on,hey are goingo men. no o is gog sp them. i nt to make one me point. ho: l'leave ithe. the hoe rrentiv ju auto mento session fotoy. r nit nouncement at 8:00, u n to c-anrg for renformation. n gtohe house o reestaves. thsar ro tempore: t hou will iorr. th chairaybereheouse counicatn om the spak. thclk:he speaker's ro, wainond., vember 2, 204. i ery appot heonab u cllins a as spke pro tempe this y. sine john a.oeer spear t hse of reprentiv. the eaker ro tempor e prerilbe offeredyu chaplain,aerony. chapln nr: let upr. eternal god, we gveou thas

for giving uanotherda e meo thendf ee whe w he lcedew electedmeerofheou o will join e 114 coress, hor art wrld tasm and vteonhe first of manyifcu bill to be conser at thenof the 1th congress we now prch ae din hich a arinswi ghe rememberhoe are, ti gerouslblessed not only byyo o d,uty courageo ceor faitul allie a t best od wishes of pple everywre o lon for eedom,hwigly and thediicultork of rcipateti gvernment a who n ejothe botyf prile sss. bless e emrs ofhi sely ands all tt we ulbeory the call

havebe gens erans help ualtoeruly afuandppropriately neusn o rpoe. maalth i do ts y e ryo gatonor d ory, amen thspker pro tempore: th chair hasxanethjournal t lt y's proceeng andnnounces tthhoe s apov tre. rantolae of rul1 thjonastandspprove the plgef legiaeil beleyheentleman from flid,mr. liki .biras: pdge aegnctohe flag oth it at oamic d e repuicfor wch it an, one nati uerod indivibl wh liberty and ustice for all e ear o mpe: the chirwi nntta up to fie qutsor o-mut eeesn chidofhe aisle. or what puosdo t ntmafr texas seek cnion? witht jeiohe gtlemans coiz for one nu.

mr. hnn: m. ear, this umr' cis on th bder asheeltf esde ba's 2012 decionorant ney to me illegal imignts. w epridt's plni t gntmntyo erilga inthe country,lmost, llnsor ad make maeror,he ieg mmgrtsayal bom igible fo gernmen befits. has just wrg whhpresidts din ga hadwki aeranaxye didtsign utooot t bill ilel imgrts. mr sak, e present is igri thamerin eoe, oonitutioand ourayf gornnt. ari ia untry ls, oten. my constituents areutged a

erede's imperi tns amrican op nt, neand der a predent ho sptsnd followth nstution. on behf ouag constitues, i'fly comtted tstpi this illegalctn. iield back th saker pro tpore:he getleman's time s pid. the chair llemdmeer toefrainrongaginin ersonaties to the presidt. fowh purpo dsth ntmafrom n yrkse reogtion? tht jeio t ntlem iregned for one ite m hgi: . ear, over thepa two days, weern york community has be ummeled b unlein le-fe snow. ars buffalo and surodingsurbs we blnkedver fivee o oanit ctinueto fall. randed cs d traedn homes, peop are not le t aces potentially ernc sevis. over 1 lef e ework thorougay closes dt s

aimed the lis eht people. enitdvcenoce, or of this cacity a ar posieo epe fo apauth leadershioth heiry regovernornew om he ergcyanagemt tesave been hard at rk an wilno rt til te snow has beclearean ebody affected is se. hoev, 's n jt os aid for ergenciesha have tneou nghrs helin igor shvel an dig t e mm gs arod stern w rk th cy of buflo, once aginpredtsf to be the tyf odeibors. yldacthbance ofy ti. the ear o mpe: the getlanies ck f what purpose es the getlemanrofloridse cnion mr. birisi k unius consent to adesthhoe for onmitendo vise andxtend my marks. hepeaker prteore: tutbjecti, e gentlen is rogzed foon minute. mr. liraki thankyo m spear. d, mr. speaker, i rise to regne mlma mar,arpen rgsigscol,ants odo --orinnghe bands of america cmpnsp. thi i te sixt championship 1ears, mr. eaker.

th wn tol of 1grd championipin bnds of amic gialineoia a orida. earin bndaseen dubbedherand cmpns of theound spectacul f t pat 13 consecutive yar the spuingeranam f the spunni divers who gtefromree arpen rgs arethsingle mos mintnd cpetent band in florida. congtutis the students, thband leader, vin fd, and the parents inlv ith yar championship. go sunnings. 'mo pud, --o, spgers. i'soro,rspeaker. thspeaker pr tempore:o wht rpose does the ntma frm texas ri? m gre: asunimous coentoddss the house r oneine d revis nd extendy mas. though iayava ttle sviin in m. epeke pro temre: witht jeion, t ntmafmes cogniz f o mnu. . green: tha y, .

