many of my democrat colleagues have gone on record saying they want to rein in the obama e.p.a. the senior senator from missouri is one of them. she said back home that she is determined to hold the line on the e.p.a. does that mean she and other senate democrats who have made similar statements will vote to stop the centerpiece of obama's war on coal? apparently not. today i've talked a lot about utility mact. to be sure we understand what it means one more time, utility mact is a rule by the e.p.a. to end coal in america and cause electricity rates to skyrocket. that was a statement that even the president said the electric rates would skyrocket. my resolution, s.j.r.37, will allow elected members of the senate to stop the obama e.p.a. it's as simple as that. i can remember when we passed the c.r.a., the congressional review act. it was really kind of interesting because the congressional review act was one recognized that sometimes the out-of-e.p.a.'s and other parts of the administration, and so if it's something where you get a simple majority of members saying this is outra

know what it gets me have you seen these these ads for coal and they say hey you know what is obama's e.p.a. think they're doing you know they're going to make prices rise and us pain at the at the plugs what they say well you know what about the pain of the long i mean these people act like you know government regulations aren't there to do anything you know we we regulate call because they they they pump you know tons of mercury into the air it's not only did you want it to be jerks yeah yeah how does this how does this story show just how effective the right wing story line of bias in the media is oh it's incredible that this i actually i think this is a good story because this time it didn't work you know i put i posted a clip of andrea mitchell playing that clip and the right wing started going crazy and then a bunch of the mainstream journalists sort of jumped in and said yeah you know what that is deceptive and you should change it and you know andrea mitchell didn't didn't buckle under she said no she didn't apologize she said you know what mitt romney said some else and i'll play t

but the obama e.p.a. is not a fair referee. not a fair umpire. the obama e.p.a. has a preconceived, what i consider to be radical environmental agenda and they appear heck-bent to impose it on the american people whether there is a scientific rationale or not. as mr. olson of texas just pointed out, the president as a candidate said that basically he wanted to try to make it impossible to build more coal-fired power plants in america. when he became president, he appointed a regional administrator down in texas, dr. armand daris who said he wanted to put hydraulic fracturing out of business and brought a case against range resources in texas that was thrown out on its face. because of the lack of evidence that there was any of environmental damage caused by hydraulic fracturing in the specific case in parker county. you had the civil servant at the e.p.a. early in the obama administration when they were considering their endangerment finding, which they had to impose in order to say they could reck late greenhouse gases, they had a career civil servant who sent a

e.p.a. it's exactly what happened in a video uncovered, al are a man dare is while president obama was poising in oklahoma pretending to support oil and gas, he told us the truth that the e.p.a. is -- quote -- "general philosophy is to crucify and make examples of oil and gas companies." you may remember last week when i spoke on the senate floor. i talked about a newly discovered video of region one administrator curt spaulding who is caught on tape telling the truth to a group of his environmental friends at yale university at a gathering there. he said that e.p.a.'s rules are specifically designed to kill coal and that the process isn't going to be pretty. he openly admitted -- quote -- "if you want to build a coal plant, you got a big problem." he goes on to say the decision to kill coal was -- and i'm quoting now -- "painful every step of the way because it could would devastate communities in west virginia and pennsylvania and any area that depends on coal for jobs and livelihood." that's kind of worth repeating. he said it's going to be painful. at least he recognized that. and we all k

since being sworn in, president obama's e.p.a.has set out to circumvent the will of congress and the american people by turning the already cumbersome mine permitting process into a backdoor means of shutting down coal mines. 18,000 kentuckians work in coal mining, and nearly 200,000 more, including farmers, realtors, and transportation workers rely on the coal industry for their jobs. coal brings in more than $3.5 billion from out of state and pays more than $1 billion in direct wages every year. attacking an industry so important to kentucky will only succeed in putting people out of work, impeding future job growth and increasing energy prices. a a former senior e.p.a. official under the obama administration summed up the logic of the agency by saying it wants to -- quote -- "crucify them." let me say that again. this was a regulator with respect to those working in the coal business saying it wants to quote crucify them, end quote. it is no wonder the administration has failed to answer the american people's call for greater d

in 2009 under the direction of president obama e.p.a., the department of transportation and h.u.d. began the partnership for sustainable communities, a joint venture to provide millions of dollars to local communities to entice them to buy into the president's sustainable development agenda. over 2010 and 2011 d.o.t. and h.u.d. awarded approximately $96 million in grant funding for sustainable and livable community initiatives. however, these programs were never authorized by congress. in fact, the financial services committee, who has authority over h.u.d. programs, said that the sustainable communities initiative, which has yet to be authorized by the committee, should not be funded at the expense of other critical, affordable housing programs. this opinion of the sustainable communities program by the financial services committee was bipartisan and unanimous. last year, thankfully, no new funding was provided for sustainable community grants, but the conference committee reminded the secretary that these efforts were eligible activities under other programs, meaning funding for

