Stop the War on Coal Act of 2012

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in opposition to this bill. The Republicans are saying that there is a war on coal, but the only battle coal is losing is in the free market--to natural gas, to wind and to solar. Just 4 years ago, coal generated 51 percent of the electricity in the United States. Now it is down to 35 percent. When you add up hydropower, the renewables, natural gas, and the other gases, you get 44 percent of our electricity sector.

Just like Governor Romney says he has given up on 47 percent of Americans, the House Republicans have given up on 44 percent of our electricity sector. Just like their politics grips tightly to the past, their energy policies hold fast to the energy technologies and the fuels of yesterday, like coal and oil.

The free market has been replacing coal with natural gas, which has grown from 21 percent of our electricity generation back in 2005 and 2006, and has now risen to 30 percent of all electrical generation in the United States. Natural gas. It's not a war, it's a revolution. What has happened is, simultaneously, coal has come down to 35 percent. Surprising, isn't it? The numbers look like they match up pretty perfectly, especially if you add up the rise from 1 percent to 4 percent of the electricity in the United States which has been generated by wind over the last 5 years. That's what's happening, ladies and gentlemen.

All the rest of this I don't understand, to be honest with you. It's almost like the Republicans are rejecting the free market as it is now operating as the country is moving to natural gas. I understand the coal State Members have to stand up and defend this change in the marketplace, but I don't understand why my other Republican friends would reject those free market principles.

Why is this switch from coal to natural gas happening? It's because natural gas is cheaper. Natural gas prices have decreased by 66 percent since 2008. It is cheaper to produce new electricity from natural gas than from coal. This isn't a conspiracy--it is a competition--but Republicans say that there is a war on coal. Well, in a market sense, that war is now being won. When I was a boy, I had to go down into the basement with my father to shovel the coal. That's how we kept our house warm. Then my mother said let's move to home heating oil, and so my father had the home heating oil come. That was a revolution. And now there is another revolution going on.

Up in the Northeast, for example, because of the low price of natural gas, 1.4 million Northeast households have switched from oil to natural gas over the last decade. And why is that? Again, it costs $2,238 to heat your home through the winter with home heating oil, and it costs $629 to heat your home with natural gas. That's why they're switching. The same thing is happening in the petrochemical industry. They're switching from oil over to natural gas. In the fertilizer industry, they're switching from oil over to natural gas. The price is low. They are moving in that direction. That's the larger story that is occurring--the natural gas revolution in the United States of America.

So, ladies and gentlemen, I just urge all of you to understand that this is not the Obama administration in a war against coal. That is not what is going on. There is a paranoia-inducing, Darwinian marketplace revolution that is taking place--led by natural gas, followed by wind-- that is changing the makeup of the electricity marketplace in our country. Only when you understand and admit this will we be able to have a real debate out here, because all the rest of this is really just meant to be political, in order to harm the President in the election of 2012, when the real harm to coal is being done in the marketplace.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield the remainder of our time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

With just 1 more day left until Congress recesses until the election, the Republican majority has decided that, instead of dealing with real problems facing Americans by passing a jobs package dealing with the looming fiscal cliff or providing tax certainty to middle class families, we will instead debate a bill that deals with an imaginary war on coal, fabricated by Republicans in order to justify their real war on the environment, the most anti-environment Congress in history.

In reality, this bill just represents a war on us. It's the Republicans in Congress making clear that their priority is not protecting the well-being of the American people. The Republican majority has already acted on four out of the five titles in this bill, and the Senate has rejected every single one of them. The President has vowed to veto every single one of them.

The only new title that is presented is one aimed at preventing the administration from moving forward with a rule that does not yet even exist, that would limit coal mining companies from dumping tons of their toxic mining waste directly into streams and rivers.

The ironic part is that, according to CBO, this bill won't even prevent the administration from doing that. But it does prevent the administration from undertaking any action that would ensure that mountaintop mining operations are safe for workers and safe for the health of those who live and work nearby.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to, at this point, reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

So the Republicans say that this legislation is all about creating jobs. They say that we will save money by passing this disastrous bill. But the numbers just don't add up.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, mountaintop mining has already buried nearly 2,000 miles of streams with mining waste that leaches dangerous heavy metals into that water. One study puts the cost of reclaiming a stream impacted by this type of mining at as much as $800 per linear foot.

If we do a little arithmetic, $800 multiplied by 5,280 feet in 1 mile, multiplied by the 2,000 miles of streams already buried, that's $8.5 billion. That's what it would cost to clean that up. And that's just to clean up the streams that have already been decimated.

But that's not the only cost included in this provision. We also have the cost to health, the cost to children.

Studies have shown that communities located near mountaintop mining sites have as much as a 42 percent increase in infants born with birth defects. These communities also have a 16 percent higher risk of giving birth to a child with low birth weight, a factor that is closely associated with fetal death, inhibited cognitive development, and chronic diseases later in life.

And that's not all. Communities located near mountaintop mining sites also have significantly higher rates of lung disease, cardiovascular disease, pulmonary disease, and a higher likelihood that these diseases will kill them.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Could I inquire from the Chair how much time is remaining on either side?

I yield myself the remainder of my time.

While it is impossible to put a dollar figure completely on the suffering that those families will feel, one study has put the public health burden from premature deaths in the Appalachian communities at $74 billion per year. Now, that's arithmetic that even Governor Romney would understand. In fact, when he was Governor of the great State of Massachusetts, he stood in front of a coal plant, and here's what he said. He said, ``I will not create jobs or hold jobs that kill people, and that plant kills people.''

My amendment is simple. It says, if the Secretary of the Interior is allowed to issue a rule that would protect pregnant women and children from adverse reproductive outcomes or birth defects or would reduce the prevalence of cardiovascular disease, pulmonary disease or lung cancer, that that rule can go into effect.

I urge all Members of this body to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I actually have no problem with the gentleman's amendment. If he wants to require the publication of scientific studies used to develop regulations, I am just fine with that. I'm sure he knows, of course, that this is already a Federal requirement, but I don't object to the redundancy of an amendment's passing that says they should do something that they do already.

But I do want to take a moment to talk about the Republican war on science, because this bill that we are debating today is their battle plan. The essence of today's bill is that science and facts do not matter and that, when science and facts become inconvenient, we can just repeal them.

Take the provision of this bill that legislatively overturns a scientific finding that greenhouse gas pollution is dangerous, which is a decision that was made based on 2 full years of work and on a 200- page synthesis of major scientific assessments, including assessments performed by the U.S. Global Change Research Program and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fourth Assessment Report. In fact, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington recently rejected challenges to EPA's scientific endangerment finding, saying that EPA used an ``ocean of evidence'' to support its decision that it was ``unambiguously correct'' in its determination and that ``EPA is not required to re-prove the existence of the atom every time it approaches a scientific question.''

Republicans decided that peer-reviewed science was inconvenient because that analysis was what started the pretend ``war on coal.'' So we have to vote again and again and again to eliminate all of that science.

This bill tells EPA to ignore the science that air pollution causes lung disease and that mercury damages children's developing brains. In fact, it tells EPA, Don't even look at the science; look at the costs. If controlling air pollution is expensive, then we shouldn't do it even if it would save lives. It says, no matter what EPA learns about the sludge that comes out of coal-fired power plants, no matter how high the concentrations of poisonous arsenic, mercury or chromium and that no matter what EPA learns about how these materials find their way into our drinking water, EPA is not allowed to scientifically determine that material to be hazardous.

This bill turns a blind eye to science. The only time Republicans value science is when science can be used as a weapon. When science can be used to delay regulations, when endless analysis can be used to create paralysis, the Republicans suddenly value science. The Republican majority doesn't like that every respected scientific entity over the last decade has concluded that greenhouse gases cause climate change.

Their solution: repeal the science.

Republicans aren't happy that the Secretary of Health and Human Services has issued a report that finds that formaldehyde causes cancer. Sure, the World Health Organization already determined that 17 years ago.

Their solution: We should study it again. We should allow a National Academy of Sciences review so that we can prevent the administration from taking any action to protect the public against dangerous formaldehyde. In fact, there has already been a rider to the health appropriations bill that does just that, while also stripping funding for any subsequent reports on cancer. It is a strategy taken right out of the American Chemical Council's playbook. It is act one of Big Coal's comedy of errors.

We've seen it over and over again on the House floor: first deny the science; second, delay the regulations by legislating a new scientific study to review the first science the industry doesn't like; and third, deter efforts to protect the health and security of millions of Americans by requiring yet another third party to review the scientific study that was just legislated and postponing regulatory action until after that is complete.

This bill isn't about the war on coal. It's about the Republicans' war on science. That's why we're out here. It continues unabated today.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

There is a tremendous revolution going on in the United States right now that the Kelly amendment would cut right to the heart of.

Between 2017 and 2025, as fuel economy standards in America would rise to 54.5 miles per gallon just because of those additional 8 years of higher fuel economy standards, we would back 2 million additional barrels of oil per day out of the United States. How much is that?

Well, let me just give you an idea. There is conversation about whether or not there might be a war with Iran. Well, the United States imports 1.8 million barrels of oil per day out of the Persian Gulf, 1.8 million barrels a day.