spke i ris today to lkbo the afrdleare act. erig mlion amerins heigd up for t pva ealth surance planfor 20. almt ,000 in the district i represt. overall, enof unsed redents in o stct hav cledby%. ,0 op in the district pched qli, affordable care. 1100oung adul were le toonnueoveragon their pen'ls. %f tosenrolled in the hethnsan mkela, the costf e averagpre was $72 a month. unfortunatel 52,000 indidls whoou herwise hae heah surance ma uninsud o distri because texas di not exnd medicaid. th opennrollment perd f 15hrgh the mketplace g sturdaynovember 15. incourage a americanto take advante t opportunity tacssuality, foable cere a enll please,or your filanfo

our comni, need mor people insured soheha at certainty. i yield ck my time. thspeakeprtempore: te gentlman yidsack. for wt rpe eshe geleanropesylvania ekrecognion? wihout objection, the nem is recognizedorne mite. m pts: mr. sak, jonathan grubesmt i. profess oamar chec who' h t apologizeor reeatedlcain te eran voterstud, hasecve ilonfaxyer doar from del a sat governments he nw has an.i.h., a natial itites ohealth grt thatad up to $2 lon th gntsorn alys to determine h pplchse their medicare pt d escriion drug pn. tt ght be good f c.m.s and.h. t kw t it's far from thei oreal mic rear tt expt n.i. to be doing. just a w weeks ago e dicts saidhey lck enug fundi tfund the ebola vacne th's befe eyer getting

reah fr msage o sdi bbits. e wt em to prolg if, devop medicinescu and trt sease, not economic rear for a manhat's w inams rinlting the amerin bl. r.ndy harrisndre e irector wthuestions aut th gnt. ho we hear soon befor anotr he goeou the do. i yield bk. hepeer pro tempore: th ntleman's me hasxped. for whaturseoethe gtlan from illiis see cognition? i ask unioucoent to adesthhouse r e ine and to reve d te my rmas. the spkeprteor who oecon the getlans cogniz f o nu. mr hultgn:r. speer, i riod tprseheir trficontroers an f.a satyndecicalmoyees whoenabe the llf ty surroundi t ergcy siatn in auroa, ilno. foowg unprecedte rcstceh chicago ceertaff kt t rrndgirpa operationa se ad fient durin the 17-day outage. on seral differendays ri t otage, icago o'hare,ho cstues m

ditrict,hose aunth miesanth fa.a. comma nrord gether to kp e flyi plisandhe system opatg cse to capacity. thaitffic controllers thnical operations peonl and mnament achicag cteaninllacities throught e midstndhe national airspe st have oven w t utestes h e sest, busiest a mo eicntysm t world. e blic shou bprd of the teamwork and pressionalism that ty emstteasheet fcuchlenge and pt americaa. i yieac thspkeprteor t enem yldba. r at purseoes th getlemanfr nta seek cnion mr. dain: asknanimo nsent are t hse for o mute and to revise anexnd my remarks. the speerro temre without jeio t entlem iregned for one mite. he.ais: m. ear, comesollal imigrati, esident obama halo said thate has no lel autrity txtd

excuvemnsty. ow, i d'tay this vy often, but you knowha i age wth him. s b as presidt is to enrcthe ls thatones s pss, t now esen obama smso veootn hat he is not ing. pridnt oba'slan to eenxecutive amnes t milisf lel immigrts iannceab asef w tt es agasthe wi t american pple. asth pridt said hmsf, and i ot tt's n h o moacy works, at's not h our nstitution isrte pridt obam souabdo this pand exeti ovrrch and work with ones t sure our rds and strengthen eforcemtf e exiti mraonaw i yieldba mtime. epeerro tempore: the enem yldback. the chairilrend members rfrn from ginin pesoliesowd e

presidt. orha ppeoethe getlom from tex sk regnion? ms jks l: mr. spk, ask unanimous connto dss the house. e ear o mpore:he gentleladisecognid r one mit ms. jason le m saker, his is not theirst year or he second yearr the third ear t ainistratio. iacaly a in ward e dfheerof is mistti. omyerectives mb tomland security commite d iigti bcmiee onudia, every single yr is administriohas extend i ndfcoabationo is nes tinrve ith depeteiv ofhe o' been stole fomheir children, poed oramilie atavbe sunited, i you will, wtitoe renid. so i an wh heresident toght ase givesiseag america, atere mataan cuny,ndth unerni nstuon thity a can be cunt by sclars aos this natn, iav the authit to be erful,o ve humanarn

reef citi te s.s. arizon case 2012 when jusce rortsa thatthpresident s athity fo humataan rie eve dfiltdesi, unfornalyn is nation, fr e eeing of sveto kg the armies of t mitaes integrated, ok couragfr presidents lydoaes johnson hd urageheheigd e cil gh at 19 a e votg righ act i 19. . esident, you areoi the rig ing. tand with you inxercisg yo ecuveauority. i el bac we neemey rhe ppl who are desperat i yield bk. the spear pro mpe: the getlads me has exped.

the spkeprtempore: fr aturposeoethe gentlen from tes seek regnitio >>mrspker, i asknanimous nsent thaalmeerma veivleslivdays to reisand exnd the rar andoinclud treo matealn the bl r. 4795, proting new manuftung ac th saker pro tempore: without obction, so ded. >>nmrhairman, i yield myself ch timas m nse. the spk po mporeth ntma willuspend rsuanto use resoluon 75 and re18, the chr declaresthhoe in the committee of the ho uson th statef e union for conserion of h.r. 4795. the chair aois the

gelen from illinois,r hultentoredever the omtt of thwhole. the chair: the hses the mtt of thwhe houson the ste of the uon f t consideratn h.79 icthclk will rorby tile t crk: a bill to omote nemafauring t united sttes byproviding orreate trapancan meline in obtaininnecesary permits a r her purpos. thci pursuant t rule, the bills considered a readthfirsttime. e ntleman from kentucky, mr iteld, and t entleman from keuc, mr. yarmutheailcoro 30 minus. he cha recogzeth gentmafrom ktuy,r. whtfield . mr.hiield: i yid se such time as m csu. the cir: the geleman from keuc is regnized mr. whitfie: mr. chairma president omaas made it very le tt if the u.scongre do n pass lesti tt he has said is a priori for

