mr. markey. and in this evaluation they said they have found none, zero, zip of these impoundments to be unsafe. now, that's our own e.p.a. and we're glad they're out there now checking these impoundment areas because -- and i think a lot of this is the result of moving this bill and having now at least a standard for liners. i think in our testimony of the subcommittee, liners are important. liners are what we do in municipal solid waste. liners is what we should do with coal combustion residuals. well, this bill ensures we have liners in the coal combustion residual ponds and facilities. so it's a very -- i think it's time to protect times. it helps for obviously the recycling of this in the industry sector, it helps save jobs. i think the amendment only hurts the passage of this bill. i ask colleagues to vote no on the markey amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts. those in fa

mr. markey: nine minutes. so if the gentleman from kentucky would not mind, we will reserve until the gentleman has -- mr. whitfield: at this time i'd like to recognize the gentleman from tennessee, dr. roe, for three minutes. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for three minutes. mr. roe: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the chairman for yielding. i rise in support of this legislation. we cannot afford to enforce the proposed mact regulations especially when unemployment exceeds 9%. these new burdensome regulations will result in the loss of 8,400 jobs in tennessee. when will this administration learn that further burdening the job creators does not create jobs? this is just another example of failed leadership and it is our duty to the american people to ensure the e.p.a. does not continue down the same path that will only lead to job loss. the new rules affect approximately 200,000 boilers. . they burn natural gas, refinery gas, or other gas to produce steam which is used to generate electr

mr. markey. mr. markey: i thank the gentleman. the bill before us today proposes to give away national forestland to the resolution copper corporation so they can build a giant copper mine. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman may continue. mr. markey: there could be between $2 billion and $7 billion worth of copper on this land. who exactly is this company that's going to be the beneficiary of republican majority largess? a controlling 55% of resolution copper shares are owned by the giant mining conglomerate rio tinto. what else does rio tinto own? they own 65% of the world's largest open pit uranium mine. the mine in namibia. their second largest partner in the uranium mine with a 15% stake and two people on the board of directors is none other than the government of iran. the u.n. the u.n. security council has condemned iran for its violations of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty and this house has twice enacted strong iran nuclear sanctions and yet rio tinto is in partnership with the iranian g

mr. markey. mr. markey: 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: the chair lays before the house the following communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives. sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on october 7, 2011, at 12:10 p.m. that the senate passed with an amendment, h.r. 2944. that the senate passed senate 1639. with best wishes i am, signed sincerely, karen l. haas, clearing -- clerk of the house. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: to address the house for one minute, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms.

mr. markey from massachusetts. mr. markey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mark -- for five minutes. mr. markey: i thank the gentlelady. i rise in opposition to this legislation. if it were to pass the house, we lawmakers would be directing the secretary of transportation to tell u.s. airlines not to follow the law. if we prohibit our companies from complying with laws in other countries we should expect other countries to do the same when it comes to their companies complying with u.s. law. if an effort to protect u.s. airlines, this bill might actually undermine airline security. the u.s. currently requires international airlines to comply with a wide range of u.s. laws when it comes to passenger, baggage and cargo security in order to do business in our country. if we legislate our companies out of europe's environmental laws, our homeland security could be adversely impacted. if european countries decide to withhold their cooperation in response with regard to screening of bagga

mr. markey. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes. mr. markey: i thank our leader from california and i just want to say that these bills represent a toxic assault that compromises public health for polluter wealth. republicans are continuing their war on the environment, with episode 37 of the clean air act repeal-a-thon. it's a tried and true three-part republican strategy. first, pass legislation that repeals regulations that have already been set. second, inkeff nitly delay new regulations -- indefinitely delay new regulations from ever being set. and third, just for good measure, include a provision that eviscerates the very underpinnings of effective federal law and deters any effort to protect the health and well-being of millions of americans. make no mistake, that is what we are doing here this week. these bills block and indefinitely delay implementation of the rule that would reduce hazardous air pollution such as mercury, lead and cancer-causing substances released from cement kilns and industrial boilers and do so in callous d

mr. markey of massachusetts. amendment number 2 by mr. edwards of maryland -- by ms. edwards of maryland. amendment number 1 by ms. schakowsky of illinois. amendment number 12 by mr. ellison of minnesota. amendment number 19 by mr. welch of vermont and amendment number 3 by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair will reduce to two minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 11 printed in the congressional record offered 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 redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 11 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. waxman 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 is a 15-minute vote.