This amendment would kill the efforts, which the auto industry has accepted, to back out 2 million barrels of oil per day by increasing the fuel economy standards between 2017 and 2025. This is one of the most anti-national security amendments that we could ever have out here on the House floor. Combined with the dramatic increase in CO2 that would go into the atmosphere--an additional 6 billion metric tons of CO2 would go up into the atmosphere if this amendment passed. Now, how much CO2 is that? That's as much CO2 as the entire United States emitted in the year 2010 in our country.

If you look at these two issues in combination, you look at the fact that the auto workers endorsed the increase in fuel economy standards, the auto industry endorses the increase in fuel economy standards, it's not unlike this myth that's been created that it's anything other than the marketplace that is the problem that the coal industry is principally having with natural gas coming as a substitute across the country, and the petrochemical industry, and the utility industry, and consumers choosing it for home heating rather than oil.

Well, the same thing is happening here. Where's the problem? Who wants this change? The auto industry doesn't want it. The auto workers don't want it. Clearly it's a huge national security issue. And the auto industry enjoyed last year and is repeating this year record sales as their fuel economy standards go up.

So I would just say that if you care about national security, you really don't want to change the law tonight that backs out 2 million barrels of oil per day, that the industry that is living under the regulation supports. That makes no sense at all as we're getting briefed in secret this afternoon about al Qaeda all across the Middle East, all across North Africa. Why would we do this?

I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire of the Chair how much time I have remaining?

Let me just say this again, don't quote me. I'm going to

give you Dan Akerson, the CEO of General Motors. This is what he said about the standards that this amendment would repeal here tonight: Not only would it end our ability to back out 2 million barrels of oil a day that we would import from the Persian Gulf, but the CEO of General Motors says that these standards were a ``win for American manufacturers.''

Hear what I'm saying? The CEO of General Motors said these regulations are a win for the manufacturers of automobiles in the United States. It's not my quote. That's the CEO of General Motors. What's good for General Motors is good for America. I don't know if you've ever heard that. But let me tell you, he's not alone. It's also Ford, Chrysler, BMW, Honda, Hyundai, Jaguar, Land Rover, Kia, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Toyota, Volvo, as well as the United Auto Workers, the State of California consumer groups, and environmental organizations. Everyone agrees on this.

So where is the opposition coming from? Who doesn't like this? Why are we having a debate here? There's no point in trying to repeal something that enhances dramatically our national security, saves consumers--because it will be 54.5 miles a gallon by the time it ends. That means since the car goes twice as far on a gallon, instead of $4 a gallon, it's only $2 a gallon. That's a big savings for everyone every time they fill up their tank. We know that the technology is there because that's every ad that we see on television every night now. It's for the new hybrid. It's for the new technology that they're all touting.

So it's all there. The industry supports these regulations that they're seeking to repeal. So it's just ideological. They don't like the government. The Republican paradox is they don't like the government, but they have to come to Washington in order to make sure it doesn't work. Here, the private sector says it's working.

I yield back the balance of my time.

My amendment is very simple: If you want to keep America on its current path towards North American energy independence by 2020, then let us ensure that EPA uses the authority to reduce demand for oil that this bill rescinds.

In 1985, after the first-ever fuel economy standards mandated by Congress were implemented, we imported only a quarter of our oil. But after the Republicans and the auto industry spent decades blocking further standards from being set, that number skyrocketed to a staggering 57 percent of our oil being imported on the day in 2009 when George Bush walked out of the White House. We were importing 57 percent of our oil. And remember, we put 70 percent of all the oil we consume in our country into gasoline tanks.

Well, 57 percent is a lot to be dependent upon foreign oil, especially at this perilous time in our Nation's history--paid for with money that supports Iran's nuclear program, roadside bombs in Iraq, rockets for Hezbollah and Hamas, and hate-filled Wahhabi teachings in Saudi Arabia.

We broke that destructive cycle when the Democrats passed, and to his credit, President Bush signed, the 2007 energy bill that included the energy bill that I coauthored to require new fuel economy standards to be set. President Obama accelerated the implementation and used the Clean Air Act to require additional reductions in demand for oil, and we are now back down to importing only 45 percent of our oil.

Got that arithmetic? Fifty-seven percent imported oil on the day George Bush walked out of the White House in January 2009 and 45 percent dependence today. Good job, President Obama. Let's stay on that path.

That was not accomplished by launching a war on the auto industry, because 13 major auto companies support these standards. The unions support the standards, environmental organizations.

By repealing these standards, Republicans have launched a war against every single resident of this country whose hard-earned paycheck gets poured into their gas tanks and have to pay for the defense budget to have all of that protection over in the Middle East to ensure that that oil from that dangerous part of the world comes into our country.

And let's be very clear: If the Obama administration is allowed to continue with all of its energy policies, we will be 95 to 99 percent North American energy independent by the year 2020. That is something we should not get off the path for.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Again, let me make this very clear. The increase in the fuel economy standards that we're debating here were the fuel economy standards that George W. Bush signed into law in December of 2007.

That was George W. Bush. The increase in the fuel economy standards that we're talking about here tonight are all supported by General Motors and Ford, all the major 13 auto manufacturers in the United States. The standards that we're talking about that the Republicans want to repeal are supported by the United Auto Workers and by all of the major environmental groups.

Where is the fight? It's George Bush and General Motors and the environmental groups. You are all saying that you want Washington to work. You're all saying you want partisanship to be put aside. How can you look past something here that is the perfect example of how the whole system should work?

You know, Bill Clinton said it right at the Democratic convention. It's all about the arithmetic. The D in the automobile is to drive forward; the R is for the reverse. The R's are the Republicans; the D's want to continue to move forward. They're trying to put this country in reverse here tonight, reverse a consensus that was established when George Bush was President that we had to do something about imported oil, and this is the act that we all agreed that we had to take.

So what does this legislation portend for our country? Well, jobs saved: 1 million plus; gas pump savings: double the gas mileage means the consumers' costs are cut in half no matter where they drive in these new, more efficient vehicles; and energy independence. When it's all said in done, it's 3.1 million barrels of oil per day, and we can tell the Middle East we don't need their oil any more than we need their sand.

I'm missing something in this debate. I still haven't heard why you would want to repeal something that helps our country on so many fronts and at the same time reduces, by 6 billion metric tons, the amount of CO2 that goes into the atmosphere that is dangerously warming our planet while America is going to sell 14 million new vehicles this year, the most since 2007, since the recession started, under this new law.

I urge adoption of the Markey amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

If I may inquire, I do not think that that objection was, in fact, made in a timely fashion, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

I thank the Chair.

I yield myself such time as I may consume just to say that this amendment just makes a terrible bill even worse. The bill requires a new interagency committee to conduct an impossible study of EPA rules that haven't even been proposed using data that doesn't even exist. This amendment requires additional nonexistent information to be included in the study.

My colleague's amendment would require an interagency committee to examine what he calls the health effects of regulatory costs. This is ironic since the Republicans have shown little interest in discussing the health effects of the legislative monstrosity which we are debating today.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and to oppose the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This amendment would prevent EPA from using important high-quality scientific research when setting standards to protect public health and save lives. This amendment establishes an entirely new requirement when EPA sets national ambient air quality standards--the scientific health- based standards that essentially tell us how much pollution is safe to breathe. Under this amendment, EPA cannot use any study in setting these air quality standards unless the study's underlying data has been made public.

Why is this a problem? Because data sets underlying peer-reviewed scientific studies are the private property of the scientists that gathered them. In many cases, those data sets may include confidential business information, or personal information such as

an individual's health records. And the public availability of underlying data is not relevant to the quality of a study. Publication of data sets is not required by peer review journals and such publication is not a common practice in the scientific community.

EPA cannot require scientists to give up their private property when they publish their peer-reviewed studies, so in many cases this amendment would block EPA from using relevant, high-quality studies. This policy has long been on the industry's wish list, and we just have to make sure that we don't make it possible for them to put it on the books as a law. This is not because of the data quality concerns or transparency concerns, but because all of these studies conclusively show that air pollution kills people, which is the very subject they do not want to be able to debate.

This is a very dangerous amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend from Virginia, the majority leader, for the purpose of inquiring about the schedule for the week to come.

I thank the gentleman for his information with respect to what we're going to consider next week, and also I was going to ask him, but he has already indicated, that he does not expect the scheduled week of meeting in October to occur. I thank him for that information. That would indicate essentially then, therefore, that we have approximately a little over a day and a half or a day and three- quarters remaining before the election.

I want to ask the gentleman, first of all, there's been a lot of talk about the work that has not been done:

We have not done the jobs bill that I've been urging us to consider.

We have not addressed the middle class tax cut in a way that we'll deal with that and on which I think both sides agree. We have disagreement on tax cuts for those who are not in the middle class.

The farm bill, I want to discuss that in a second. The farm bill.

The Violence Against Women Act and the middle class tax cut have both passed the United States Senate.

Postal reform, there is also an agreement on that in the United States Senate.

Obviously sequestration.