hiadniraon that intends to colishisoals the use ofxetive oer and thugrelaon 47, ere, wh r. ar he today toaddress a specifiprlecausedy regulationcong outof.p.a. relating tohe cle air act. owha aouementsave beema fmafauring psns in thunedtas ouing to about $135 bilon but we also kw that e.p.a. has gone to a patternf en tey s n rulio iak thesometis ars t ce up withuinco atta e.p.a.s andanuftuin pcas for ea rpeits

wi know wh ireired t eet t new regulio. becauseofheacof claty and e time ofeetingimely idce irtegreat cfuon and uerinty for e ates and for t specific muftung facitiesrying ethese requirements. to ge u an exalethe la onru thatwas adted by the e.ain00, theuinc for peop ting to et tse quemtsf ategulation stilha n ben issued. so we findurselves in a tuio where e w egulationsre cat eat obstleto ecomigrth i e unid at. and i tink alof uregnize

aecom gwthabe ite sagnantfoso me. d he had my arings on this iue and we hear from pplon reular basis th o oth eanshat theycatetew plts bui ibeus o t uncertain, t lk clarity, te lack of idce omhe.p.a. enheco t wh w gulatis. and aone that follows p. s quite aarehat they are particar aggrsive in new gulations. they have meutit new relationonhele airct n egulabas r e st uyes. a sn ain wein ouselves lacoflarity, la idcefr p., and ths listi, whicwas intduced m scalise, simply says to.,f u e ou wh a ne rulatio

siulneouslyou mu ove heuinc fr e stas and thindivialpplicantsho wi bereired t oai rmts tbud their nuctinfality so that's wathibi i all abt. ihit'aomn sse ecof lgiatn. obvious afs nto eate new jobs weave companies out there tayith a lot ocawh want touild thesnelas, t causef recratic ffultiesla olit andack of idance on tily bas from e.a i makes it extremely difficult to do. that's why we are here today to discuss this legislation. i think it's very important that we adopt this legislation. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky reserves the balance of

his time. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. yarmuth: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. yarmuth: this has been a fascinating week in terms of the environment. we started it with the president orchestrating one of the truly groundbreaking breakthroughs in carbon emissions and getting the chinese for the first time it agree to limit their carbon emissions, setting new standards for the united states, and then this week in the congress we basically have three bills that are the equivalent of saying through statute, to polluters, smoke them if you got them. three bills that represent one of the worst trifectas i have ever seen. i come from horseracing country. yesterday we voted on a bill that in the title suggests that we are somehow improving the science behind the environment and basically what it did was limit the ability of the e.p.a. to have scientists as part of the decisionmaking process. today we are discussing the

so-called promoting new manufacturing act. and as we heard from my good friend from kentucky, the goal of the legislation is to facilitate a manufacturing renaissance in the united states by expediting air permits for new facilities. but the premise of the bill is very flawed. new manufacturing facilities aren't being held back by clean air requirements. weakening the clean air act won't create jobs. and the specific provisions of this bill will slow down permitting not speed it up. in truth, this bill is yet another republican attempt to weaken the clean air act, protections, and attacking e.p.a.'s authority to reduce harmful air pollution. the clean air act requires major new or expanding sources of air pollution to obtain permits with pollution limits before the facilities start construction. it's a lot easier and less costly to minimize less pollution when you are designing a facility compared to cleaning one out. these are based on a simple

principle, a new facility should not increase local air pollution above levels that are safe to breathe. the bill before us violates this principle by creating a permitting loophole, allowing new facilities to obtain permits under old, less protective air quality standards unless e.p.a. prom mull gates new regulations or guidelines. this provision is bad for existsing manufacturing -- existing manufacturing in the united states, the permitting loophole would impose new costs on the manufacturing sector rather than help it. the bill allows new facilities to pollute more than their fair share, leaving the existing manufacturers to make up the difference. in areas struggling to clean up their air, like my district in louisville, kentucky, this shifts the responsibility and cost of pollution control to existing manufacturing facilities. this provision does not make economic sense. furthermore, in all of the limited testimony pursuant -- considering this bill, there's not one company identified that

actually said they would build a manufacturing facility if they could do it under older guidelines. and i'm kind of amused that the republicans now want the e.p.a. to issue nationwide guidelines when their ideology says states are better prepared to deal with issues at their own level. and in fact states under the existing law have done a very, very good job of creating guidelines and strategies for meeting problems with pollution in their jurisdictions. for a wide variety of reasons, this bill doesn't accomplish what its title suggests. we urge its defeat. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: thank you very much. i might say that during the time we had the hearing on this legislation, we had several state representatives from the state e.p.a. came in and testified and they all were

talking about the absence of timely implementation guidance from e.p.a. produces a lack of clarity. colorado, arkansas, even the national association of clean air agencies wrote a letter to e.p.a. on september 4, 2013, complaining about this. now, i would remind everyone this bill does not do anything about the science trying to diminish the importance of science in coming forth with new regulations. all it does is says that e.p.a. comes out with a new regulation under the clean air act, they must provide the guidance to the states and to the entities who want to build new plants. and i might also say that the american chemistry council particularly raised this issue with us and through their membership of companies trying