presidenpresident obama's heavyd e.p.a.admits that these communities in west virginia, pennsylvania, many other states in the west, midwest, and appalachia he said will just go away. chilling words because the e.p.a. is supposed to be about protecting people, protecting their communities, protecting their environment and protecting their health. with the utility mact rule, the e.p.a. is doing just the opposite. they are making communities go away. they are hurting communities, communities of families, children, seniors as a result of these regulations. how can one justify these actions? well, we are told that there are enormous health benefits. that's what they say, enormous health benefits, they claim, to the public by the issuance of this rule. first of all, how do you protect something if the community is gone? so obviously these folks in west virginia, pennsylvania are not the beneficiaries of e.p.a. protection. second, the medical benefits of the rule come from reductions in% particulate -- in particulate matter that a

e.p.a.'s action were a power grab not justified by the statute. the obama administration is committed to a war on coal and is appealing this clear decision. this appeal will consume tax dollars and time in our courts, and for what? to destroy good important jobs for americans. that's the goal of this administration's appeal. they want to destroy jobs and expand the power of the e.p.a. to have new power to revoke comments. this sub committee hears discussions about certainty. should the administration win this case and grant epa the power to revoke permits, it would destroy all certainty in permitting for projects across the united states. this would be terribly destructive for the american committee. this permit isn't the only one the epa has withdrawn that has cost jobs and destroyed the livelihood of americans. supplied power to the hundreds of thousands of homes. the obama administration's war on coal can be felt. east, west, apallachia and farmington, new mexico. americans should be concerned with this trend to pull permits, destroy jobs and hurt the ec

i think what we care less about is the way that president obama particularly and lisa jackson at the e.p.a are approaching utilizing our vast natural resources and this is why many conservatives and republicans feel that again, going to the role of government that we were blessed with so much coal and natural gas but it's not racial it's ideological that the whole green jobs thing, and that's where republicans say, no. we don't want more laws. we don't need more laws. we need good laws and good regulation and efficient regulation but we want to use our natural resources and not lock everything up. i think that's where republicans are coming from on the environment. not that we want dirty air and water like the left likes to portray. so that's my comment. host: some of these issues have become more political divisive by their very nature that environmental protection is part of the a broader conversation about natural resources and energy and where this country should be invested for the future and that's brought it to the realm of the more political debate than it was when we first asked a

e.p.a. that is overly zel zalozealous. you have obama care that nobody knows what the rules are. you have dodd frank. >> where is the confidence. >> >> i think there is a certain amount of uncertainty. that comes in part because of the plans the president puts before the congress get ignored. those are plans we know work. the business community is facing higher taxes because they understand that is part of the solution to dealing with the deficit. we can't get the congress to act. what we have is a congress which has decided there is a political advantage in stymieing this president and putting ideology ahead of the country. >> in 1997 i was one of the chief architects of the balanced budget. we didn't raise taxes. we cut capital gains. we balanced the budget and paid down the largest amount of debt in history. we were running huge surpluses. raising taxes is not the problem with congress. frankly the whole city is functional. and the executive is not leading. i'm an executive in ohio i can't blame the legislature for things not getting done. i have to accept responsibility. i ha

e.p.a. that is overly zealous. you have obama care that nobody knows what the rules are. you have dodd frank. no one knows what those rules are. the rules are so thick you could write many encyclopedias with them. companies see that and say, we're out of here. >> where is the confidence. >> i think john is right. there is a certain amount of uncertainty. that comes in part because of the plans the president puts before the congress get ignored. those are plans we know work. the business community is expecting higher taxes because they understand that is part of the solution to dealing with the deficit. every economist understands that as well. we can't get the congress to act. that's a problem. what we have is a congress which has decided there is a political advantage in stymieing this president and putting ideology ahead of the country. that's what this election is about. >> in 1997 i was one of the chief architects of the balanced budget. we didn't raise taxes. we cut capital gains. we balanced the budget and paid down the largest amount of debt in history. we were run

i think what we care less about is the way that president obama particularly and lisa jackson at the e.p.aare approaching utilizing our vast natural resources and this is why many conservatives and republicans feel that again, going to the role of government that we were blessed with so much coal and natural gas but it's not racial it's ideological that the whole green jobs thing, and that's where republicans say, no. we don't want more laws. we don't need more laws. we need good laws and good regulation and efficient regulation but we want to use our natural resources and not lock everything up. i think that's where republicans are coming from on the environment. not that we want dirty air and water like the left likes to portra portray. so that's my comment. >> host: some of these issues have become more political divisive by their very nature that environmental protection is part of the a broader conversation about natural resources and energy and where this country should be invested for the future and that's brouthd it to the realm of the more political debate thant was when we first