And I want to talk a little bit about the fiscal cliff, Mr. Leader.

But in the farm bill, as you know we have a discharge petition that is pending, which is somewhat unusual in that our party has initiated a discharge petition to ask you to bring to the floor a bill that your committee reported out of committee. That's somewhat unusual in these discharge petitions. A number of Republicans have signed on to that as you know.

As a matter of fact, we understand your suggestion to some that they do sign--not you, personally, excuse me. But that there's been some suggestion they sign on to that as an indication of their support for the farm bill.

The Senate passed a farm bill, 64-35, Mr. Leader. We are hoping that that bill can be brought to the floor next week. It's not on the calendar. But in light of the fact that 16 Republicans voted in favor of it in the Senate, it's clear that it does have broad bipartisan support.

The Ag Committee here in this House reported out a bill 35-11. That bill has, of course, not been brought to the floor.

We don't have much time left, as you've just announced. Even if we count Thursday as a full day and even if we count Friday as a full day of next week, we have essentially 2 days and then suspension votes on Wednesday night.

Many farmers are facing the worst droughts they've seen in many years. We passed a drought bill here that is not agreed to by the Senate. In fact, the farm community, as I think the gentleman probably knows, perhaps not unanimously, but in large number, opposes the drought bill that we passed, and the reason they oppose it is because-- and I think you were absolutely right, Mr. Majority Leader, when you talked over the past years about certainty. The farmers are opposed to the drought bill that we passed in the House because it doesn't give them any certainty. They think a 5-year bill is preferable. They've seen two-thirds of the Senate, almost, pass a bill, and they hope we would pass that.

I would ask the gentleman, therefore, if there is any, I was going to ask for assurance, but if there is any possibility that we're going to consider a farm bill, either the House bill as reported out overwhelmingly from the Republican-chaired committee or the Senate bill that was passed in a bipartisan fashion, is there any possibility that before we leave here, in consideration of the crisis that confronts many in the farm community, that we will consider that bill?

I yield to my friend.

I think the comments of the gentleman are interesting and I appreciate his comments.

We do have agreement in the Senate on a farm bill; they voted for it with 64 votes--almost two-thirds of the Senate. We may not have agreement, but we had a bill that came out of the Republican-led committee, your committee, with over a two-thirds vote, and neither one of those have been brought to the floor? So we're arguing on something that we had pretty significant disagreement on--yes, there were some Democrats that voted for the drought relief, particularly from farm country. I can understand their view. But the farm community is opposed to the drought relief bill--not unanimously, but in significant part.

So the gentleman points out that we ought to pass that on which we have agreement. Let me suggest to him that 98 percent of Americans and 97 percent of small business people agree on not having a tax increase. The gentleman is worried about those people who are making about $20,000 a month. Some of them don't feel well off, I understand that; but I'm worried about the people who are making $2,000 a month, very frankly. I'm worried about the people who are getting by and who are having trouble. We need to give them assurance.

The gentleman just said that we ought to be able to act on that on which we agree. Maybe I'm incorrect, but I would tell the gentleman on this side of the aisle, we will produce the overwhelming majority of votes on our side of the aisle for a bill that ensures that there will be no tax increase on those who are making, either individually under $200,000 a year, or as a husband and wife $250,000 a year. I assure the gentleman that I will produce and we will produce on this side well over 180 votes for that proposition. So I tell my friend all he has to do is produce 40 votes, but I think he will produce many more than that. Because unless he says I'm wrong, I think when you say nobody ought to get a tax increase, we have agreement--and that's just what the gentleman is talking about, where we have an agreement--we have an agreement that nobody under $250,000, couple, $200,000, individual, should get a tax increase on January 1 of this year.

We could pass that bill, in my opinion, next week. We could pass it under the suspension calendar, in my opinion. We could send it to the Senate. They've already passed a bill. They've already passed a bill through the Senate which adopted that proposition. So we have the majority votes in the Senate, and I would hope we would have almost unanimity in the Senate on that proposition. But I think what I hear the gentleman saying is, unless we have agreement on 100 percent, the fact that we agree on 98 percent and 97 percent, we're not going to move the bill.

Now, I agree with the gentleman, if we have agreement, that's something central that we have agreement on, I would hope we could move it.

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for his response--I don't think it answered my question.

We understand that you want to see no tax increases, no additional contributions from people making $1 million net taxable income or more, or $10 million taxable income. We understand you don't want to do it. We don't agree on that. You're correct. But we do agree on the fact that 98 percent of Americans who make less than $200,000 individually, less than $250,000 as a couple, those 98 percent of Americans and 97 percent of small businesses ought not to get a tax increase on January 1. Very frankly, you didn't respond to me; I presume you agree with that.

What you don't agree with is that, if we don't do it all on something we disagree with--that's what's causing gridlock in Congress. That's what's causing this Congress to be the least productive Congress in which I have served in 32 years. That's what's causing us to not listen to one another, talk by one another, and not agree. That's why the farm bill hasn't been passed; that's why the Violence Against Women bill has not been passed; that's why the postal reform has not been passed; that's why middle class tax cuts have not been passed; because if you don't get it all, you don't want to do any of it.

I say respectfully to the majority leader, we agree that 98 percent of

Americans ought not to get a tax increase. We do disagree on whether or not those who are better off can make a contribution to bringing this deficit down and dealing with our debt. What the gentleman responded was, unless we're for 100 percent, we're not going to be for any. That's what I hear you saying.

I yield to my friend.

I said we agreed on 98 percent. The gentleman has not said we don't agree on 98 percent.

He brought up a lot of stuff on the farm bill and other pieces of legislation. The farm bill, you're not bringing your own bill to the floor. Forget about what we think on this side. You reported out a farm bill. You reported out a farm bill some 4 or 5 months ago--I'm not sure exactly when, but it's been months ago--and you haven't brought it to the floor. It's not a question of whether we agree or not; your own bill you haven't brought to the floor.

Now, in terms of the Violence Against Women Act, you knew that the Senate wouldn't do that and the President said he was going to veto it. You didn't sit down with the President to do it because you wanted to exclude some people. You wanted to exclude some people who were subject to domestic violence in this country when all the experts say if you exclude people, we don't get reports, we can't get domestic abusers out of circulation, if you will. So I think the gentleman's characterization is not accurate, I would say with all due respect.

Which is not true? I said a number of things.

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his observations. We have a difference of opinion on whether or not they want to exclude people, because the Senate bill was inclusive, and every woman Member, Republican, of the United States Senate voted for it. Every one. That was the difference between the two bills, those who were included, and a more specific group that are now included, which we think they ought to be. But we also think there aren't people who were included who need to be, and that was the difference between the two bills.

So, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I think my characterization was absolutely accurate. But it's interesting, Mr. Speaker, that we still haven't answered the question. We tend to want to talk about other things.

Ninety-eight percent of Americans should not get a tax increase on January 1 who are making less than $200,000 individually, or $250,000 as a family. I think we agree on that, Mr. Speaker. Now, I haven't heard that we don't agree on that. But we agree on that, which means that there are 2 percent on which we do not agree, and that bill has not been brought to the floor, that passed the United States Senate, dealing with that 98 percent or 97 percent of small businesses.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me if we have agreement on 98 percent, and the President of the United States will sign that bill, the majority leader knows that, I know it and the American people know it. He will sign that bill.

That bill has not moved, not because of the 98 percent, but because of the 2 percent. That's my contention, Mr. Speaker. I believe that is accurate because the Senate has passed a bill that deals with the 98 percent.

We ought to pass that bill. We ought to pass it before we leave here next week, which will be the last few days of this session before the election. And the American people at least ought to have that on the floor.

And, yes, if you want to assert that we want to raise additional revenues to meet our debt so that our children are not put deeply into debt; and, yes, those of us who are doing better can pay a little more to make sure that our children aren't in debt when they get to be adults; yes, we can have that debate.

Bring the bill to the floor, and let us pass the Senate bill. And I would hope our Republican colleagues would join us and say, at least we're going to take care of the 98 percent, and then we'll argue about the 2 percent. We'll argue about whether or not that's good policy or bad policy, whether it hurts the economy or grows the economy.

Very frankly, I tell my friend, the majority leader, I was here in 1993, and the gentleman was not, I believe. But I was here in 1993 when we raised revenues on the upper 1\1/2\ percent, 1\3/4\ percent of the American taxpayers. Your side said, as that study which we think is a flawed study said, that it would hurt the economy, it would increase the deficit, and it would increase unemployment. And as the gentleman well knows, it did exactly the opposite, in conjunction with an extraordinary growth in the private sector, which your party said would be hurt by the action in 1993, which your party unanimously opposed.

You're taking the same contention now, and that study took the same proposition. It was wrong then; it is wrong now.

I would hope, very sincerely, that we could agree on that on which we agree, because we agree on 98 percent, and let that move and not hold it hostage to the 2 percent on which we do not agree.

I yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time, just so we're accurate, but not 53 percent of small businesses, and the gentleman knows that. It's a misleading figure, because 53 percent of the income comes from a very small percentage of so-called small businesses that are not, in our opinion, small businesses at all.