to build new manufacturing plants and meeting great difficulty because of the lack of clarity. i might also say all of us are very much concerned about climate change, but i don't think america has to take a back seat to any other country in the world. our co-2 emissions are the lowest they have been in 20 years. and i might also say we find ourselves today because of regulations from this administration of being one of the only countries in the world where you cannot build a new coal-fired plant to produce electricity because the technology is not available to meet the stringent emissions standard unless you are going to spend huge sums of government money as they are in the plant in mississippi, by the way the standard was set for that regulation, the emissions standard, based on that plant which is still not in operation,

is about two years overdue, is way over cost, and all the entities involved in it said that kind of plant would never be built again without huge government dollars involved. and we would like to get back to a situation in america where on energy projects we use private money. i noticed google recently was involved in the ivan path solar facility out west, one of the largest in the world. they used a lot of government loans to build that plant and now google and other companies are coming back to the government and applying for grants to help pay off the loans. this is a common sense piece of legislation. it does not change the science. it simply he provides additional clarity. i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. yarmuth: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield two minutes to

the gentleman from texas, mr. green. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. green: thank you, mr. speaker. and thank my colleague from kentucky for yielding to me. i rise in opposition to h.r. 4795. it was my hope to resolve the issues of this bill during the committee, unfortunately that was not the case. h.r. 4795 promoting the new manufacturing act, could be a solution in search of a long-standing problem. the problem relates to federal permitting. in this case new source review permits. while the majority of permitting takes place at the state level, the e.p.a. plays a critical role in permitting process. when e.p.a. prom mull gates a final national am bient air quality standard, states and industry must respond through implementation, application, respectively. e.p.a. should work as quickly as possible to offer states guidance on how to implement these new standards. lack of guidance can lead to significant permitting delays as industry is forced to submit incomplete review applications.

while i support the intent of the bill, i can't support the bill itself. h.r. 4795 is ultimately a lengthy delay in the national air standards quality -- national air quality standards that cannot be implemented and this bill cannot reflect current negotiations over that implementation. under this -- until this point the administration and e.p.a. have indicated a willingness to work on this issue. further, e.p.a. has not proposed these new air quality standards so i see this bill as a solution to a problem that doesn't yet exist. i want e.p.a. to be transparent, work with the industry, and h.r. 4795 does not support a collaborative working relationship. additionally, the new source review permitting and facilities were important to the economy, but we must also have a balance between economic growth and the protection of public health. the bill unfortunately does not

strike that balance effectively, and for that reason i'm unable to vote in favor of it. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: i continue to reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky reserves. gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. yarmuth: i'd like to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from new york, mr. tonko. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. tonko: thank you, i appreciate the time offered by the gentleman from kentucky. if experience has taut us anything over the past two decades is the clean air act has been a success. new businesses have started. the economy has grown. and the air is cleaner and beyond that healthier for all of us. the adjustments to the national ambient air quality standards about a large body of research on the impacts of air pollutants on human health and the

environment. h.r. 4795 assumes we cannot continue that record of success. the predictions of dire consequences to our economy before and after congress adopted the 1990 amendments to the clean air act have never materialized. we have, however, grown our economy and achieved cleaner, healthier air for everyone. so contrary to its title, this bill does nothing to promote manufacturing. . it is simply many attempts to undermine the clean air act. instead of bringing this partisan bill to the floor, a bill with no chance of becoming law, we could be working together on legislation that would reinvigorate our domestic manufacturing sector. we could pass pending tax legislation or better yet, tax reform, that would provide the certainty, provide the fairness and provide the clarity that everyone needs and deserves. if it were enacted, this bill before us would be more likely

to cause confusion and legal challenges than to generate new manufacturing jobs. states developed comprehensive plans to take care of all possible pollution sources and balance the needs of all stakeholders in the effort to achieve cleaner air. h.r. 4795 would allow a new facility to operate under less strict air quality standards than existing facilities if e.p.a. has not issued all final regulations and guidance required for any type of facility that would be covered by a newly established standard. if the agency would call a standard into question by issuing guidance at a time after a regulation is finalized, why would the agency ever do that? guidance is useful for the regulated community. as new or unique situations arise, the agency can work with applicants to find the most appropriate and most cost-effective means for moving a project forward under the

law. it seems to me that we want to simplify the regulatory process, not complicate it, and to encourage communication and flexibility, not to stifle it. we should ensure that regulations are implemented fairly and consistently, and we should facilitate communication and encourage the agency to work with regulated entities. h.r. 4795 is going to result in greater confusion, more legal challenges and a less flexible regulatory process. h.r. 4795 will not provide more jobs and it will not deliver clean air. i reject the notion that clean air and economic progress are incompatible. they simply are not. h.r. 4795 is a bad bill, and i urge its defeat. and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new york yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky reserves.

