. i'm here to present that this cut is still the wrong choice. i reserve the balance of my

time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska rise? mr. terry: i rise in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman qualifies. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. terry: thank you, mr. speaker. and i believe that ms. richardson, the gentlelady from california's, amendment is heartfelt and sincere to the program, but irresponsible as it's produced here today. there are costs associated with the e.p.a. going forward with the studies that we are requesting of them. so under our rules of the house there's pay-go rules. we must offset those costs. this is one of those tough decisions made to offset the cost. so the first line of irresponsibility would be it will add to the deficit but for this offset. the second line of irresponsibility would be, well,

it may feel responsible, this really is a poison pill because if the offset is eliminated they get to kill the whole bill because of that. so it's not as innocent in an amendment -- as innocent an amendment as it is portrayed on the surface. the real issue of this bill in entirety must stand, as previous speakers have said, mr. speaker, and writefully -- rightfully so, the e.p.a. is a rowing agency. they are -- rogue agency. they are producing rules in a fast and furious manner that greatly affect this nation's ability to generate electricity. this bill just wraps three of them together and says, take a step back, do a cost analysis as the president has asked of agencies. this agency, though, as headed by mrs. jackson, has said to us

in our committee that she will not be beholding or follow the president's own executive order to look at the costs, the cost-benefit analysis. they say, as we've heard here today, their modeling says that they can reduce asthma so therefore no cost-benefit analysis. but there are real effects that i'm concerned with here and the reason i do believe this need to be studied before implemented, we need to slow down the e.p.a. and lisa jackson in their attempt to do a cap program without congress' involvement or approval. they couldn't get it done legislatively so she's doing it by rule and edict from the e.p.a. this rule will add significant costs to the ability of small

generators to generate electric treft -- electricity which will force them to shut down without any path forward to replace that. in fact, they have -- they haven't even can done a study on -- they haven't even done a study on reliability to see if electricity can be wheeled into the areas that the plants will have to shut down and in fact there's two plants in my district in nebraska, grand island and fremont, grand island saying that these rules that the e.p.a. are fast and furious and without any cost-benefit analysis will force the plant to close. how will they get their electricity? they will have to find a creative way to do it but yet there's been no study on reliability. secondly, fremont, nebraska, they say what they'll do is just lower their plant level, just do a minimum amount of electricity. where are they going to make

that up? this is a direct hit, this is part of the radical environmentalist agenda being placed on america by one agency and one person, lisa jackson. we need to slow this down, take a hard look at it. mr. chairman, do you want me to reserve any time? i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. richardson: mr. chairman, i find it interesting that the gentleman would say that this might be irresponsible. what i heard of the comments was, i didn't talk about the legislation within itself. we're talking about the amendment of how this is going to be paid for. and so the question before the house is going to be, is it appropriate to take additional funds to use dera as the whipping boy time and time again for a very program that is helping what my colleagues from the other side is saying.

i would actually say that dera is responsible. what's irresponsible is continuing to put the health of americans in jeopardy. i will repeat the quote from the -- from my colleagues, the chairman of the interior, environment and related agencies, mr. simpson. he called the cuts to dera the wrong choice we have already been responsible and the program has already paid its fair share in its being cut as other programs have been cut. is it right to continue to deplete this program? i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska rise? mr. terry: mr. speaker, mr. chairman, i think it's interesting that she didn't refute the point that if the pay gd is eliminated, hers passes, they raise a point of order and kill the bill. which is the real impetus behind

this amendment. so i also think -- no. i think it's also interesting, you have the right to close, that it's also interesting that the president's budget for which there was no pushback by the other side of the aisle zeroed it out. ours didn't. we're just cutting it by $4 million and it's a tough choice. we agree. yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. richardson: mr. speaker, i would say i think i've said twice now, the issue that we have before us is the question of this amendment, is whether this is the appropriate funding source that would be considered for the offset. that's the question that we have before us. it's interesting that mr. whitfield himself has benefited from this program. in kentucky the construction ports utilize $1.16 million to retrofit 73 pieces of nonroad construction equipment. also the kentucky association general contractors benefited of

retrofitting 87 pieces of equipment. i would say to you, it's irresponsible to have the american public driving on a highway and road, going through our airports, breathing this air. i would like, what i've reached out to the other side is that it's important. we're talking about e.p.a. regulations. why would we reduce funding of a program that helps companies to meet the regulations? it's counterintuitive and it doesn't make sense. i urge my colleagues to vote yes for the richardson amendment and the richardson amendment is intended for exactly that. to eliminate cutting this program. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. ms. richardson: mr. speaker. the chair: the gentlelady from california. ms. richardson: i ask for a recorded vote.