The gentleman can correct me if he believes that 53 percent of small businesses, because it is our contention that 97 percent of small businesses, really small businesses, people who are working hard making it from day to day and trying to grow businesses and create jobs, 97 percent of small businesses will not be affected by our proposal.

If the gentleman thinks I'm incorrect, I'll be glad to hear that.

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, it is an absurd assertion that people I don't like. I would hope the gentleman would retract that. It has nothing to do with people we like or don't like.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest challenges to growing our economy is our debt and deficit and the uncertainty of the tax policy. That is one. Every economist will tell you that; and certainly every businessperson will tell you that, large, medium or small.

And none of us on this side of the aisle have used pejorative--I have not used pejorative terms with respect to large, medium or small businesses. That's not an issue at all.

It is an issue as to whether or not we're going to continue to explode this deficit and debt, Mr. Speaker, or whether we're going to ask some of us to contribute, some of us, i.e., perhaps Members of this floor, to pay a little more so our children don't confront large deficits and debt.

We heard a lot about personal responsibility in the Republican convention; we ought to take personal responsibility.

And the gentleman continues to talk about job creation. We want job creation. We have a Make It in America agenda that, unfortunately, hasn't moved. We have a jobs bill that was offered by this President that economists say would have created a million more jobs. It lays, still, on a desk somewhere, untended to, unconsidered and unpassed by this House--notwithstanding the fact that the leader and I have discussed that, moving that bill to the floor on numerous occasions.

I lament the fact when we talk about this again, he has not said once that we don't agree on the 98 percent, that we don't agree on the 97 percent. I think the reason he hasn't said we don't agree on it is because we do agree on it. He said he doesn't want anybody to get a tax increase.

And by the way, that tax increase, as the gentleman well knows, will result as a result of the 2001 and 2003 tax bills passed by the Republicans in this House and in the Senate and signed by George Bush. That's why those taxes are going up on January 1, because you sunsetted that tax increase. You didn't make it permanent.

Why did you do that?

For scoring purposes, because you knew that it would score great deficits.

I want to tell the gentleman, additionally, Mr. Speaker, that unemployment was 7 percent. The reason Bill Clinton won the election was because the economy was going downhill. That's the same reason Barack Obama won the election.

And he talks about jobs. A policy that was unanimously opposed, Mr. Speaker, by the Republican side of the aisle in the House and in the Senate created 22 million private sector jobs. We know something about creating private sector jobs.

Notwithstanding the fact your contention on your side of the aisle, not yours personally, Mr. Leader, was that if we adopted that program, you took the same argument you're taking right now, right now, that raising additional revenues to bring our deficit and debt down would undermine the creation of jobs.

In 1993, you were demonstrably wrong. I don't mean you personally. Mr. Speaker, I'm simply referring to the Republican Party's position on that. They were demonstrably wrong--22 million new jobs. In '01 and '03, you argued that if we bring taxes down on the people you're talking about and everybody else that we would explode the creation of jobs.

You lost jobs in the private sector over those 8 years, Mr. Leader-- I'm sure you know that--about 600,000 net. You lost 4 million jobs in 2008, in the last year of the Bush administration. You lost 818,000 jobs in the last month; 818,000 jobs were lost in the last month of the Bush administration and under these policies, which we apparently have to pass again, or we won't take care of the 98 percent of Americans who are hoping that they will be assured that they will not get a tax increase as of January 1 and the 97 percent of small businesses that will be assured that they will not get a tax increase, which will stabilize our consumers, stabilize our small businesses, and help our economy.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that we, perhaps, have exhausted this conversation--I understand that--but it is lamentable that this is another instance when we continue to talk about bills for message purposes that we know the President won't sign--that he said he won't sign--and that we know the Senate won't pass; and we allow those 98 percent of Americans to twist in the wind because we will not deal with the other 2 percent. We are prepared to debate that, of course, and discuss it and vote on it; but I am very sorry that we, apparently, will not see in the next 2\1/2\ days remaining before the election that we address the middle class tax cuts.

I yield to the gentleman if he wants to say anything further. I have one more subject I want to cover.

Mr. Speaker, I hear the gentleman. I presume he refers to the Ryan budget as the plan to do that. Of course, the Ryan budget does not balance the budget in a quarter of a century. The gentleman knows that. The Ryan budget, of course, undermines the security of Medicare for people.

The majority leader mentions Federal employees. The fact of the matter is--and this is my position, Mr. Speaker, and is the subject I wanted to talk about--we need to get America on a fiscally sustainable, credible path. That is the single most important objective that this Congress ought to be addressing. Very frankly, it was addressed in a plan called the Simpson-Bowles plan. Perfectly? No. Would we all agree on every aspect? No, but it was a plan that said we have to have a balanced approach to doing this. We had to deal with entitlements; we had to deal with revenues, and we are now collecting 14.8 percent of revenues. That's lower than at any point in time in the last 70 years.

We have underpriced our product; and if we were a business, we would have been bankrupt a long time ago. We have deep pockets, and we can keep borrowing so that we can keep spending without putting in a PAYGO discipline that we had in the nineties that helped balance the budget 4 years in a row--the only administration in the lifetime of anybody hearing, seeing, or knowing that we are here, but that has been done. It was done because we paid for what we bought.

Mr. Speaker, we are going to have an opportunity--not in the next 2 days of this session before the election--but we are going to have a lame duck. We are going to have to come back here, and we are going to have to do some serious things. We need to as Americans--not as Democrats, not as Republicans--have a conviction that we need to come back here and not walk away from our responsibilities.

Very frankly, with the Bowles-Simpson, every Republican member of that group from the House walked away from it--voted ``no'' and said, No, we will not agree. So it didn't get the 14 votes that it needed to be brought to this floor. I think that's a sad fact. That should have had a robust debate and perhaps a modification, but it was a plan that said to all Americans that we're all going to have to be in this together--a balanced plan, Mr. Speaker, to get a handle on the debt and deficit that confronts this country that is hurting our economy, hurting our people, hurting our credibility.

The S&P downgraded us not because we didn't have the resources to solve our problems. Standard & Poor's downgraded the United States of America for the first time in the lifetime of anybody I know--and perhaps in history--because they didn't know whether we had the political will and courage to address this debt and deficit that confronts and puts our country in danger.

Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, when asked what was the biggest security problem confronting America, didn't respond, Iraq, Iran. He didn't respond, terrorists. He didn't respond, other enemies around the world. He said the biggest security concern that he had--the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--was the fiscal challenge that was not being addressed in America. Mr. Speaker, we need to address it.

My friend the majority leader, he and I have worked together on a number of things. We've worked on a number of things this session that we've passed in a bipartisan fashion. I would hope that he and I would both commit ourselves to, during the lame duck session, doing our responsibility to America and to our constituents in reaching a Bowles- Simpson, Domenici-Rivlin, Gang of Six. Almost every economist who has spoken to this issue has said you need a balanced plan. If we simply have sold our souls to Grover Norquist on asking people to help bring this debt and deficit down, we will not succeed; but if we summon the courage and the will to solve this problem, we can do it.

I am hopeful that my friend the majority leader and I will work together over the next number of weeks, between now and November 6, to establish the preface for acting in the lame duck session in a responsible, cooperative, consensus-seeking fashion to get this country on a fiscally sustainable, credible path. If we do that, we could redeem this Congress' performance, and I hope we will do that.

I don't know whether the majority leader wants to make a comment on that.

I look forward to working with him as well, Mr. Speaker, because there is a no more important issue that confronts us as a Congress or us as a people, and no act that we could do would give more confidence, not only to our own people, but to people around the world, that America has got its financial house in order. We need to do that. We can argue the specifics one way or the other, but, Mr. Speaker, we do have a difference.

We had that difference in 1993, and we argued about it. We won that argument on the vote, and we won it, in my opinion, on performance. We argued again on it in 2001 and 2003, and we believe we

lost on that argument, which is why we were in the deepest recession at the end of the last administration that this country has been in my lifetime, and I'm not one of the younger Members of this body.

I am, with the majority leader, hopeful that we can work together and come to agreement on that on which we agree and move forward. The American people, I think, hope that as well, Mr. Speaker.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 788 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the point of order and in favor of the consideration of the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, the question before the House is: Should the House consider H. Res. 788? While the resolution waives all points of order against the consideration of H.J. Res. 118 and H.R. 3409, the committee is not aware of any points of order, and the waiver is basically prophylactic in nature.

We heard a lot of emotional and interesting points as to the basis of the bill that could be debated if, indeed, this rule were to be passed. I don't think it is actually the time right now in a point of order to go over the benefits of the bill or the detriments of whatever may happen if the bill, itself, is actually debated. There is time for that.

We do know that the number of individuals receiving welfare has dropped by 57 percent, that poverty amongst all single mothers has fallen by 30 percent, that the poverty amongst black children has dropped to its lowest level since 2001, and that employment and earnings amongst single mothers have increased significantly.

But that's all debate to the bill, which still has to go through the rule debate, and we're not talking about that. This is a procedural issue.