the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. yarmuth: it's my honor to yield as much time as he may consume to one of the truly great champions of the environment who ever served in this body, mr. waxman from california. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. waxman: i thank my colleague for those generous comments and i'm pleased to be here today to express my reason why this bill should not pass. it's called -- the bill's called promoting new manufacturing act. well, we would all want to do that. what a nice title. but the bill does not live up to the title. the bill does not do anything to promote manufacturing. it does not do anything to improve the permitting process for new and expanding facilities, but it does weaken air quality protections. it allows more pollution. it threatens public health. now, let me explain why i reached that conclusion. the clean air act requires a new or expanding source of air

pollution to obtain permits with pollution limits before the facility starts construction. these preconstruction permits ensure that a new or expanded facility will not increase local air pollution, the levels that violate national ambient air quality standards, which are based on public health. when the e.p.a. issues a new more protective air quality standard to reflect the latest science, permit applicants have to meet the new standard and show their emissions will not increase the amount of pollution that will harm public health. this bill, h.r. 4795, creates a loophole in this process. the bill says that if it's a new or expanding facility, they can apply for a permit based on

the old quality standard. the old air quality standard, which is not adequate to protect the public health. unless, they say, e.p.a. has been able to jump over a new procedural hoop that -- a hurdle they set with this legislation, requiring new regulations on permitting. in effect, this bill could give new sources of pollution amnesty from new air quality standards. this amnesty provision could have serious real-world consequences. the amnesty provision would force the states and e.p.a. to issue permits for facilities that pollute more than they would under current law. in fact, this bill would allow new facilities to degrade air quality to levels that are not safe to breathe. this loophole is also bad for business. because if you are not getting

the reductions from new sources, you're going to have to get those reductions from existing sources. it's shifting the burden from the new sources onto existing facilities. it raises pollution control costs overall because the whole doctrine under the clean air act, which has long been recognized, is that it's generally far more efficient and cost-effective to build pollution controls into a facility upfront rather than adding them later. but this bill does the opposite. when we had our hearing, representative dingle asked the secretary of the department of natural resources from the state of delaware whether creating this loophole in the clean air act would do anything to expedite permitting in his agency and he responded with a categorycal no. the california bar says it will

slow the permitting process. they said, waiting for u.s. e.p.a. waiting for guidance will result in unnecessary delays and public health risks because permitting agencies appear to be barred from issuing permits consistent with the new more health protective new ty standards until u.s. e.p.a. guidance, unquote. we should give e.p.a., state and local agencies more resources. this bill does not add a single penny more to e.p.a. or the state and local permitting agencies to hire more staff to review and process these permits. that's what the agency needs. states don't need more loopholes. they don't need more lectures about so-called red tape. they need more money and more people, but instead of providing these resources, house republicans have voted repeatedly to slash funding for environmental protection.

punching holes in the clean air act won't help these cash-strapped agencies work any faster. but it will make the air dirtier. for that reason i urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this legislation, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky reserves? the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: may i ask how much time remains on both sides? the chair: sure. the gentleman from kentucky has 23 minutes. the other gentleman from kentucky has 16 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from indiana, mr. stutzman, who's been a real leader on this issue. the chair: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for three minutes. mr. stutzman: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from kentucky for his work on this particular issue that's really important to the third district in indiana. i rise today in support -- strong support of the promoting new manufacturing act.

mr. speaker, for too long the obama economy has remained weak, and the american worker has suffered the consequences. too many people are struggling to find work to provide for their families. they want to know when things are finally going to pick up. we in congress have a responsibility to help create an economic environment that allows individuals to succeed and businesses to grow. and we can achieve that kind of success by cutting back on job-killing regulations, removing bureaucratic red tape and increasing transparency. that's what this bill today is all about. as a representative from indiana, i understand that a strong manufacturing industry is absolutely critical to our national and local economy. the third congressional district, the place that i call home is one of the top manufacturing districts in the entire country. this bill will not only bring new opportunities to hoosier families, but to families all across america.

strengthening our manufacturing economy and industry should not be a partisan issue, and today we have an opportunity to stand together and support legislation that will help create jobs and move our economy in the right direction. i'd like to thank whip scalise, chairman upton and members of the committee of energy and commerce for their hard work on this issue, and i'd urge my colleagues to support this particular legislation. mr. speaker, finally, i'd say that one of the top issues that i hear from folks as i travel across the district back home in had northeast indiana is that the regulations and the effects that washington, d.c., bureaucracies and red tape, the impact that it's having on jobs in indiana and across the country is hurting and that they need relief. so, again, i'd definitely urge my colleagues to support this particular legislation and let's start taking the boot off the american economy and let it

and its families succeed. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from indiana yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. yarmuth: thank you, mr. speaker. before we close our side of the argument, i'd like to take this opportunity once again to thank my colleague, mr. waxman, for his incredible service to this body and the country over the last several decades. one of the first things i did when i was elected to congress in 2006 was to call mr. waxman to ask if i could serve under his leadership on the oversight and government reform committee because i respected him so much. he has been phenomenal mentor to me as he has been to hundreds of other members of congress over the years. i think the country owes him a great debt of gratitude. with that i would like to say in the spirit of his championing of the environment that what we've seen again this week, not just with this bill

but with two other bills the last two days is kind of a wolf in sheep's clothing approach to the environment, addressing legislation up with very, very nice-sounding titles that essentially do exactly the opposite of what they're intending to do. this bill, far from promoting manufacturing, will make it much more difficult for the e.p.a. to set rules and in the process not accomplishing anything and encouraging manufacturing. i don't know of one business person who would say, i'm going to build a plant that i otherwise would not build because i get to build it under old pollution rules. most business people are very forward-looking. they look for opportunities, not to exploit the environment. they look for opportunities to make money because they have a vision, and virtually every good business person i know these days understands that building facilities that have the latest technology and are