the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california will be postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in house report 112-213 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 1 offered by mr. welch of vermont. amendment number 2 offered by mr. mcnerney from california. amendment number 3 offered by ms. moore of wisconsin. amendment number 4 offered by mrs. capps of california. amendment number 5 offered by mr. kinzinger of illinois. amendment number 6 offered by mr. dent of pennsylvania. amendment number 7 offered by mr. hastings of florida. amendment number 8 offered by mr. connolly of virginia. amendment number 9 offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. amendment number 10 offered by mr. whitfield of kentucky. amendment number 11 offered by mr. latta of ohio.

amendment number 12 offered by ms. richardson of california. the chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is on request the for a recorded vote on amendment number 1 by the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report 112-213 offered by mr. welch of vermont. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-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.] i am going to ask everyone

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are -- the chair: on this vote the yeas are 173, the nays are 236. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is on the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 by the gentleman from california, mr. mcamericany, on which further proceedings were post poe -- mcamericany on which further proceedings were postponed. the clerk will redesignate the

amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-213, offered by mr. mcnerney of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-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 chair: on this vote the yeas are 178, the nays are 228 and the amendment is not agreed --

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 184. the nays are 229. the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 3 printed in house report 112-213 by the gentlewoman from wisconsin, ms. moore, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report number 112-213. offered by ms. moore of wisconsin. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in favor of a recorded vote shall rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-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 chair: on this vote the yeas are 337. the nays are 76. the amendment is agreed to. the unfinished business is on the request for recorded vote on amendment number 4 printed in house report 112-213, by the gentlewoman from california, mrs. capps, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in house report number 112-213. offered by mrs. capps of

california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-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 chair: on this vote, the ayes are 94. the nays are --

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 195. the nays are 221. the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 5 printed in house report 112-213 by the gentleman from illinois, mr. kinzinger, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5, printed in house report number 112-213, offered by mr. kinzinger of illinois. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the recorded vote shall rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-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 chair: on this vote the yeas are 269. the nays are 145. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 6 printed in house report 112-213 by the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. dent, on which further proceedings were postponed and on the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in house report number 112-213. offered by mr. dent of pennsylvania. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise and be counted.

a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-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 chair: on this vote the yeas are 269, the nays are 150, the amendment is agreed to. the unfinished business is on the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 7 printed in house report 112-213 by the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in house report 112-213 offered by mr. hastings of florida. the chair: a recorded vet has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. -- a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. . a a sufficient number having arisen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. , this will be a two-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 chair: on this vote the yeas are 165, the nays are 254, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is on the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 8 printed in house report 112-213 by the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly, on which further proceedings were postponed and on by the -- which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk are will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in house report 112-213 offered by mr. connolly of virginia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having

arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-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 chair: on this vote the yeas are 186, the nays are 232, the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on on amendment number 9 by the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9 printed in house report 112-213 offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-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 chair: on this vote the yeas are 346. the nays are 74. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is on the request for recorded vote on amendment number 10 printed in house report 112-213 by the gentleman from kentucky, mr. whitfield, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redelingt the amendment -- redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 10, printed in house report number 112-213, offered by mr. whitfield of kentucky. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-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 chair: the yeas are 234. the nays are 188. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is on the request for recorded vote on amendment number 11 printed in house report 112-213 by the gentleman from ohio, mr. latta, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 11, printed in house report number 112-213, offered by mr. latta of ohio. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-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 chair: the nays are 192. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the

request for recorded vote on amendment number 12 printed in house report 112-213 by the gentlewoman from california, ms. richardson, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 12, printed in house report number 112-213. offered by ms. richardson of california. the chair: a vorded vote has been requested. those in support of a request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-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 chair: on this vote the yeas are 181. the nays are 237. the amendment is not adopted. the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended.

those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. accordingly under the rule the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the commote house on the stunal reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 2401. pursuant to house resolution 401 reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment reported from the committee of the whole?