e.p.a. after that particular piece of video that you just saw surfaced. first lady michelle obama's support for new york city mayor michael bloomberg's plan to ban large servings of soda fizzling within hours. she praised bloomberg for trying to improve the city's communities and said the plan was "perfectly fine" but hours later, her support went cold. first lady saying the soda ban is not something she'd want at the federal level and clarifying she wasn't weighing in one way or the other. >> wow. i guess she -- it's hard during an election year so know, you want to make sure you don't defend an industry. >> first thing you do is look at the polls and see more than 60% of americans did not agree with that. >> you wonder if that beverage holder right there holds more than 16 ounces. >> i was just saying that before. >> you get a ticket. auto >> absolutely. you can get a ticket. >> it's a $200 fine! >> we don't want -- >> you can't write that off. >> meanwhile, this is our gigantic lead story today. scott walker making history as the first u.s. governor to fend off a recall challenge

so we have to defeat this push to stop the obama administration from doing what we wanted them to do since 1990, we wanted the then e.p.a. to do, and it's taken this much time to get it done. and just as we're on the brink of getting this protective rule, which is so cost efficient that for every $1 to $3 we save $9, they want to turn it around. now, what's at stake? 4,200 to 11,000 additional premature deaths. so when people say what we do doesn't matter, i say look at this. if this rule is repealed, more people will die prematurely -- we'll have 4,700 heart attacks, 130,000 cases of childhood asthma symptoms, 6,300 cases of acute bronchitis, 5,700 emergency room visits and hospital admissions, 540,000 days of missed work due to respiratory illness. and, again, $3 to $9 in benefits for every $1 invested in these power plants, one half of which have already done the right thing. half of the coal powered plants have already -- have done this already. we're talking about ensuring that the rest of them do the same. many companies have addressed their mercury and air toxic emissions. we should thank the coal companies who h

e.p.a.'s own process, the analyses are feasible and required by the clinton, president clinton's executive order, 12866 and president obama's executive order, 13563 as recently as march of this year. just a couple months ago the white house issued a memo reiterating, i quote, agencies should take active steps of the account of accumulative effects of new and existing rules. the e.p.a.'s own action development process, internal process of the e.p.a. requires that the analysis start early in rule development. that doesn't say you wait until the rule is developed. it doesn't say you wait until it's all done, complete, out there. early in the rule development process. action development process. taking a look at it. this information's available. they've got the data. they have the studies. it's time that they use that information to understand the impact that it will have on our constituents back home who are finding it increasingly difficult, increasingly difficult to balance the cost of energy with costs like paying for their home mortgage, putting food on the table. and that's why we have an opportunity with this bill to cre

protection and it wasn't tool after that when the president elect obama called me and asked me to join his cabinet as administrator of the e.p.a. and by the way my mom's house is being rebuilt by wendell pierce who is also a land developer. how about that? and then two years ago when the area was hit by another tragedy, the oil gusher in the gulf, because i didn't come back then i was in a position to help even my very personal connection the president named me to lead federal efforts to restore this region after the spill and after decades of envarmental abuse. so my choice turned out to be the right one for me. but see, you all made the choice. i didn't. you came here. i ultimately -- i know what it means that you did. i know what it means that you stepped up. and i'm proud to see what you have done with the choice you made. you are part of what the president calls the new tulane, one that is active in rebuilding and reinvigorating new orleans. today, you receive a degree from the first national research institution that includes public service in the requirements for graduation. in the face of disaster -- [cheers and applau

e.p.a. declared it was an aquatic resource of national of national importance and stopped the production for nearly a decade before approval of this simple bridge and pipeline. what the obama administration says and what the administration does to promote energy development in alaska are entirely two different things. those two things that i more markey: i yield myself the balance of my time. i don't have a problem debating this issue, but i think it should be done in an appropriate way. it overturns an e.p.a. decision of some significance. and i urge a no vote and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: just briefly, there are technical amendments in here which i acknowledge and which the gentleman did acknowledge but there are two substantive changes and the gentleman acknowledged both of those. i want to repeat, he talked about the issue of the colleville river was aquatic resource of national importance. he was basing this on a reason why we should oppose, why we should not adopt this amendment. i ju

by imposing these backdoor global warming cap-and-trade regulations through the e.p.a., president obama is fulfilling his campaign promise that energy prices would necessarily skyrocket -- his words -- by vetoing the keystone pipeline. he gave the far left what one of his supporters called the biggest global warming victory in years, by finalizing the most expensive e.p.a. rule in history, he is making good on his campaign promise that if anybody wants to build a coal fired power plant, they can. it's just that it will bankrupt them. and he succeeded in throwing hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars out the window on companies like solyndra, which he said would lead us to a brighter and more prosperous future. president obama is not running on this record of accomplishment. why? because americans are worse off, not better off, for it. they are out of work, they're struggling to make ends meet, and under the pain of regulations that cause their energy prices to skyrocket. so he's running as faraway from that radical record as possible. so what are we trying to do in the senate by st