the cleanest technologies are the way to make money and to make sound business decisions. so for all of those reasons, and as mr. waxman laid out in very clear terms, this bill does not promote manufacturing. it will do actually the opposite. we urge defeat of the legislation, and with that i yield back the balance of our time. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: i certainly agree that manufacturing owners of these manufacturing plants do not want to build new plants using old rules. they want to use the best technology, but they want the clear guidance from e.p.a. about what it should be. because when they don't have that, they find themselves involved in lawsuits with all sorts of environmental groups on a regular basis. and i might also say that there are many reports out there relating to manufacturing. i'm just going to read from a

few that states that one of the key factors of investor confidence is a timely and efficient permitting process that is matched to current technologies. ken weiss, global managing rtner which has extensive -- testified, we routinely advise clients that obtaining a p.s.d. permit can take anywhere from one to three years and a minimum of 12 to 18 months needs to be allowed in the project's schedule. the president himself acknowledged in his latest state of the union speech this year that projects were being delayed, and there is a need to cut red tape to get factories built. and that's what this legislation is about. we're not telling e.p.a. what the regulations should be. we're not telling e.p.a. to disregard science. we're simply telling e.p.a.

with all of their expertise that when they issue the new regulation that they provide clear guidance for the states and the companies and the individuals and the entities that want to build these new plants with technology. and that's what this legislation is all about, and i would -- unless there's -- i would yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky yields back the balance of his time. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. the bill shall be considered as read. no amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed in part c of house report 113-626. each such amendment may be offered only 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, shall not be subject to amendment and shall

not be subject to a demand for division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in part c of house report 113-626. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? . mr. waxman: i seek permission to offer this amendment on behalf of my colleague and myself. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1, printed in part c of house report number 113-626, offered by mr. waxman of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 756, the gentleman from california, mr. waxman, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: thank you, mr. chairman. subsection 3-b creates a loophole in the clean air act that allows new facilities to meet old air quality standards. this means more pollution will enter the air, it will be harder to clean up. when one facility is allowed to

pollute more, other facilities in the area will have to invest more to reduce their emissions. that's not fair, that's not good for the economy. this loophole harms public health, burdens existing facilities, and creates regulatory uncertainty. if one is unwilling to remove the loophole from the bill entirely, then we should at the very least give state and local permitting authorities the opportunity to opt out. that's what this amendment does. we know states have concerns about this provision. we heard strong concern from the state of delaware at the hearing on this bill. in my own state of california, the california resources board wrote to the committee last week to express their serious concerns about this legislation. and this provision in particular wrote that, quote, the provisions proposed in this bill would not increase efficiency,

would result in additional delays, -- delays in permitting and increase public health risks, end quote. they made two key points. one, first of all, it's explained that states don't need e.p.a. guidance to issue permits under a new quality standard. they said, quote, for decades permitting authorities have successfully implemented their programs in response to every new standard u.s. e.p.a. has promulgated. in fact, permitting agencies have historically been the adviseers to u.s. e.p.a. on the guidance it will ultimately issue, end quote. they point out that the bill effectively requires e.p.a. to issue, quote, one size fits all, end quote, permit guidance that would not realistically take into account the uniqueness of every jurisdiction. they also explained that in

regions with severe air quality issues, barring the states from issuing permits consistent with new, more health protective air quality standards, will result in unnecessary delays and public health risks. they highlighted this is particularly an issue for vulnerable and already overburdened populations such as in disadvantaged communities. all of california san joaquin valley is in extreme nonattainment for air quality standards. this bill threatens the flexibility needed by the regional air pollution control district, the flexibility that has led to 2013 being the cleanest year on record in this region. this bill would take a step backward in that progress. let's not make state air pollution regulators' jobs harder by constraining their

flexibility and imposing counterproductive requirements. at least let's give them a choice. the amendment simply says if a federal, state, local, or tribal agency determines that adopting this loophole will increase air pollution that harms human health, slow issuance of permits, increase regulatory uncertainty, create new litigation, shift the burden of pollution control to small businesses, and other existing facilities, or increase the cost of achieving breathable air, then that agency may opt out. the agency does not have to issue a permit that exempts a new facility from meeting protective air quality standards. if you don't think the bill's clean air loophole, clean air act loophole will cause these problems, then states wouldn't opt out. and you wouldn't object to this amendment.

but just in case the states have heard -- we have heard from are correct, let's provide a safety hatch to make sure that we aren't harming public health and making air pollution permitting more difficult. i have heard my colleagues, especially on the republican side of the aisle, say over and over again, we don't need one size fits all. we need to let local control make some of these determinations. i agree in this case particularly that if they see given their circumstances a reason why they don't want to follow this new regime that would be created by this legislation, let them opt out. let them decide at the local level how to proceed. for that reason i urge passage of the amendment and reserve the balance of my time if i have any left. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? mr. whitfield: to rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for five

minutes. mr. whitfield: mr. speaker, this amendment basically would eliminate section 3-b or make it applicable in a different way which really would defeat the whole purpose of this bill. as i said in the beginning, this is very simple. we are not telling e.p.a. what the regulation should be. we are not telling e.p.a. not to use science. we are simply telling e.p.a. when you come out with a new regulation, you must provide the guidance for the states and for the entities that are trying to build new plants to create jobs in america. so this amendment would simply change that process. all of us understand and recognize the great role, great contribution that has been made by the clean air act, but yet any time we could come up and we try to amend the clean air act, it's almost like we are touching the holy grail.