if not, the question is on adoption of the committee amendment in the nay a substitute as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor will say aye. those poe hed -- oppose ld say no. the ayes have it. third reading. 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 speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from -- the gentlewoman from minnesota rise? >> mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill? >> in its current form, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: ms. mccollum of minnesota moves to recommit the bill h.r. 2401 to the energy and commerce with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the

following amendment. at the end of the bill add the following new section, section 7, protecting great lakes drinking water from toxic substances. the administrator of the environmental protection agency shall plan and implement a strategy consistent with the great lakes restoration initiative using existing authority as of the state of enactment of this act, to control air pollution to be deposited in the great lakes. including toxic pollution in order to ensure safe drinking water and protection of public health and the environment. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ddcol ms. mccollum: thank you, mr. speaker. let me be clear. this amendment -- mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is correct. the house is not in order. if all members would please remove their conversations from the house floor.

will the members in the back of the room please cease their conversations, remove their conversations from the house floor. the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: thank you, mr. speaker. let me be clear. this amendment does not kill the bill or send it back to committee. if this amendment is adopted, the bill will immediately be voted on for final passage. this amendment is about protecting the great lakes. one of america's greatest treasures and important natural resources. for those of us who represent these states adjacent to the great lakes, we know and understand that any harm done to our lakes threatens the economy and the health of our citizens. lake superior -- >> house is not in order.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady will suspend. the house is not in order and the house will node proceed until the house comes to order. -- will not proceed until the house comes to order. please remove your conversations from the floor, the gentlelady deserves to be heard. the gentlelady may proceed. ms. mccollum: thank you again, mr. speaker. lake superior, lake hereon, lake michigan, lake erie and lake ontario make up the largest freshwater system in the entire world. our great lakes hold 95% of america's freshwater and 20% of the freshwater on the planet. over 30 million people rely on the great lakes for their drinking water. there's an estimated 1.5 million jobs that are directly connected to the great lakes and these jobs generate $62 billion in wages. over 40 years ago this critical ecosystem and economic engine

was on the verge of collapse. "time" magazine reported in august, 1969, that lake erie was in danger of dying by suffocation. the days when polluters dumped toxic chemicals into the air and water without consequence are over. because of the responsible cleanup policies like the clean air act, the health of the great lakes has improved. but threats to the great lakes have not disappeared. air pollutants like mercury are emitted from power plants and continue to fall on the ground, wash into the water and build up in quantities that threaten the brain development of young children and place limits on the amount of fish that we can consume. rising mercury levels is one of the mounting threats that motivated an unprecedented coalition into action. governors of the eight great lakes states, republicans and democrats, along with local

officials and leaders from tribal nations, nonproperties and the -- nonprofits and the private sector came together to save the great lakes. early last decade they created a plan for environmental restoration and economic recovery of the great lakes. in 2004 president bush responded to this bipartisan effort by issuing an executive order and that called the great lakes a national treasure. and he directed his cabinet to establish an interagency task force to support these states and local efforts. now, governor scott walker of wisconsin and governor mark dayton of minnesota never agree about politics. and they certainly don't agree on football. but as a member of the council on great lakes governors, they agree on the need to reduce air and water pollution in the great lakes. years of planning and partnership in the great lakes region and in washington are now making a difference on the

ground in the great lakes restoration initiative. the initiative is protecting drinking water, it's restoring fish and wildlife habitats and it's supporting the growth of small businesses that depend on healthy waters. the work under way is 300 projects across this region. now, my role as a legislator from the great lakes region is to do no harm to this effort. the train act will make the enforcement of many of the environmental projections uncertain and it will create confusion in the e.p.a. about which public health efforts they can pursue. and my amendment does not give the e.p.a. any new authority. instead it directs the e.p.a. to use its existing authority to do what republican and democratic governors, mayors, state legislators and other elected officials in the great lakes have agreed upon must be done, protect drinking water and

protect public health. our job in congress is to protect the great lakes, not to undo the hard work of all these governors and, yes, industry leaders. my amendment makes it clear that the train act will not prohibit this work from moving forward. let me be clear, my amendment does not kill the bill or send it back to committee, if this amendment is adopted it will immediately be voted on on final passage. regardless of your position on the train act, this amendment makes the bill stronger. regardless of how you feel about the train act, i'm sure you agree congress should protect the safety of drinking water and it continues to ensure the viability of the economic interests upon the great lakes. again, let me be clear. this amendment does not kill the bill, it does not send it back to committee, if this amendment is adopted it will immediately be voted on for final passage. colleagues, let us work together, let us pass this