We could talk about the fact that in '93 the Ways and Means Committee did say that waivers granted after the date of enactment may not override provisions in the TANF law that concern further mandatory work retirements. But, once again, that would be the kinds of things that we should be talking about in the debate of the bill, which will come after the debate on the rule, which will come after our discussion of this procedural point of order.

So, actually, the merits of what the bill is is not the same thing as the purpose of the procedural point of order. The procedural point of order still has to be based on the idea of unfunded mandates within the rule.

The Congressional Budget Office believes that H.R. 3409 would impose an intergovernmental mandate as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. However, based on the information for EPA and a small number of public entities would be required to comply with the bill's requirement, the CBO estimates that the cost of those entities to comply would fall below the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act's annual threshold for intergovernmental mandates. It's a threshold that is set and adjusted for inflation.

So the Congressional Budget Office states that H.J. Res. 118 also contains no intergovernmental or private sector mandates as defined by the Mandates Reform Act. That is the basis of the point of order. The bottom line is there is no violation of both an unfunded mandate within the rule or in the bills themselves.

The rest of the discussion is actually to the merits of the legislation and is appropriate at the time as we are debating that legislation.

So, Mr. Speaker, although I really have this great desire to use the full 10 minutes of discussion here, the bottom line still----

No, thank you.

I appreciate the honor. Will the gentlewoman from Wisconsin let me finish the statement?

I appreciate the interruption, but let me finish here. And probably not. Let's get on with the issue at hand here.

The point of order basically, Mr. Speaker, is still specious. It is in order to allow the House to continue its scheduled business for the day because the issue of the point of order is the unfunded mandate, not the other merits towards the legislation.

So I do urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration. We will have an additional hour to discuss anything you wish to on the rule debate, as well as a whole lot of time on the merits of the bill when we debate the bill itself.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days during which they may revise and extend their remarks.

This resolution provides for a closed rule for the consideration of H.J. Res. 118, the congressional disapproval waiver of work requirements, and provides 1 hour of general debate, with 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means and 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

This rule also provides for a structured debate for consideration of H.R. 3409, the Coal Miner Employment and Domestic Energy Infrastructure Protection Act, and provides for 1 hour of general debate, with 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources, 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Finally, this rule makes in order a number of important amendments on both sides of the aisle. If staff doesn't change my mind, I believe there are 13--7 Republican and 6 Democrat--amendments which is as close as you can get with an uneven number to a fair rule. So it is a fair rule.

Mr. Speaker, now speaking towards the merits of this particular resolution, I would like to make special mention of Congressman Johnson, who is the base sponsor of H.R. 3409, the Coal Miner Employment and Domestic Energy Infrastructure Protection Act. He definitely has been one of the leaders in this entire area of the issue of coal as it is used in energy. Not only is it important to his constituents, but this is an important issue for the entire country. And I want to recognize Mr. Johnson as having been tireless in committee, asking questions that go to the core of this particular issue, providing amendments, and then finally culminating with his bill which deals with how we actually can use coal to further our energy needs in this particular country. Representative Johnson is a freshman who has learned fast and is a true champion for inexpensive energy that will expand our economy and create jobs for American citizens.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I hope you will forgive me if I try to limit myself to what is actually in the resolutions and the bills that we are presenting today as far as the Rules Committee is concerned.

There is, though, a common thread that runs through the two resolutions that happen to be here and deals with the definition of what is administrative and what is legislative. Even if the current administration seems to have a problem in making that definition of what is administrative, we in Congress need to clearly understand what is our legislative responsibility.

Our good friend, Louie Gohmert of Texas, always says that he who learns the lessons of history will find some other way to screw it up. That's probably true. I don't want to sound like an old history teacher, but I am. I do want to say that there are some things that we in Congress should be doing to learn from our past history.

John Page, in 1771, a Congressman from Virginia, was on the House floor when it was determined while the House was debating whether they stuck around to actually determine where postal routes should be. People wanted to go, and, more importantly, the people trusted the President. The question was, Why don't we just let the President do it all?

It was John Page who stood up and said, and I move to adjourn and leave all objects of legislation to his, the President's, sole consideration and direction. He shamed Congress into doing their job of writing the legislation and not allowing the executive branch, the administration, simply to do everything by fiat. We sometimes have forgotten that.

In the TARP language, we put in language like, the Secretary of the Treasury will be able to purchase troubled assets on such terms and conditions as are determined by the Secretary; or authorize any purchase on which the Secretary determines, promotes financial market stability; or the Secretary is authorized to take such action as the Secretary deems necessary to carry out all authorities in this particular act.

That is legislative authority that we passed on to the executive branch. That was a tragic mistake. We should not incorporate that tragic mistake, wider now, by simply allowing the executive branch to take on responsibilities and authorities of their own free will and volition.

We have this same situation once again in the history of this country. We had a President of the United States who wrote a book about Congress without ever visiting Congress itself, who said what the Founding Fathers realized, in which their effort to have vertical separation of power between State and national government--what we call federalism--and horizontal separation of powers between the three branches, which we call the separation of powers--and every public school student is taught that--they were put in there so that individual liberty, which I always consider to be individual choices and options in running their lives, would be protected against the concentration of power in one branch or another.

Now, this former President of the United States called this separation of powers political witchcraft. He said it was wrong to try and separate powers perplexingly subdivided and distributed to be hunted down in out-of-the-way corners. An earlier President than him thought, you know, the President of the United States is elected by everybody, Congress by a few people, the courts by none. Therefore, ignore the courts, which has some appeal, but at the same time the President should speak for the government.

This other President, coming back later, built upon that so he increased the role and power of the executive branch under the concept the President is the President of the whole people and, therefore, he has the ability to transcend separation of powers.

His effort to improve democracy was to eliminate democracy and instead ensure that the decisions were not made by the people or the voice or representatives of the people, but by experts, experts who were serving in the administrative branches. We, if you like that concept, call it the administrative state. If you don't, we call it ``nanny government.'' Nonetheless, that was the concept.

One of the other Presidents that came shortly before him said there will be little permanent good that can be done by any party if we fail to regard the States as anything other than a convenient unit for local government. He said there is no harm by concentrating power in the hands of one individual. He also said that he would not be content with keeping his talents undamaged in a napkin. That's perhaps why the Speaker of the House at the time said he had no more use for the Constitution than a tomcat has for a marriage license.

The bottom line of what happened in the history is that all of a sudden we found that the Founding Fathers who believed in people and believed in the legislative branch, listening to John Locke, who said you cannot transfer the power of the legislature to another branch, those type of people decided at that time that the people should not be running their own affairs, that government experts should be making that policy.

To be honest, when we're talking about the first resolution that deals with TANF, the welfare issue, I don't care if the waiver is the greatest thing since sliced bread, it is still extra-constitutional and it should not be used and Congress should not allow it to take away what is the role of Congress, and only Congress, to establish these issues and set these boundaries.

In the other bill that we're talking about, we're talking about prohibiting future actions by entities, in this case, specifically the EPA, which would destroy jobs, increase the cost of our utilities that would cause greater costs of lighting homes and heating homes, especially for those who have the least ability to do so.

Congressmen and Congresswomen must stand up and insist that Congress create these standards and create these options, not being made by executive

fiat. That is the very purpose of why we are here.

The first President, to whom I referred, ended up with a legacy of many programs implemented which we still today find controversial. He was labeled by historians as an arrogant President at that time who refused to talk to Congress. Because of that, he lost some of his last, most precious programs in an effort to try and go around Congress rather than working with Congress.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that's why this resolution is before us and why these two separate bills are here. Both of them attempt to set the record straight and show that it is Congress' responsibility to set the rules and the guidelines. It is not an administrative prerogative. And we as Congress need to step forward and say we are the ones who do this. We should not allow it to be done by anyone else, regardless of why it's being done or the merits of why it's being done. It's our job.

We should learn from history. We should be more like John Page and try and make sure the Congress does these types of issues and makes these types of decisions and less like Presidents later on who thought the President speaks for everybody and the President has every right to transcend separation of powers and do it for himself. That's the basis of these two bills. That's the important issue. We should learn the lesson of history.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

With gratitude for the last speech, which was such a stirring support of fracking, which has made gas so plentiful and useful in this country, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the Science Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall).

Mr. Speaker, I have some empathy for the gentleman from Iowa, but I will have to say that one of the reasons that those amendments were not made in order was, quite frankly, because both of them were nongermane to the base bill, and that becomes a concept.

One of the reasons that Ms. Slaughter speaks on wishing to stay here until we pass middle class tax cuts--and I think I can approve of that because, actually, when we considered H.R. 8, the Rules Committee took an extraordinary step of waiving the rules of the House--including CutGo and other budget-related points of order--so an amendment could be given by Mr. Levin, and he could have an opportunity to present that amendment. That amendment was debated, and it was rejected on a bipartisan vote of the House in August.

Unlike the amendment, then H.R. 8 passed the House with a bipartisan vote, which means the House has voted for a middle class tax cut. We have done our duty. It is one of the myriad of bills that is sitting over on the Senate side waiting for them to do something so that we can proceed to a conference committee.