things change over time. and as i said, e.p.a. has been so aggressive with so many regulations they are not providing the guidance to provide the clarity so that entities can invest dollars to create jobs. obviously he we want to balance -- obviously we want to balance a good clean environment, but we also want a healthy economy. that's what this legislation is designed to do. as much admiration and respect that i have for mr. waxman and mr. mcnerney, i do he oppose this amendment and -- i do oppose this amendment and ask the members not adopt it. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. waxman: i ask a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in part c of house report 113-626. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? mr. whitfield: to explain my amendment and ask for its adoption. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2, printed in part c of house report number 113-626, offered by mr. whitfield of kentucky. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 756, the gentleman from kentucky, mr. whitfield, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: as i have said repeatedly, the intent of this bill is to ensure that when the e.p.a. issues new air quality standards, the agency provides timely guidance about how to comply with the new standards in the permitting process. now, at the hearings that we have had and in discussion -- individual discussion with other

members, people have argued that section 3-b of this bill would prevent a state or local permitting authority that wanted to impose the new standards even in the absence of e.p.a. implementing regulations and guidance from doing so. that was not the intent of the bill, and this amendment clarifies that. so if you have a state like california or even delaware, which are two that i can think of, that would like to go on and impose the new standard without the guidance, then this amendment ensures that they have the opportunity to do that. so that's what this amendment does. it's simply a clarification. i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, i seek the time.

i seek the time as if i were in opposition to talk about this amendment. the reason i qualified it is i see no reason to oppose the amendment, it's not objectionable, but it doesn't actually fix the bill's core problems. subsection 3-b of the bill gives new sources amnesty from compliance with a new or revised air quality standard until e.p.a. issues rules and guidance on the implementation of the air quality standard. the provision effectively creates two classes of sources. new sources would be permitted under the outdated and less protective air standard, but existing sources would be permitted under the updated more protective standards. this amendment doesn't affect this requirement in any way. the whitfield amendment says that states can set their own more stringent air quality

standards under state law. i don't disagree with that. section 116 of the clean air act already gives the states the right to adopt more stringent air quality standards. it has been in the clean air act for decades. that's fine as far as it goes. but it doesn't address our concern with subsection 3-b. if my colleagues are in favor of state flexibility, they should either oppose the underlying bill entirely, or support the state opt out amendment. the whitfield amendment does not provide them any relief from the loophole and procedural burden envisioned under the bill. i don't object to this amendment as it doesn't make the bill worse, doesn't make it worse, but it doesn't make it better. i urge my colleagues to oppose the bill even if this amendment is adopted. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from

california yields back. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman has 3 1/2 minutes. mr. whitfield: i would remind everyone that even if e.p.a. fails to do its job, the bill makes clear that nothing relieves new facilities of their obligations to install the best available control technology in attainment areas, and the lowest available emission rate technology in nonattainment areas. i would also say that while my amendment allows those states who want to go on and implement the new regulation without the guidance, they can do that. but on the other hand our legislation is designed to protect those states and those entities who find it -- they are unable to interpret the new regulation. and because of that uncertainty, it has been the experience of many companies when they build new facilities with technology

under new regulations, they end up being sued over it frequently. so this legislation is about common sense. this legislation also -- and this amendment allows those states that want to implement the stricter standard, they have the ability to do that. i would urge the adoption of this amendment and passage of this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. mr. waxman: i'd like to ask unanimous consent that i reclaim a minute for a clarification for the record. the chair: is there objection? mr. whitfield: no objection. mr. waxman: mr. whitfield mentioned that the national association of clean air agencies would like timely guidance. that's true, but just yesterday they wrote a letter making clear they oppose this bill. and i want to insert in the record the letter that came under the signature of s. william becker, national

association ever clean air agencies. i thank the gentleman. i yield back my time. the chair: done under general leave. time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from kentucky. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, the unfinished business is the request forerecorded vote on amendment number 1 print the in part c of house report 113-626, by the gentleman from california, mr. waxman, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will designate reeagged the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1, printed in part c of house report number 113-626, offered by mr. waxman of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the 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.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 183, the nays are 225. the amendment is not adopted. there being no further amendments under the rule, the committee rises.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has under consideration the bill h.r. 4795 and pursuant to house resolution 756 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. the question is on adoption of the amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor will say aye.

those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. -- in obtaining necessary permits and for other urposes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady will suspend. the house will come to order. please take conversations out of the aisles, out of the back aisles, out of the well. the house will come to order. the cannot proceed with further business until the house comes o order.

the house will come to order. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new hampshire seek recognition? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill? >> i am opposed in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman qualifies. the clerk: ms. kuster of new hampshire moves to recommit the bill h.r. 4795 to the committee on energy and commerce with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment -- at the end of section 3 add the following new subsections. d, protecting children and seniors -- the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the gentlelady will suspend. ms. kuster: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady will suspend.