amendment and let us restore the great lakes, let us protect america's public health. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? >> i claim the time in opposition to the motion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for five minutes. mr. whitfield: i would say to the gentlelady, not only are we concerned about the great lakes, but we're concerned about every body of water in america and we believe that the train act protects that water, does not take away any authority from the e.p.a. to deal with water issues. the train act is very simple. it asks the government commission to study 14 regulations of e.p.a.. on 12 of them we do not delay them in any way, on the other two we delay one for one year and the other for three years. we have adequate protections in place, we simply think that we should examine the cumulative

impact of the regulations from the most aggressive e.p.a. in recent memory to determine what impact is it going to have on jobs, what impact is it going to have on electricity prices, what impact is it going to have on electricity reliability and will it damage america's competitiveness in the world marketplace? i would urge passage of this legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered. all those in favor of the motion to recommit say aye. those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. ms. mccollum: mr. speaker, i'd like a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from minnesota requests the yeas and nays. 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.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. -- the speaker pro tempore: the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage. [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

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 180. the nays are 233. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor will say aye.

those opposed will say no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a 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 will be 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 249, the nays are 169, the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at noon on monday, september 26, 2011, and further when the house adjourn on that day it shall meet at 11:00 a.m. on thursday, september 29, 2011. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. so ordered.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. members will please take their conversations off the floor. the chair is prepared to take one-minute requests. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise?

>> to address the house for one minute. i'm from minnesota. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> request permission to address the house for one minute. mr. poe: mr. speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order. the members will take their conversations from the floor. the members will take their conversations from the floor. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. poe: mr. speaker, ever since we found osama bin laden living

the high life, we've had our suspicions about pakistan. turns out they are disloyal, deceptive and a danger to the united states. this so kealed ally takes billions -- this so-called ally takes billions in u.s. aid while at the same time supporting the militants who attack us. according to admiral mike mullen, the pakistani government supported the groups who were behind the truck bombing attack that wounded more than 70 u.s. and nato troops and the recent attack on the u.s. embassy. mr. speaker, this should be the last rodeo for pakistan. last night i introduced legislation to freeze all u.s. aid to pakistan with the exception of funds that are designated to help secure their nuclear weapons. by sending aid to pakistan, we are funding the enemy, endangering americans and undermining our efforts in the region. we've pead them to hate us, now we pay them to bomb us. let's not pay them at all. and that's just the way it is. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? mr. ellison: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. ellison: mr. speaker, i rise today to support the palestinian authority's bid for statehood to the united nations. supporting a palestinian state is the right thing to do and now is the right time to do it. it is wholly consistent with american valleys. we have supported people'ses a -- values. we have supported people's aspirations for freedom and democracy around the world and we should not treat the palestinian people differently. there's global support for a palestinian state, more people around the world support a palestinian state than oppose it, including americans. 70% of israelis would accept the palestinian state if the u.n. approved it. last year president obama said that he hoped to see a palestinian state admitted to the united nations. previously palestinian sought

statehood through violence and terrorism, which the world rightly rejected. and now they are nonviolently following internationally recognized process to gain statehood. why are we discouraging them? a palestinian state is in the national interests of everyone. it would help stabilize the middle east, it would help end israel's diplomatic isolation, it would deal a devastating blow to al qaeda and hamas, which refuse to recognize israel, recognizing a palestinian state -- recognizing palestine besides israel would reaffirm israel's own status. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi rise? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from mississippi is recognized. >> mr. speaker, since the first honor flight to bring world war ii air veterans from mississippi gulf coast to washington, d.c., on may 11, almost 200 veterans are have had the opportunity to see the -- veterans have seen the opportunity to see the memorial built in their honor. i was privileged to walk and speak with the greatest generation this week as they remember the sacrifices that preserved our freedom and liberated the world from tyranny

and oppression. this generation of men and women fought and secured america's future with unwavering courage. their selfless sacrifices to their country and stories of heroism inspire future generations to join the armed services. mr. palazzo: in my life it was my grandfather whose story encouraged me to join and serve in the marine corps. as we honor those who fought to protect america's exceptionalism, i also want to recognize those honor flight volunteers who work so tirelessly to preserve the legacy of the gleat -- greatest generation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask for unanimous consent to remove my name as a co-sponsor of h.r. 639, the currency reform for fair trade act. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. scott: thank you, sir. the speaker pro tempore: are there further one-minute

requests? under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from illinois, mr. shimkus, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. shimkus: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. shimkus: thank you. thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, this marks the first of what i hope to be many times to address you and my colleagues on an issue that i