So I actually approve of what the gentlelady from New York is saying because basically we've done it, and we did it on August 1.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I actually don't think I have any other speakers. I may be surprised in the next few minutes, as will be the case.

It happens, yes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In our discussion of this particular rule today, we have, as oftentimes is the case, wandered far and wide.

I would point out to one of the speakers who was just up there saying that we should stay here doing the sequestration act, dealing with the sequestration issue, the House did. On May 10, we passed the Sequestration Replacement Act. Once again, it's sitting over in the Senate. To wait here until we do the middle class tax cuts, we did that in August. It's waiting over on the Senate to do something.

We have issues that are significant in the two that are before us. If we're talking about welfare in some particular way, whether the rule that was made coming out of the executive branch was appropriate or not, we could go back and say why it was done. It is true the President, in 1997 and once again in 1998, said he would not have supported the legislation that created the system that we have. It's also true that in The Washington Post editorial, they made comments that said the Obama administration is waiving the Federal requirement that ensures a portion of able-bodied TANF recipients must engage in work activities. If this is not getting welfare reform, it's difficult to imagine what would be.

But even if the substance of that was inaccurate, the fact that it was done by regulation, by rulemaking coming from the administrative branch, puts us in suspect category. Rules should not be establishing what is our priority; it should be laws made on this body. If you want to change it, if you want to do waivers, it should be coming from this particular body.

The other half of it deals with coal. This is a Nation with the largest coal reserves in the world. We have 500 years of potential electricity at cheap rates coming from coal. A coal plant today is as much as 99 percent cleaner than one built 40 years ago, and yet rules and regulations that have been promulgated or are being threatened to promulgate are one of those that impede the ability of building new plants.

There is no valid reason why the American coal industry should be suffering at the hands of overzealous Washington regulators or why workers are being laid off in the Midwest, in Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, and other places; although, today, it was again announced that there will be 1,200 coal mining jobs that will be eliminated across central Appalachia by a company, one company.

And once again, there is the kind of unfair regulations that are taking place. It is true that H.R. 3409 is cobbled together with other bills that have passed this body, but I would remind you that each of those four that have already passed this body were passed on a bipartisan vote, with anywhere between 16 and 37 Democrats, depending on the bill, joining with Republicans to pass those. And, when put together in a package with H.R. 3409, presents a good package to make sure that we are in favor of cheap energy, energy that will drive and build our economy and provide jobs for those who need those particular jobs.

I went historically in a while earlier because I wanted to say that we have faced these types of situations in the past, where the question was: Should the President make the rules or regulations or should Congress actually pass legislation?

The President to whom I referred ended his tenure in a somewhat bitter way, refusing to work with Congress, instead, trying to go around Congress, which produced, at that time, a historic deadlock between the Presidency and the Congress.

This is a Nation of laws. Laws are made here. It's not a Nation of rules. And if the rules and regulations are going to have the effect on the future and are going to have an effect on the American people, they should not be done by executive fiat. Whether you like them or not, they should not be done in that manner. It should be done here legislatively.

That's the purpose of both of these issues that are tied together in this rule; that's the thread that comes together--whether or not we actually believe Congress should be doing the job of creating the standards and the rules, or we're willing to simply abrogate our responsibility, our power, our options to some other body.

And I would hope that as Congress we would be very careful and considerate about what our responsibility is, and we would take very seriously any encroachment on the role of law that is given to us by the Constitution. It was the vision of the Founding Fathers that this should be the body that makes those decisions, not the executive branch.

This is a good bill, these are good bills, and this is a fair rule.

We haven't even talked about the amendments that were made in order, but they do cover, in fact, we did have one statement about the amendment that was not made in order, and I half wish--the Member is no longer here, but his issue of concern is covered in another amendment that is made in order and will be discussed on this floor.

So it is a fair rule. It will have a vigorous debate. And there are two good bills that would be brought before this body that I hope sincerely pass. I do urge their adoption, and I sincerely urge the adoption of this rule that will move us forward.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 3409, the Stop the War on Coal Act of 2012. Across multiple federal government agencies, there is a regulatory assault underway against coal. The War on Coal has focused both on the production of coal and on the use of coal by electric utilities. The regulatory actions of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal government agencies are picking winners and losers in the energy industry by propping up companies like Solyndra while purposefully making it harder for coal producers to operate.

The Stop the War on Coal Act returns climate policy to Congress, where it belongs in the hands of elected representatives who are subject to the will of the people. Americans want environmental policies that are fairly balanced against economic considerations such as the need for jobs and low cost electricity. These balancing decisions are best made in Congress. Federal agencies need to understand that the absence of a congressional authorization is not a green light for the agency to pursue whatever policy it wishes.

I want to be clear that I support an all of the above energy policy.

I believe that coal, natural gas, oil, nuclear, wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal energy sources all have a role to play in our national energy portfolio. There is no question, however, that electricity from coal and natural gas is cheaper and more abundant than electricity generated from renewable sources. A 2010 Heritage Foundation study found that the average family of four would pay on average $189 per month if it obtained 100 percent of its electricity from coal, but $504 per month if the same family purchased 100 percent of its electricity from solar power.

That's a difference of $315 per month. With 47 million Americans on Food Stamps and everything from the price of gas to the price of milk increasing, Americans are looking to save money in every way possible.

Coal fired electricity simply makes economic sense for families in my state and across the country.

Additionally, while 42 percent of U.S. electricity was generated from coal last year, and 25 percent came from natural gas--all renewable sources combined accounted for only 13 percent of the electric supply. It will be many years before renewable fuels are ready to shoulder the burden of providing the energy on which American's rely.

There are three reasons why I stand on the floor this evening to discuss the importance of coal. First, I am here to stand up for the jobs of tens of thousands of West Virginians and hundreds of thousands of others across the country who are employed mining coal, transporting coal, generating electricity from coal or work in jobs that support the coal industry. Second, I am here to stand up for the families and businesses that will see increases in their electric bills as the administration imposes extreme regulations on both the production and utilization of coal. Finally, I am here to stand up for the reliability of our electric grid, which could be at risk over the long term if too much of our ability to generate electricity from coal is lost.

My State and our neighbors in Appalachia have suffered significant job losses in the coal industry recently. Just yesterday, Alpha Natural Resources announced 1,200 layoffs companywide and hundreds of those job losses will occur in my state of West Virginia. Over 300 miners at Consol Energy lost their jobs when the Fola Mine in Clay County, in my congressional district was idled earlier this summer. Arch Coal laid off 750 miners earlier this summer across West Virginia, Virginia, and Kentucky. Patriot Coal laid off 250 miners last week and the company filed for bankruptcy this summer. A local television station in my district tallied nearly 2,000 job losses in the mining industry in early August, and more layoffs have been announced since then.

Besides layoffs by mining companies, job losses in related fields such as transportation usually accompany job losses in mines.

There is more than one reason why job losses are occurring in the coal industry, and I understand that not all of the job losses that have occurred are attributable to over regulation. Natural gas prices are at historic lows and the price for metallurgical coal is softening. Nonetheless, the excessive regulatory burden placed on the coal industry is certainly part of the reason that jobs are being lost.

I am pleased that the bill that the House will vote on this week includes the text of H.R. 1872, the Employment Protection Act, which I introduced in order to require the EPA to consider the impact that any new regulation, guidance, policy statement or permitting decision would have on jobs and the economy. All of us want clean air and clean water, but I believe that environmental regulations should be balanced with the need to maintain jobs and employment opportunities for workers in the mining industry.

Under the Employment Protection Act, EPA would be required to have a public hearing in any state where a decision it makes would have more than a de minimis negative impact

on jobs or economic activity. Therefore, before EPA can take any action that costs a state more than 100 jobs or costs more than $1 million in economic activity, it would be required to host a public hearing in the impacted state and engage in a conversation with local residents about the costs and benefits of their regulatory action. Too often federal agencies that are separated from local communities lose sight of the fact that their decisions have real impacts on workers and their families. I drafted the Employment Protection Act with the idea of empowering local residents with respect to decisions that impact them. Certainly if the benefits of a regulatory decision outweigh the negative economic consequences of the decision, then EPA should be able to articulate that fact to the impacted members of the local community.

I am also proud of the other provisions that compromise H.R. 3409.

The Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act is critical legislation that will restore the balance between state and federal regulators when it comes to the issuance of permits under the Clean Water Act. It was clear when Congress enacted that Clean Water Act that states would have the ability to define water quality standards for pollutants, subject to approval from the EPA.

Unfortunately, the federal regulators have attempted to supersede state regulators whenever possible.

H.R. 3409 clarifies that EPA cannot issue a revised water quality standard that supersedes the approved state standard without the state's consent. The legislation also prevents the EPA from revoking certification of a state's Section 402 permitting program based on a disagreement with the state regarding a water quality standard that a state has adopted and EPA has approved, or the implementation of any federal guidance that directs a re-interpretation of the state's approved water quality standards.

Perhaps most importantly, this bill prohibits the EPA from vetoing a Section 404 permit issued by the Army Corps of Engineers unless the state concurs with the veto.