the house will come to order. the house will come to order. please, members, remove yourself from the aisles, from the back aisles. if you have conversations, please remove them off the floor of the house so the house's business can continue. all members on both sides, please remove yourself from the aisles and please cease conversations. the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. kuster: thank you, mr. speaker. this is the final amendment to the bill which will not kill the bill or send it back to

committee. if adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended. mr. speaker, we can all agree only the importance of revitalizing the american manufacturing sector. we need to work across the aisle, republicans and democrats, to support manufacturing, workers and businesses so that more products across this planet can be stamped made in america. that is why i am a proud supporter of the make it in america agenda. we need to pass this agenda, which will help more businesses manufacture goods in america so more families can make it in america. for example, we need to work with the senate to permanently extend the research and development tax credit. this tax credit will help companies like air mar in milford, new hampshire, a world leader in ultrasonic sensor technology. we need to expand trade

adjustment assistance. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady will suspend. the chair encourages all members of the house to please cease conversation, take the conversations off the floor, if they must continue, so the house's business can continue. the gentlelady can proceed. ms. kuster: thank you. we need to expand trade adjustment assistance and invest in work force development, like the 2.5 million dollar department of labor grant recently awarded to nashua community college. this funding will help teach students the kills needed for advanced manufacturing careers so that a graduate with a two-year associate's degree can leave school and walk into a good job that pays $45,000 a year. we need to pass long-term re-authorization of the export-import bank, to help companies like boyle energy in

concord, new hampshire, ship american-made products around the world. these are the policies that will promote new manufacturing jobs, and they deserve bipartisan support. unfortunately, the bill before us today is not a commonsense bipartisan proposal for strengthening manufacturing. instead, it would tie the hands of our public health officials and make it harder to advance life-saving rules to protect our air and our long-term pollution. that's why i'm offering my amendment, which would provide two exemptions from this bill. first, my amendment would exempt rules that protect children and seniors from cancer-causing pollution within five miles of a school or nursing home. and second, my amendment would protect small businesses from any job losses or increase costs resulting from this bill. whether you support or oppose the underlying bill, every member of this body should be

able to vote to protect the health of children and seniors and to protect small businesses. so i urge support for my amendment and i urge my colleagues to move on from these partisan proposals and instead work to find bipartisan ways to strengthen american manufacturing without putting our air quality or public health at risk. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? >> to rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to the motion to recommit because i strongly support american manufacturing and that's what our bill is about. mr. scalise: it's about getting americans back to work. you know, our friends on the other side of the aisle want to talk about protecting seniors. the biggest threat we hear about seniors right now is the president's health care law that cut hundreds much billions

of dollars out of the medicare program. why don't you work with us to repeal that law and replace it with reforms that actually strengthen medicare and help seniors? that would be a really good place to start. now, let's talk about jobs, mr. speaker, because that's the focus of this bill. and this is a bipartisan piece of legislation. what we're trying to do is actually support some of the things the president himself has talked about. the president said that he wants to cut red tape. you know what this bill does, mr. speaker? it cuts red tape. the president says he wants to be the most transparent president ever. we'd actually like to help him fulfill that promise. in our bill we require transparency from the e.p.a. to actually start proving what they're saying they want to do with actual science. if you look at what's been holding back our economy, so many states will tell you when they're trying to issue permits, it's agencies like the e.p.a. that are holding back their ability to create jobs and issue permits thaul

standards. ironically, the motion to recommit that they're bringing forward wo actually make it harder to implement higher air quality standards. we've had testimony in committee, mr. speaker, from companies that have told us that they are right now delayed by years, in some cases, in the permitting process to build newer, better plants, to create thousands of jobs in america because the e.p.a. will come up with rules and guidelines and yet they won't even show states y groups how they can achieve this in the real world. you know, there's this parallel universe, mr. speaker. you've got the e.p.a. coming out time and time again with rules and regulations that cannot be implemented in the real world, and then you've got people that are trying to create jobs in america saying the biggest thing holding us back from creating good american jobs is these crazy, radical rules coming out by the e.p.a. and other agencies like it. so mr. speaker, we've got a

choice to make. here in this chamber and across this country. the president says he wants to create jobs, and yet he comes out with rules with his agencies like the e.p.a. that are the biggest impediment to us creating jobs in america. the president says he wants to be transparent, and yet he refuses to be transparent in a bill, like our bill today -- refuses to be transparent. in a bill, like our bill today, makes him transparent. he talks about expediting the process. it's time to walk the walk. he says he wants to remove that red tape. well, you know, mr. speaker, in this bill we remove that red tape. so we ask ourselves today, do we want to get our economy moving again? i say yes. do we want to cut the red tape the president promises but doesn't deliver? i say, yes, let's cut that red tape. do we want to get our economy moving again? i say, let's create those jobs, get our economy moving again and get these radical agencies

that are slowing down job compreags. let's pass the underlying bipartisan bill and get the economy moving again. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. for what purpose does the gentlelady from new hampshire rise? ms. kuster: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those in favor of a recorded ote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes on the question of passage. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 1 9 the nays 223. the question is not adopted. passage of the bill, so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the aye vs. it. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? recorded vote is requested. those in favor of the recorded vode will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of

representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: the that is are 7 . the he bill is passed, without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i rise to ask for unanimous consent to remove myself as a

co-sponsor from h.r. 5144. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. o ordered. he house will come to order. the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one inute. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. please take conversations off the floor.