mr. markey.mr. hall. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think the witnesses. i thank you for your work in this investigation. let me begin with you, admiral salerno. the jit completed the work of volume one in the case guard part of the investigation in april. there were 50 specific recommendations, 40 of which the coast guard -- the commandant has recently concurred with. is that correct? >> that's correct commissary. >> okay, has the coast guard commenced rulemaking on many of the recommendations clicks >> yes, sir, we have. there is an ongoing project to improve what we call subchapter ran in title 33 cfr come which governs offshore authorities and we are incorporating the recommendations from this report into that ongoing rulemaking process. >> so of these 40 accepted recommendations, how many will be -- will be enforced stay by the end of the year? i mean, what is the timing on this? wiki. really a drumbeat from this room drove faster, permit faster, move faster, let's do more. i guess i would li

mr. markey. >> thank you mr. chairman very much. the focus of today's hearing is to examine compensation fund set up for the residents of the gulf coast who were harmed by the bp spill. however, we addressed that question, think it would be instructive to consider what doesn't work when it comes to conference saving people affected by an oil spill. the 1989 exxon valdez ran aground in prince william sound alaska. a ruptured single-hulled tankers belched up to 750,000 barrels of oil into the frigid waters, killing wildlife and harming the fishing industry. for the citizens of alaska who live near this bill, the event itself was just the first part of an ongoing nightmare. commercial fishing businesses shuttered, recreation and tourism dollars were lost. exxon meanwhile immediately entered into a position of aggressive litigation rather than financial mitigation for the people affected. exxon bought the initial 5 billion-dollar judgment by alaska's courts for years all the way to the united states supreme court. in 2008 nearly two dec

mr. markey. >> thank you mr. chairman very much.the focus of today's hearing is to examine compensation fund set up for the residents of the gulf coast who were harmed by the bp spill. however, we addressed that question, think it would be instructive to consider what doesn't work when it comes to conference saving people affected by an oil spill. the 1989 exxon valdez ran aground in prince william sound alaska. a ruptured single-hulled tankers belched up to 750,000 barrels of oil into the frigid waters, killing wildlife and harming the fishing industry. for the citizens of alaska who live near this bill, the event itself was just the first part of an ongoing nightmare. commercial fishing businesses shuttered, recreation and tourism dollars were lost. exxon meanwhile immediately entered into a position of aggressive litigation rather than financial mitigation for the people affected. exxon bought the initial 5 billion-dollar judgment by alaska's courts for years all the way to the united states supreme court. in 2008 nearly two deca

mr. markey. now the gentleman from texas, dr. burgess is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. have some entries to what mr. markey was saying it certainly might be willing to work on the concept if he would be willing. and i think that's an important point of our discussion and certainly is something that the members of this committee should look at. let me also just say that i favor renewables. i've got a solar manufacturing company in my district. i'm not aware that got many loan guarantees. and i've got a big wind turbine to know they haven't gotten to celica product a very strong competitor in the market. they do compete against foreign importers for imports of foreign manufacture blade. but just remind people that cheap brazilian plates will not stand up against the harsh texas wins like good old texas played that are made in gainesville, texas. i would encourage people to buy locally when they are buying long wind turbine blade. mr. burner can you answer dr. murphy's question. he asked if there were any other loan guarantee deals out there that work thing in your answer

mr. markey. >> thank you mr. chairman very much. the focus of today's hearing is to examine compensation fund set up for the residents of the gulf coast who were harmed by the bp spill. however, we addressed that question, think it would be instructive to consider what doesn't work when it comes to conference saving people affected by an oil spill. the 1989 exxon valdez ran aground in prince william sound alaska. a ruptured single-hulled tankers belched up to 750,000 barrels of oil into the frigid waters, killing wildlife and harming the fishing industry. for the citizens of alaska who live near this bill, the event itself was just the first part of an ongoing nightmare. commercial fiing businesses shuttered, recreation and tourism dollars were lost. exxon meanwhile immediately entered into a position of aggressive litigation rather than financial mitigation for the people affected. exxon bought the initial 5 billion-dollar judgment by alaska's courts for years all the way to the united states supreme court. in 2008 nearly two decad

mr. markey. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. arkey: i thank the gentleman from arizona. mr. chairman, the new deal was a jobs plan. president obama has put forward a jobs plan. h.r. 1904 is not a jobs plan. h.r.1904 is a massive payout to multinational mining giants wearing a jobs plan as a disguise. and that disguise is slipping. real jobs are about making wise investments in businesses and technologies that put americans to work. this bill just gives billions of dollars in copper to foreign mining companies for free. so let's do the math. estimates vary on the value of the copper. from $2 billion t $7 billion or $8 billion. so let's just split the difference down the middle and say that the copper might be worth $5 billion. the jobs claims for this bill vary wildly as well from 500 to 5,000 jobs. now, there's a good reason to believehe jobs numbers will be on the very low end, but let's be optimistic and take the highest jobs claim possible, so supporters of this bill are going to giveway $5 billion in hopes of creating 5,000 j

mr. markey. >> mr. grippo, a few straightforward questions. say you are considering a loan guarantee of the -- company and the price of the product company sells have declined by 63% over the last several years, including the more than 20% since february. without knowing anything else about the company does that sound like a bullet to the high risk or low risk project? and i am sorry, could you restate that? i want to make sure i am understanding. >> the product that sells dropped 63% in 20 years and 20% since february. a high risk or low risk? >> the price of their product is falling? assuming the costs of the company are not commensurately falling it would have risked to it. >> what it the same company's business model was predicated on demand for its product expanded dramatically the due to fundamental changes in the market people just were not buying the product like everybody thought they would. what does for the increase or reduce the financial risk of the company? >> again, let me ask you to repeat that so i understand the assumptions.