This addresses the issue created by the EPA when it sought to veto a permit issued to the Spruce Mine in West Virginia. Despite the fact that EPA never stated that the holder of the permit violated any of the permit's terms, the agency sought to take back a permit that had already been issued. This action came after a lengthy review process that led to the issuance of the permit.

Operating a coal mine requires a significant capital investment--an investment that cannot be made if the Federal Government is able and willing to take back a permit that it has issued even when the perrnittee abides by the conditions of the permit and otherwise follows the law. A federal judge in Washington, DC has already held that EPA acted unlawfully in taking back the permit from the Spruce Mine, but that ruling is currently being appealed.

The Stop the War on Coal Act makes it absolutely clear that no 404 permit issued by the Corps of Engineers could be vetoed without consent of the affected state government.

Jobs are at risk in West Virginia and across Appalachia because of the slow progress in obtaining required permits under Sections 404 and 402 of the Clean Water Act. Much of the permitting backlog is the result of Enhanced Coordination Procedures implemented by the EPA and the Corps of Engineers that gave EPA an increased role in the permitting progress. In two court decisions, Federal courts found that these Enhanced Coordination Procedures violated the Clean Water Act. Specifically, the Court found that the EPA ``has a very limited role in the issuance of CWA permits and has only the authority to develop the 404(b)(1) guidance with the Corps'' while the Corps is responsible for determining compliance.

I strongly agree with the Court's interpretation of the existing provisions of the Clean Water Act. The Corps of Engineers is the permitting authority with respect to 404 permits. After a fair period for interagency comments, the Corps of Engineers should make a permitting decision--either denying the permit and allowing the entity seeking a permit to make modifications necessary to ensure proper environmental protection, or granting the permit and allowing mining to take place.

Under the Enhanced Coordination Procedures, EPA assumed a role that goes far beyond what was contemplated in the Clean Water Act and led to many permits being placed in a holding pattern. Now that the District Court has ruled that the Enhanced Coordination Procedures are unlawful, it is my hope that the Corps of Engineers and state governments will be able to return to the traditional method of considering Clean Water Act permit applications without undue interference from the EPA. The legislation we are considering this week will go a long way in ensuring the fairness of the permitting process.

Stream Buffer Zone Rule

The current Stream Buffer Zone Rule was put into effect in 2008, after roughly five years of work. In 2009, however, OSM sought to vacate 2008 rule and asked a federal court to reinstate the 1980s regulation. The court denied this request, and OSM has worked to rewrite the 2008 rule which remains in place. Information provided by a contractor employed by OSM stated that 7,000 jobs would be lost in the mining industry if OSM's preferred alternative regulation were put into effect. To date, OSM has not issued a new stream buffer rule. Unemployment has remained over 8 percent for 43 straight months and we cannot afford to lose thousands of coal jobs.

I commend my colleague Bill Johnson from Ohio for drafting this section of the bill. The legislation would prohibit the Department of the Interior from issuing or approving any rule under SMCRA that would adversely impact employment in coal mines, cause a reduction in coal revenues received from production on federal lands, reduce the amount of coal available for domestic consumption or export, designate any area as unsuitable for surface mining or expose the federal government to liability for a regulatory taking of privately owned coal before the end of 2013.

There is no reason to rush into any modification of the Stream Buffer Rule at the expense of jobs in the coal industry.

Cap and Tax

The Stop the War on Coal Act also addresses the threat of EPA regulations on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from stationary sources. Congress has not enacted legislation that would create a cap and trade system, a cap and tax system, or that would otherwise expressly permit the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide from stationary sources. Like Clean Water Act permitting, EPA's attempt to regulate carbon dioxide from stationary sources is another area where the agency has stepped beyond its boundaries and into the realm properly occupied by Congress.

I support efforts to develop Carbon Capture and Storage technologies and believe that they will allow coal to be cleaner in the future. Any effort to require CCS technology for new plants or existing plants, however, should come only when that technology is feasible economically and technologically--and only when Congress expressly authorizes such regulations. The Stop the War on Coal Act will make sure that elected representatives, rather than unelected bureaucrats, are in control of our climate policy.

Expensive Regulations

The expense of EPA's regulations is dramatic. National Economic Research Associates examined the impact of four anti-coal regulations imposed by the EPA: the Cross State Air Pollution Rule, Utility MACT, Cooling Tower regulations, and regulation of coal combustion residuals. The study found that compliance with these regulations would cost $127 billion by 2020, cause 183,000 net job losses each year, and lead to a cumulative loss of $190 billion in our country's gross domestic product. The NERA study found that the average American family would lose $270 per year in disposable income as a result of these four regulations.

Our legislation addresses these expensive and burdensome regulations. The bill negates EPA's efforts to regulate coal combustion residuals as either a solid waste or a hazardous waste. Instead, this bill would ensure that states have the primary responsibility for regulating coal combustion residuals and encourages recycling. The use of coal ash in concrete for example, makes the concrete stronger and requires less cement--thereby reducing the use of water and energy.

Under this bill, the Utility MACT rule must be reissued by EPA with an increased compliance period provided to utilities.

EPA has estimated that the cost of complying with the Utility MACT rule would exceed $10 billion annually in 2016--more than the cost of all other Clean Air Act regulations on power plants combined. These costs will cause power plants to close, workers to lose their jobs, and families to pay higher utility bills.

The CSAPR rule, already found unlawful by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, would be scrapped and replaced by the former Clean Air Interstate Rule, which better balanced environmental and economic considerations.

The coal utility sector was well on its way to reducing emissions and investing in clean coal technologies without the administration's costly regulations. Between 1970 and 2011, emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and particulate matter from coal fired power plants were reduced by almost 90 percent according to EPA and EIA figures, while the use of coal increased substantially over the same period. Over that same period, the industry invested nearly $100 billion in emission control technologies.

Rather than continuing this progress, the EPA's regulatory course has led numerous coal plants to close and will lead to still more coal plant retirements in years to come.

According to EIA figures, plant operators expect to retire almost 27 gigawatts of coal fired

generation capacity between 2012 and 2016--approximately 8.5 percent of the total 2011 capacity. The 9 gigawatt retirement in 2012 will be the largest single year reduction in coal fired capacity in history--but EIA projects that figure will be exceeded by a 10 gigawatt retirement of coal capacity in 2015. EIA estimates that more than 55 coal generating units will be taken off line in 2012 alone.

Losing coal generation capacity is bad for the future reliability of our electrical grid as well as for the cost of electricity in the long term. Natural gas prices are low today. In the event natural gas prices were to increase--something that certainly has happened before--a lack of coal generation capacity would cause utility rates to skyrocket. My state has an abundance of natural gas as well as coal, and I want to see both of these fuels succeed and maintain their roles as the two largest generators of electricity in our country.

Regulating coal out of our nation's energy portfolio is not a responsible long term course. It has been said that the United States is the Saudi Arabia of coal. Our country has 260 billion short tons of recoverable coal--enough to meet existing production levels for 222 years.

Low cost energy aids in job growth not only in the energy sector, but in manufacturing, transportation, and across our economy. The best way to provide low cost energy for businesses and for individuals for years to come is to avoid over regulating any single energy source, and instead allow both coal and natural gas to be produced and utilized as the free market dictates.

Our current regulatory environment chooses winners and losers in the energy markets--and there is no question that this administration has chosen coal to be the biggest loser.

The Stop the War on Coal Act takes responsible steps that allow both for environmental protection and economic protection. I encourage my colleagues to support the legislation this week.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday and Tuesday, no votes are expected in the House. On Wednesday, the House will meet at noon for morning-hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour and noon for legislative business. On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a number of bills under suspension of the rules next week, including a prioritization of visas for foreign graduates of American universities in the STEM fields, an issue being championed by Chairman Lamar Smith, the gentleman from Texas, as well as Bob Goodlatte from Virginia and Raul Labrador from Idaho. A complete list of suspensions will be announced by the close of business today.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, the House will consider H.J. Res. 118, sponsored by Chairman Dave Camp, which provides for congressional disapproval of the rules submitted by the Department of Health and Human Services relating to waivers of work requirements with respect to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.

The House will also consider H.R. 3409, the Stop the War on Coal Act, sponsored by Bill Johnson of Ohio, which is a package of bills to expand domestic energy production and help create American jobs.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, Members are advised that with the Senate's expected passage of the continuing resolution, we no longer anticipate votes in the House during the week of October 1. This is a change from the original House calendar.

I thank the gentleman.

Before I get to the farm bill, I would just like to respond to the initial statements about the House's work in terms of jobs and taxes.

The gentleman well knows that we have sent to the Senate well over 30 measures that are job-creating bills that will help improve the environment for small business men and women to actually begin to invest and create jobs again.

We've also, as the gentleman knows, passed H.R. 8, the Job Protection and Recession Prevention Act. We did that on August 1. It was a bipartisan vote, including 19 House Democrats. This followed up on over 20 hearings on tax reform in this Congress. What we did in that bill, Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman recalls, is we made sure that taxes are not going to go up on anybody right now because of the economic situation that exists throughout this country. We don't believe that it is a desirable outcome to see taxes go up on anyone and to take more of their money right now while they're having a difficult time getting through the month.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, we continue to stand on the side of the hardworking taxpayers, and we ask the gentleman to please, when he cites the fact that we didn't pass his job bill, we passed a jobs bill. We passed numerous jobs bills--in fact, over 30 jobs bills--sitting in the Senate. The inaction has been on the Senate.

