mr. mckinley. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this job creator to test uncertainty. let's make one thing clear, this regulation -- this proposed regulation does not provide certainty. now in the spirit of the super bowl upcoming let me explain with an analogy. if a quarterback knew what defense was going to be put up against him, he knew with certainly what defense, he would logarithmically be able to move the ball down the field much more easily if he knew with certainly what he faces. this is what applies in this regulation. it provides no certainty to the business community. let me give you three examples. you've already heard from our two chairmen talk about that. but let me reinforce it again. the rule results in potentially conflicting federal and state requirements. federal judges in neighboring jurisdictions could make contradictory decisions regarding compliance. but more damaging is on page 18 of the rule. it says, "this rule defers a final determination until additional information is available." that's not acceptable. how many times must there be a final

mr. speaker, i rise against the mckinley amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. conyers: thank you. the mckinley amendment as bad as things already are in the bill adds an additional requirement to the bill's more than 60 analytical new requirements for the rulemaking process by requiring agencies to also consider economic competitiveness and impact on low-income populations in the rulemaking process. now the afl-cio, public citizen and coalition for sensible safeguards all oppose this amendment because it is redundant and inflexible. this amendment is largely redundant of existing requirements executive order 12898 already protects both low-income communities and communities of color. this executive order already requires agencies to take into account distributional impacts on these populations. and so i want you to know that this is not the way to go. this makes a totally unacceptable bill even further unacceptable. i would yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson. the ch

mr. mckinley gets another five minutes. we're going to let you interject here before he goes next again. >> i very much appreciate that mr. chairman. i'll be quick. it really is useful to compare what pennsylvania said in its complaint in 2012 about the condition of that site to what they told epa. it's different. you'll see the states saying the sites leaked. you'll see the company, imminent and substantial endangerment to the environment. you don't see that in any testimony to the epa. the enforcement action the state took, and i don't want this to get lost came after the citizens filed a notice of their intent to sue the company. pennsylvania if they tell you that, that's great. we didn't get that feeling. >> unfortunately, 17 left. the great state of the commonwealth of pennsylvania to respond. >> yes. i'm very familiar with little blue run. this is familiar to me in pennsylvania. signed a consent decree going through the procedures to close this facility. we actually this had been looking at the site long before the sui

mr. mckinley's point. isn't it true states are not required to adopt or implement the requirements? >> clearly, they are not required but the states called on us to make this linement and why we established the solid waste program and states can implement the requirements and seek epa's approval from that and establish the alignment from our perspective. >> neither epa nor the states can directly enforce the requirements in the final rule isn't that correct? >> that is correct. we believe again using the state solid waste management programs they can implement it once the state solid waste management program is approved and independently states can implement requirements of the rule. >> under your rule, the only enforcement mec.ismfa under -- enforcement mechanism under the recently reduced rule is citizen suits and litigation, isn't that correct? >> we actually believe the solid waste program when i proved will not result in excessive litigation. there will be litigation to enforce in those circumstances where states and others deem not to be in compliance. >> you're more optimisti

mr. mckinley's point. isn't it true states are not required to adopt or implement the requirements?>> clearly, they are not required but the states called on us to make this linement and why we established the solid waste program and states can implement the requirements and seek epa's approval from that and establish the alignment from our perspective. >> neither epa nor the states can directly enforce the requirements in the final rule, isn't that correct? >> that is correct. we believe again using the state solid waste management programs they can implement it once the state solid waste management program is approved and independently states can implement requirements of the rule. >> under your rule, the only enforcement mec.ismfá under the recently reduced rule is citizen suits and litigation? >> we actually believe the solid waste program when i proved will not result in excessive litigation. there will be litigation to enforce in those circumstances where states and others deem not to be in compliance. >> you're more optimistic than i am, i guarantee that. even if states adopt

mr. mckinley gets another five minutes. we're going to let you interject here before he goes next again. >> i very much appreciate that, mr. chairman. i'll be quick. it really is useful to compare what pennsylvania said in its complaint in 2012 about the condition of that site to what they told epa the condition of that site was during the rule making process. it's really kind of different. you'll see very different statements. you'll see the state saying the sites leaked. you'll see them saying the company has practiced substantial and imminent danger to the environment. you don't see any of that coming through in the testimony to epa. the enforcement action the state took -- and i just don't want this point to get lost, came after the citizens filed a notice of their intent to sue the company for those violations. not before. it came after. pennsylvania, if they would like to tell you they were going to do it anyway, i'd be happy to hear that. that's great. but we didn't get that feeling. >> fortunately, you got 17 seconds