have been graced with having the responsibility to deal in the public policy arena about and that's the whole issue of nuclear waste. now, when people talk about nuclear waste in this debate about where it is and why it's there, they primarily talk about our nuclear utilities and especially after fukushima daiichi, people understand that when you store high level nuclear waste on sites and if there's a disaster that occurs and if the pools run dry then you might have a melting which might spread radio activity and that's not good for anybody. and that's a good debate to have because we have nuclear waste stored all over this country. but i'm not here really to talk about the private for-profit sector of the nuclear industry today, i'm here to tell another story. another story that really talks

about why we have government and why there's still a need for some government entities. back in the world war ii, and we just heard my colleague talk about the honor flights, back in world war ii we decided as a nation to win these wars, one way to make sure that we wouldn't lose thousands upon thousands of soldiers in the invation of japan was to develop the nuclear bomb. two were dropped, the war ended. many people historically know that occurred because of the manhattan project. well, -- what i think a lot of people don't know is that we still are dealing with much of the history of winning the war in the manhattan project. and that winning the cold war relied upon a strong military and strong nuclear deterrence, so even after world war ii we

continued to develop nuclear weapons, which we deal with today. so i had a chance to visit, during our last district work period, i took a day and visited a place called hanford, washington. hanford, washington, was part of the manhattan project. hanford was the site that the u.s. military picked to help produce plutonium, the fat man bomb was developed there. and it was picked there for a lot of reasons. there wasn't a lot of people there, as you can see there's the columbia river right next to it, you had some low-cost power production and so it was a good site. and hence people got moved off the land, the government took over and the government's been controlling hundreds of acres in washington state even today.

the result of the cold war and winning world war ii is that millions of gallons of nuclear waste now reside in hanford, washington. and i'm not exaggerating. in fact, 53 million gallons of nuclear waste is onsite. and what's interesting about handford, of course, when -- hanford, of course, when you started storing this nuclear waste, our technology, our information, our knowledge was not as great as it is now, the way we stored this -- store this material now would not be accepted processes today, it is an environmental disaster and a hazard that has to be cleaned up. you have approximately 874

storage tanks. these storage tanks are from 750,000 gallons to a million gallons, all with nuclear waste in these tanks. these tanks are buried, as it says here, 10 feet underground and 200 feet -- 250 feet above the water table. a mile from the columbia river. and some of these tanks are leaking. just not a good thing for us to have and so the government has been trying to deal with this one site of nuclear waste in this country. why do i bring this before you, mr. speaker? why is this important? because in 1982, part of the process of dealing with hanford was to pass a law and the law

was called the nuclear waste policy act and in that law it says, we've got a solution, we're going to collect all the high-level nuclear waste and we have a storage facility that we're going to place it in. and that place is yucca mountain. now, many of you may have heard about yucca mountain before, i've visited it twice. yucca mountain is in a desert and it's a mountain. . i do the side by side comparisons here. right now at hanford we have 53 nuclear gallons of waste on site. yucca mountain which is a site we designed, picked, studied for decades, we spent $12.5 billion, we currently have no nuclear waste there. the nuclear waste at hanford is stored 10 feet under ground. the nuclear waste at yucca mountain will be stored 1,000

feet under groud. the nuclear waste at hanford is 250 feet above the ground water. the nuclear waste at yucca will be stored 1,000 feet above the water table. the nuclear waste at hanford is a mile from the columbia river. the closest river to yucca mountain is the colorado river which is 100 miles away. now, i'll come back to this board -- floor throughout the year and highlight different locations around the country of where there's waste and start pleading with my colleagues to help us stop two people -- the president of the united states and majority leader harry reid. majority leader reid has blocked our ability to continue to move forward and take nuclear waste from around this country and

place it underneath a mountain in a desert. this location is exhibit number one. there is no more compelling location in this country that cries out for this waste to be moved than han ford. -- hanford. in fact, in the cleanup process the scientific design of the cast that will be used to clear out these 53 million gallons of waste and put into storage containers, they are designed specifically for yucca mountain. again, we have spent $12.5 billion to prepare this site to receive nuclear waste. the house went on record this year on a vote in the

appropriation bill for energy and water and said, yes, yucca mountain is still where we believe high level nuclear waste ought to go. and that vote was 297 members voting to increase funding to complete the safety review of the d.o.a. application so that yucca mountain could move forward. one senator is blocking this, one senator from the state of nevada, but it's time for the other senators from these other states who are affected, regardless of their party, to say, i don't want this high-level nuclear waste in my state. we have a federal law to move it to underneath a mountain in a desert. and it's time for them to stand up and be counted.