So, Mr. Speaker, with the gentleman's question about the farm bill, I, in fact, just came out of a meeting with one of his members to talk about the farm bill. We're trying to look for ways forward. Yes, there can be a possibility that we act again on the issue of the disaster of the drought. As the gentleman rightly said, we passed a drought relief bill on the livestock issue. It's sitting over in the Senate. Again, inaction.

The gentleman indicates the reason for opposition to that bill. There is nothing in the bill that is controversial. It's a fact that some who insist on having something else in the bill didn't have it. Well, one thing we know in common is we're all for allowing the relief on the livestock issue for the farmers.

Why can't we get that done? Why can't we just finally decide to say, You know what? There are some areas of disagreement, and we realize that, reasonable people do, and certainly in election season it sort of emphasizes that, unfortunately. But we also know there are things in common. Addressing the livestock drought issue is something we do have in common. We passed that out of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman any indication that he could give that perhaps there would be some movement on that would be, I think, a positive thing for the farmers. We continue to work on how to go forward, and, yes, there could be a possibility there is some action next week on the issue of the farm bill, looking to find ways that we can work together on issues that we all support, not issues that divide us.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I would say that there is not agreement right now that we ought to raise taxes in this economy. The reason is, Mr. Speaker, that we are concerned about those individuals that the gentleman speaks about that perhaps may be out of work, or underemployed, or trying to make it and having a real difficult time. We're concerned about those people, and the best thing we can do is create a job and see them go back to work.

We saw that this summer Ernst & Young put out a study demonstrating that his tax policy--the gentleman's tax policy, the President's plan to raise taxes--is going to destroy 710,000 jobs, slash $200 billion from the economy, and lower wages for all working Americans by 1.8 percent. That's what that study said.

So, no, there's not agreement that we should raise taxes like that because if you raise taxes, there are going to be less jobs, there is going to be less growth. We're trying to focus on those people who need to get back to work, who want to get back to work. That's where the agreement is--that we all want to help people. We just don't believe that you help people right now by laying down a tax increase, putting more money into the government that can't seem to figure out a way to fix the problem once and for all. That's what we want to do, fix that problem, help those people.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Again, no, that's not why these bills haven't passed. First of all, the Violence Against Women Act passed out of this House. It's sitting over in the Senate because the Senate's got its own bill that has a blue slip problem. Let the legislative process work over there, send us a bill, and we'll get something done. The gentleman did not, on his side, overwhelmingly join us in the VAWA bill. Okay. So the fact that the minority didn't get their way, they wouldn't join us on the bill. We went and did our work.

And I'll say more to the gentleman, Mr. Speaker. The postal reform bill, the fact of the matter is his side, Mr. Speaker, the minority will not agree to reforms. Everyone knows the post office needs reforms. Everyone knows the debt that that organization continues to incur and lays on the U.S. taxpayers. We're trying to fix that problem. But because the gentleman and his colleagues refuse to go along with reforms like a 5-day delivery--this is something that the President supports. But because his side refuses to go along with trying to reform that organization, we can't move. Again, it's this insistence: We can't do that. We all know that's common sense. Common sense is reforming the postal service--something everyone knows needs reform. That's why that bill didn't pass, Mr. Speaker.

We've got another issue on the farm bill. There are issues of policy differences. And the gentleman knows throughout last year we went through a lot of these policy differences in the SNAP program and the rest. We have GAO recommendations year in and year out about that program, but unwillingness on the part of the minority to ever engage in a discussion of real reform in those programs.

Again, let's remember what we're talking about in a farm bill. Most of it by far are not farm programs, they're food programs. Again, raising the question of how it is we're going to go forward, we need to understand the specifics and know there are real policy differences. Yes, we're all willing to work together--or at least we are on this side. So I really take exception with the gentleman's assertions that somehow we're sitting here demanding everything. No. We want to work together and set aside differences and agree on things we can find in common. That's how anybody in everyday life tries to run their business or run their family. It's not all or nothing. It's not black or white.

Would the gentleman yield for that fact? Because that's not true, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, it's not true. We don't want to exclude anybody from the benefits under VAWA, and he knows that. It was simply a matter of new language inserted by the Senate that, really, we don't want to deny those benefits to anyone. We want everyone to have the benefits and not exclude some by specifically identifying others, and the gentleman knows that. It's unfair to characterize anything we're trying to do to exclude people from benefits when they are subject to domestic abuse. All of us care about those victims.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding again.

First of all I'd ask, was there over 8 percent unemployment then? That's the first thing, Mr. Speaker.

We are about trying to do something to get people back to work. And if you're worried about the 98 percent, which we all are, the best thing we can do is to make sure there are more jobs. And so our objection to the gentleman's proposal to raise taxes is the fact that that tax hike that he's advocating is going to affect 53 percent of all small business income. The Joint Committee on Tax says that.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, the point is about jobs. Okay?

And the jobs come from the small businesses who are generating income. If you want to help people who are creating jobs, don't raise their taxes, especially when unemployment is over 8 percent.

It's about jobs. I mean, that's the thing, Mr. Speaker. We always hear somehow that we're favoring some big bad business. No, we're about the businesses who create jobs. Small businesses, according to the Small Business Administration definition, create jobs.

So, Mr. Speaker, just because, in the gentleman's mind, somehow somebody he doesn't like because they're so successful gets a benefit, the overwhelming majority of the people who will not get a tax hike under our plan will go out and create a job.

I absolutely retract that, Mr. Speaker. I absolutely retract that. But the gentleman continues to malign people who he feels don't deserve the same treatment on taxes. And what we're saying, if they're successful, that means they're creating jobs. That's the prescription we need right now is more jobs.

Our policy is about helping those small businessmen and women who are creating jobs so we can finally do something to bring this unemployment down and get people back to work. That's all.

Mr. Speaker, I think the differences are very plain. The gentleman has a way of simplifying things. According to what I took from what the gentleman just said, if we'd just raised taxes, all those jobs wouldn't have been lost, and everything would have been fine. Again, our proposition is completely the opposite.

We believe that we've got a real spending problem here, Mr. Speaker. We've got a problem with an unwillingness to reform some programs. The gentleman talks about Members having to pay more when, in fact, it was our side that put forward the proposal that we should actually allow and require Members as well as Federal employees to pay more towards their retirements. The gentleman wasn't supportive of that. We've got some serious unfunded obligations at the Federal level. The

American people know that. We are trying to solve problems. The problems are not solved by raising taxes.

Now, if the gentleman is so intent on raising taxes--again, because there is a 2 percent that he just wants to pay more--I ask the gentleman to join us in actually fixing the problem that all experts say you can't tax your way out of and you can't grow your way out of.

You've got to reform the programs. Mr. Speaker, we've been the only ones to put forward a plan that even begins to solve the problem--the President has not; the Senate has not; and the gentleman has not.

It's about solving problems, producing results for the hardworking taxpayers of this country who so desperately want to see us go forward, reclaim America in its true aspirational sense and be that place of opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

I'm going to try and make sure that I don't bring on even more because I know our colleagues are waiting to speak.

I would say to the gentleman there is not unanimity on his side, as he knows, on Bowles-Simpson. In fact, the minority leader rejected Bowles-Simpson and the President has not endorsed Bowles-Simpson, which is part of the issue that the gentleman seeks some clarification on, which is: Where is the plan to get us out of this? The President was unwilling to even adopt that.

The gentleman I think knows the reason why our side rejects Bowles- Simpson. We believe there are some good things in Bowles-Simpson, and I do look forward to working with the gentleman to see if we can work together in a cooperative fashion to get some results and resolve this cloud hanging over the economy. I'm looking forward to that.

But Bowles-Simpson, number one, is not this so-called balanced approach, unless you say $1.22 in new taxes with $1 in cuts is balanced. We don't believe so, because we believe it has a detrimental impact on the growth of the economy.

We also believe that the Bowles-Simpson revenue target of 21 percent of GDP is the highest target and something that exceeds that which we've been at pretty much over the last 70-something years, save for 3 years. We believe that that is too much of a revenue flow into Washington for Washington to make the decisions.

We've got an issue there about the amount of taxes and the size of government. Yes, it's a totally legitimate discussion point, but it's an issue. It's not just rejection out of hand like the minority leader and the President have said. They reject that. We say this is why, and then we also say the disproportionate driver of the deficit is health care entitlements. The gentleman and I both agree upon that. How are we going to deal with it?

Bowles-Simpson leaves in place the structural nature of those programs now and doesn't address this fundamental problem of growing unfunded liabilities. We want to solve that so that the safety net programs are there for the future and save them. That's our position.

So I do look forward to working with the gentleman. There are some great things about tax reform in Bowles-Simpson. I want to work with the gentleman on that, and, if we can, have a conversation about resolving the deficit and the spending.

Again, I'm trying not to invoke any more time, Mr. Speaker.