mr. markey clarifying that you're from massachusetts. who would have guessed? [laughter] and i think you for doing work that i am sure many days seems thankless. we have heard from many that the sixth to drop -- the six months drilling moratorium's economic impact was worse than the impact of this bill itself. mr. chairman, i would like to introduce in the record a letter from the baton rouge foundation, from another organization. the oil rig workers assistance fund was set up as your call to help individuals who worked on the deep water rigs. this might have been affected by the moratorium. it experienced financial lawsuits -- losses. to receive compensation, the workers had to submit simple documentation -- pay stubs, unemployment forms, and so forth. at the time of the moratorium, the fund expected that maybe 9000 workers would apply for financial assistance. in reality, it was 357. 357 applications were completed by the rig workers seeking financial assistance, for a total of $5.3 million in financial assistance. i am not saying that the oil rig financial l

mr. markey may recall, provided a the briefing to him and his colleagues on may 4 last year in the initial stages of the review of the incident. i also participated another congressional briefings during 2010. our company testified in four separate hearings and produced tens of thousands of pages of documents to this committee. we voluntarily provided to the committee and other committees real-time logging data for sperry drilling for the macondo well so that you and your colleagues that have first-hand views of one of the various data streams available to individuals on the rig and onshore. in addition halliburton has produced hundreds of thousands of pages of documents in the multiple investigations that have been underway since last year. in fact said halliburton employees provided testimony to the joint investigative team during its hearings. at present halliburton is the subject of more than 400 class-action lawsuits with many thousands of potential claimants. as you can appreciate with that many lawsuits pending in more potentially in the offing, it will be a very limited in what i c

mr. markey for five minutes. >> fhs you a few straightforward business questions give us say you are considering a loan guarantee for a come any in the price of the product sells has declined by 63% over the last several years, including more than 20% in f

mr. markey's amendment would require that these foreign companies pay a simple royalty to the united statesoften all minerals extracted from this site. if mining is done on u.s. land, the american people should be able to share in the profits. finally, what's most disturbing about h.r. 1904 is a complete lack of respect for sacred native american sites. that will be swept into mining operations. native people won't even be able to comment on the land transfer until after it has occurred. now, i have seen that often in our area. i represent native americans, seminoles and others, and repeatedly where developers have gone forward not just in mining but the artifacts of our great history in this country have caused us to pause. and we should be very careful with this particular measure because we don't want to repeat that that i have seen happen time and again in florida. that's insulting and completely disrespective -- respectful to native traditions and culture. and my friends on the other side of the aisle should be ashamed by the blatant mistreatment of native americans by this bill. mr. l

mr. markey, he strongly supports it, and i want to offer it in his place. manufacturing facilities and other industrial sources release toxic mercury into the air. these emissions travel through the atmosphere and eventually deposit to land or water. once deposited the mercury can build up in fish, shell fish and animals that eat fish. consumption of fish and shell fish is the main route of mercury exposure to humanless. e.p.a. and f.d.a. have warned women who are pregnant of childbearing age or nursing that they should limit their consumption of certain types of fish and avoid others entirely due to mercury contamination. e.p.a. cremeant kiln rules are designed to cut emissions of mercury as well as other hazardous air pollutants. e.p.a. estimates that the rules will reduce mercury emissions from cement kilns by 16,400 pounds or 92%, compared with projected levels. e.p.a. looked at how these reductions would effect the emissions that are deposited to land or water, e.p.a. estimated that the cement rules would reduce mercury deposition by up to 30% in the w

mr. markey's amendment would require that these foreign companies pay a simple royalty to the united states often all minerals extracted from this site. if mining is done on u.s. land, the american people should be able to share in the profits. finally, what's most disturbing about h.r. 1904 is a complete lack of respect for sacred native american sites. that will be swept into mining operations. native people won't even be able to comment on the land transfer until after it has occurred. now, i have seen that often in our area. i represent native americans, seminoles and others, and repeatedly where developers have gone forward not just in mining but the artifacts of our great history in this country have caused us to pause. and we should be very careful with this particular measure because we don't want to repeat that that i have seen happen time and again in florida. that's insulting and completely disrespective -- respectful to native traditions and culture. and my friends on the other side of the aisle should be ashamed by the blatant mistreatment of native americans by this bill. mr.

mr. bryson once called the waxman-markey cap-and-trade bill moderate. this was probably the most liberal of all the cap-and-trade bills that were there. i have to say this one thing. i understand i am eight last speaker tonight. what all the speakers who are in favor 6 this have in common is they are all supporting cap and trade with the exception of senator hutchison and she's a retiempleg standpointrd stop and think about it. boxer, feinstein, kerry, mccain, they're all strong supporters of cap and trade. that's what i'm going to talk about tonight because i know where john bryson is on cap and trade. he told some students at the university of california berkeley last year that -- and i'm going to quote now so i don't get it wrong. "cap-and-trade has the advantage politically at sort of hiding the fact that you have a major tax." now, to me, the fact that you're supporting something that's a major tax increase on american people is bad enough, but when you say one of the good things about cap and trade is you can hide the fact that it's a major tax in