that's why this is my first trip to the well identifying one location in this country. i think the most compelling argument for yucca mountain and it's not even tied to that nuclear power generating for-profit industry. it is tied to our world war ii legacy. and the environment and the help of not only the land here in washington state but also the great columbia river. so who are we asking to stand up and be counted and help us move this? well, we just happen to have four u.s. senators, two from the state of washington, two from the state of oregon. senator cantwell, senator murray, senator wyden, and senator merkley. now, if you look at this site the columbia river, for those of

you know your geography know, the clum why river when it gets closer to the west side of the state separates the state of oregon and the state of washington. to the north, north of columbia is washington state, south is oregon. these senators need to step up to the plate. and these senators need to do their job. they need to speak to the majority leader, we understand the majority leader who wants to protect the state of nevada, so i'm not trying to lift mountains i can't personally lift. but what i can do is start making the clarion call to senators around this country who have high level nuclear waste in their state, when we have already spent $12.5 billion for a single repository, and as i

have said numerous times, underneath a mountain, in a desert. the numbers here in washington on the house side we have overwhelming majority in the other body, their majority is not as big as it once was. and because of that these senators are even empowered more to be able to go to their leader and plead for their state. and make the compelling argument -- again, if you can't make it for han ford, you can't make it for anywhere. i'm from southern illinois. i don't have a nuclear facility in my congressional district. although i am from the state of illinois, and illinois is a huge nuclear power state. we have six low cailingses -- location, 11 reactors.

we have high level nuclear waste stored 40 miles from downtown chicago. now, does that make sense? does that make sense in a day when we have already spent $12 billion to prepare, locate, research a single repository that can be kept safe, secure, and stored? it doesn't make sense. so that's why in the coming weeks you'll see other posters like this, i'll definitely keep this one, but we'll compare yucca mountain to downtown chicago. we'll compare yucca mountain to boston, massachusetts. we'll compare yucca mountain to savannah, georgia. if you live in a state and may not have a nuclear power plant,

you may very well have the legacy of world war ii manhattan-type projects, and nuclear waste that has to be stored elsewhere than in the place where it is today. so as the chairman of the energy and the economy committee, my congressional responsibility is that of nuclear waste waste. it is a challenge for this country. it is a challenge that we already have a plan to deal with. in fact, rate payers of states that have nuclear power have been paying an additional charge on their utility bills to prepare yucca mountain to receive this waste.

to have one man and a president who is complicit in his design to stop this is not in the best interest of this country, and i will continue to come down to the well to fight this fight so that we take full advantage of the great resources we have and follow up on the planning and the funding that we have done for decades to have a single repository. with that, mr. speaker, i thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: i thank the gentleman from illinois. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, is recognized for 45 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.

mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. we are going into recess for a week. we passed a bill to keep the government running. some of us were concerned that we were compromising with ourselves, but supposedly it was a bill that though we compromised with our -- with ourselves that the senate can pass and now we find out they have tabled the bill. and now they are talking shutdown. it's extremely disconcerting when it seems that one group believes that the best way to win politically is to have a shutdown and blame republicans. it's also disconcerting to have a president come into this body here, speak to the house and senate, stand here at the

historic podium, and lecture this body on the president's jobs bill that didn't exist while he was lecturing us. was entirely consistent, though, with exactly two years before that when the president's polling data showed that people didn't think that the president's ideas for health care were good, and since he is such an incredibly gifted reader of speeches, apparently felt if he came back to the house floor and were able to use the teleprompters and read to the body that he would be able to convince everyone to go along with the government takeover of health care completely, and that day he kept representing things about his bill, this bill, my bill, my plan, this plan, and there was no plan, there was no

bill at that time, either. so it was not terribly surprising that the president would come in here again two years later when polls are not looking good and tell us that we had to pass a bill that didn't exist. that he had a plan but the plan didn't really exist. but eventually we got a copy of his bill even though for six days nobody filed an american jobs act, so i went to the trouble of filing one. i felt if the president wanted to fuss at us for not passing the american jobs act, there ought to be one. so mine was two pages. his is 155, but it's amazing, and especially with all the stuff going on with solyndra in california and the scandal that that's become that this administration twisted and pushed and potentially distorted

things in order to get half a billion dollars to a company who was not doing well, which wasn't doing well, and then turn around and turn the agreement upside-down, secured creditors, those that provide money, are supposed to be paid first in the event that there is not enough to go around for everyone, and yet somebody in this administration, maybe a number of somebodies, it appears right now, changed the deal so that the secured creditors, the american taxpayer, the government would not get paid back first. my days as a judge, district judge in texas and chief justice would seem to indicate that that

kind of thing is fraud upon the american people. the investigation's going on so we'll find out more about that as it does, but it's interesting that in the president's so-called jobs bill that really will destroy more jobs than it creates has got these constant references to priority to the use of green practices, and it's got lots of provisions apparently that will ensure that any other solyndras out there, any other companies that are trying to get government money for a business that can't make it on its own but they are close enough to the administration, they feel like they could get loans, they could get grants, things that could not be -- commercially feasible, that this is the way to go. we see that throughout the bill. i mean apparently half a billion

dollars squandered for crony capitalism is not enough. there is more provisions for that in the president's so-called jobs bill. of course we've got the payback to unions and language in here for prevailing rates and that kind of thing. some folks that i talked to would be glad to have a job at whatever rate they could get. . there are those folks. and yet when the administration pushes a jobs bill that's going to make the prevailing wage the price to be paid for wages so high that a business cannot afford to hire those extra people, have we really done the american people any favors? we can't even create entry level jobs because of what this administration keeps pushing and trying to heap upon the american people.

and, you know, there is a little bit of money for infrastructure, i say a little bit compared to the overall price tag, $450 billion. would you think that we could do a little better than what the president's proposing. he wants a $450 billion infrastructure bill but the truth is, it isn't an infrastructure bill. we heard this same language about the so-called stimulus back in january of 2009, that we needed bridges. oh, and he talked about bridges back then, the bridge in minnesota, this bridge, that bridge. they all need to be fixed and we can do it. but we need this stimulus bill to do all this infrastructure repair. well, that was kind of the bait and switch thing. i certainly didn't support that stimulus bill. i believe republicans were unanimous on that. it was not a stimulus bill, you

could see that. it wasn't going -- there was such a small percentage going to stimulus that we would consider true stimulus. infrastructure, we do have failing infrastructure, roads, bridges, things that need to be prepared, sewage plants, different things. but that bill had just a tiny trickle coming out and again this is percentagewise. it really was not an infrastructure stimulus. the people were told one thing and yet got another. now, one of the ways the federal government gets its control of people, state governments, local governments, is by throwing money out there and saying, here, we're going to help you, and once that money is received, they start getting all these strings that go with it. now, if you're going to keep

getting federal money, then you're going to have to start doing this, that and the other. in fact, there's one provision in the president's so-called jobs bill that ought to send shivers through people in the state governments all over the country because there's a provision that says, if the states receive any money at all from the federal government, basically for any program, then they waive their sovereign immunity, opening up themselves for lawsuits and yet another area where states have never been able to be sued before. so i'm not sure what jobs that creates, i know it helps the plaintiffs' lawyers and perhaps that's the whole goal of the president, help those lawyers, but what a disaster.

nonetheless, we know that fannie mae and freddie mac may end up costing the country trillions of dollars, brought us to the brink of absolute financial disaster, and so what has the president proposed? well, houses, maybe they get $50,000, $100,000 or so, different amounts, well, what costs more than housing? that would be infrastructure. we talk about houses, we're talking about tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, maybe. with infrastructure we're talking about hundreds of millions, billions. so what does the president propose for that? the american infrastructure financing authority. and the good news is that will be, and i'm reading from page 40 of the president's so-called jobs bill, it says, the american

infrastructure financing authority is established as a wholly owned government corporation. happy days. wholly owned government corporation. but if somebody's concerned that people that would be running the president's american infrastructure financing authority, that would start trying to do the financing for these massive infrastructure projects, if you're concerned that might not have -- they might not have good business sense, it you're concerned they might not understand how an economy really is stimulated, how real jobs in the real private sector are created, you don't have to worry because the next page, page 41, says the board of directors, and this is just so exciting to read, is consisting of seven voting

members appointed by the president. now there's excitement. the president has shown that when he picks people, well, ok, it's true that they come from universities and places where they have letters after their names, but do they really know how to create jobs? well, so far we've got a big old no. they don't know what they're doing. they have ph.d.'s after their names and they just don't know what they're doing in trying to get the economy going, stimulating the economy, it's scaring investors these days. but the president will appoint the seven board members of the american infrastructure financing authority and i think it's a good indication, when you look auto -- look through the president's bill, mr. speaker,

it's a good indication of the aspirations and goals of this administration, if the people of america will give them four more years. because if you look, the federal government will be in charge of infrastructure. well, we've seen how that worked with student loans. students, their parents, trying to go to college, get college paid for, we know that college costs have gone through the roof . i wanted my three children to have the chance that i did, to go to a major university. i didn't want them to be burdened with debt simply because i gave up lucrative work and decided to try to help my state and country. so we took out student loans. you could take them from banks, from private lending

institutions and there were provisions for student loans, but under speaker pelosi and this president, harry reid and the senate's leadership, the federal government took over the student loan business. well, i thank god that i got loans for my kids to go through college before we took over as the federal government the student loan business. because i would hate for not just me but anyone, especially from the opposite party of the president, those in power, to have to go begging to the obama administration, please, would you loan me money so my child can get a college education? we put the federal government in charge of who can get loans, who can get a college education? that's not what was intended for

this country, to have the federal government make decisions on who can get educated and who doesn't. and i know that scares people sometimes to have these examples brought up, but in 1973, that summer i was an exchange student to the soviet union, i'd had a couple of years of russian language, and i was an exchange student there. and one of the things that surprised me was in the soviet union the federal government there decides who gets to go to college. they tell you who gets to go to college. now, never mind that here in america sometimes the most successful business people, some of the most successful scientists may have made some grades that weren't very good in college, but maybe came back in grad school and then really showed promise and did well.

but it didn't matter. maybe they didn't do all that great in high school, got to college and made good grades here in america, but in russia it didn't matter. it didn't matter what your inner drive was, that you had a yearning to help in health care, make some discovery in medicine, it didn't matter that you had a vision for how to create some new engineering work, it didn't matter because the government told every student whether you would be allowed to go to college or whether you would not, whether you would go work in the factory or whether you would go and teach. the government told people what they got to do with their lives and who got to have a college education. now, i became friends with numerous of the russian college students, i was impressed and i liked them very much. but i could not imagine such a system back then.

and i was so grateful and thankful that i was from the united states, i made good grades in high school and college and good enough to go to claw school -- law school, but i just was so grateful i lived in a country that really was the land of the free and the home of the brave. it's fantastic. because when i had a yearning in my heart to do something and fix something here, i didn't have to beg the government, will you please allow me to follow my life's goal, my life's pursuit? this is the only -- used to be the only country in the world where any parent could tell their child, you can be whatever you want to be. now, we're kind of proud of jamie foxx in east texas, he grew up in terrell and i ran

into him in los angeles last year and told him i was from tyler, texas, he said, tyler, texas. he said, you know, the thing, my childhood memory about tyler, our family came over to the tyler state park, it's a beautiful park on a lake, one of the most visited parks in the state of texas, state parks, and he said, you know, tyler had the highest diving board i'd ever seen. i'd never seen one that high. and people told me, jamie, if you can climb up there and go off that diving board, you can do anything you want with your life, anything. he said, he was scared but he climbed up there, that high diving board, and went off the board because he wanted to be whatever he wanted to be. and now he is so successful as a singer, actor, all these kind of things. you can be what you really wanted to be in this country.

but it's scary to see that changing. and when i see moves in this country that i had not seen them happen in the soviet union -- that i had seen them mirrored in the soviet union, it's a little scary. the federal government's going to get to tell people whether they can get a student loan or not? that's not a good idea. and yet the federal government, we put under speaker pelosi's leadership and the president's leadership, president obama and harry reid, we put the private lenders out of business because the federal government, i guess they sold some people on the idea it would be politics-free. yeah right. they would do a better job of picking out who should get a student loan to go to college. couldn't believe those things came back. and seeing the socialized

medicine in the soviet union back in those days, visiting med schools, clinics and things, having a little need for health care back then, i was so thankful that in america we had so much better health care. and we didn't have to depend on the government to tell us what we could have treatment for and what we couldn't, what we had to get on a list to maybe get treatment for and what we couldn't. you know this was america where people, doctors could strive to be the greatest they could be and to help humanity and then make money at the same time. i had one soviet friend, college friend that summer, who some lady ran off to tell on him and i said, why would she do that? i said, why would she do that? he said,