Andrew P. Carpenter Tax Act

Mr. Chairman, I would like to support and thank my colleagues, Congressmen Jeff Flake and Rick Berg, and support this amendment.

I represent the areas where two of the Arizona plants threatened by the EPA's heavy-handed regulations are located, the Coronado Generating Station in St. Johns and the Cholla plant near Joseph City. The third plant, the Apache Generating Station, near Wilcox, is just 100 miles away and serves a good portion of my constituents in the southern part of my district. These are bedrock to our local communities. They provide high-paying jobs where unemployment is already over 10 percent.

Over the August recess, the Environmental Protection Agency held public hearings in Phoenix, Holbrook, and Benson on their Federal plan. Each of the hearings in rural Arizona had over 300 people present. That is an incredible turnout in these relatively small towns. That is how important this issue is to my constituents.

The EPA refused to hold a hearing in St. Johns, despite being a community directly impacted by the regulations, so I hosted a meeting to facilitate the submission of public comments. On a night where the local high school had their first football game and the county fair was taking place, we still had over 100 people show up.

Listen, everybody wants clean air and good-paying jobs. The fact of the matter is the EPA is acting well beyond its authority and under public law in my State and many others across the country.

Vote ``yes'' for our amendment.

I have an amendment made in order under the rule.

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

Today, I am pleased to put forth an amendment to protect the residents of Arizona from the EPA's attacks on the Navajo Generating Station, which is located near Page, Arizona. The uncertainty surrounding proposed EPA regulations and their effects on the Navajo Generating Station were some of the first issues brought to my attention when I was sworn into Congress.

The overreaching regulations would effectively shut down this critical and unique plant. A closure would dramatically increase the cost of water and power for my constituents, and it would eliminate thousands of tribal and nontribal jobs--all for no discernible improvement in visibility. Again, according to the Federal Government, itself, no discernible improvement in visibility.

You see, this plant is unique because it is owned by six entities, including the Federal Government. It was part of a plan created by visionaries so that we could provide power to move water from the Colorado River, through the largest aqueduct system ever constructed in the United States, to the people of Arizona. You can see it across here. In fact, the CAP delivers water to up to 80 percent of my State's population. This includes 45 percent of Phoenix's water, which is the fifth largest city in the United States, and 80 percent of the water to the 32nd largest city in the United States, which is Tucson.

The Arizona we know today would, without a doubt, not exist if it were not for this plant. The Navajo Generating Station and the associated coal mine directly employ over 1,000 Arizonans, who are mostly Native Americans. Additionally, according to an Arizona State University study, the plant will indirectly account for more than $20 billion in gross State product and will indirectly provide for 3,000 jobs annually over the next 40 years.

I also want to point out a complicated but important part of this issue. The Federal Government is actually working against itself with these regulations. Revenues from the sale of excess power generated by the plant are used to repay the Federal Government's debt for the construction of the CAP project. They are also used to help pay for the costs of congressionally authorized Indian water rights settlements between the Federal Government, tribes, and entities within Arizona. So, without these revenues, the Federal Government will be undermining its own legal agreements with Native Americans and the people of Arizona.

Let's put an end to this insanity. Vote for my amendment, and stop the EPA from issuing far-reaching regulations that threaten jobs, Arizona's water supply, affordable electricity, and tribal rights established with Congress.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 90 seconds to my friend from Arizona (Mr. Franks).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to my good friend, Mr. Schweikert, from Arizona.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Yes, I am opposed.

Mr. Speaker, there are many times when we come to this floor and engage in heated debate, and we've heard some heated debate on this bill. But my final amendment offers us the opportunity to come together to do something extraordinarily important, and that is to ensure our constituents' hard-earned cash is redirected away from the gas pump and back into their wallets. I want to be clear, the passage of this amendment will not prevent the passage of the underlying bill. If it's adopted, my amendment will be incorporated into the bill and the bill will be immediately voted upon.

Now I make no apologies for opposing this bill. Regardless of how you feel about the bill, my amendment should be something we could all agree on.

My amendment preserves new fuel efficiency standards issued last month if their repeal would mean higher prices at the pump for our constituents or lost jobs for our workers. These new standards raise fuel efficiency to 54.5 miles per gallon. That's roughly twice the mileage our cars are getting today.

By 2025, these standards will save consumers $1.7 trillion at the gas pump, and they will cut our oil imports by 2 million barrels per day. That's one half our current imports for OPEC. They also represent a new chapter for American ingenuity.

Mr. Speaker, if U.S. engineers made it possible for every car to include a computer more powerful than the one that sent a man to the Moon, then surely they can produce cars that go further on a gallon of gas. The good news is they can and they are.

There are now 57 fuel-efficient models available in showrooms today, up from 27 models in 2009. Car makers have retooled some of their most popular models to boost efficiency, and the improvements keep coming.

The first half of this year set the record for highest-ever fuel efficiency for new vehicles. Consumers are rewarding these breakthroughs. Fuel efficiency is the top concern for car buyers by far, and this is according to Consumer Reports.

Consumers support these new standards. Families will save an estimated $8,000 in gasoline costs over the lifetime of their car, and that's equivalent to lowering the price of gasoline by $1 per gallon. These new standards also provide something consumer trends cannot: long-term certainty. And that's why three major automakers--General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler--all support them.

Strong standards tell carmakers exactly what goal they need to reach by when so they can invest in innovation, deploy new technologies, and build cars right here in America. When they do that, they hire more workers. More than 150,000 Americans have jobs making parts for and assembling more efficient cars in America today. Car makers are moving production to our shores also.

One car maker alone, Honda, recently announced plans to move all global Civic hybrid manufacturing to Indiana from Japan, creating 300 jobs by the end of the year.

This onshoring of jobs is because of our commitment to making more efficient cars and components in America. That's why GM's CEO, Dan Akerson, called these standards, ``a win for American manufacturers for the very first time.''

Mr. Speaker, everybody wins when more efficient cars hit the road. American workers win, drivers win, and automakers. These standards demonstrate the best of America, how creating jobs goes hand-in-hand with protecting the environment and health, how drivers can save billions in gasoline costs, how the American auto industry can compete with any country in the world. That's why we must preserve these historic standards and the enormous benefits that come with them by voting for my final amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully ask that all colleagues weigh this simple proposition: Do you want your constituents to pay less at the pump and drive more efficient cars made in America? If your answer is yes, then vote for my amendment. It ensures that our constituents will save thousands of dollars every year at the gas pump, and it makes sure that American workers will find jobs building the cars of the future right here in America.

Today we have the opportunity to speak with one voice, to save these landmark car efficiency standards. It's up to us. Support this final amendment to the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment, I believe, that common sense would allow us to work together and pass.

This amendment would simply maintain the current deadline that existed under the previous administration of 90 days under the Clean Air Act by striking section 503 of the bill which artificially limits agency comment periods on water quality permits to 30 days with no possibility of extension. This existed under President Bush's administration.

Why, then, would my friends on the other side of the aisle not join with me to say let's have regular order? Let's ensure that we give everyone a reasonable opportunity for a response on their quality of life.

On the surface, the intent of H.R. 3409 appears to be to prevent the Interior Department from revising a Bush administration midnight regulation that significantly weakened mountaintop protections on the destructive practice of mountaintop removal mining. Let me remind you, they did not alter the comment period. Mountaintop removal mining, as many of us know, is a very challenging, environmentally difficult process. For many, they say, it creates jobs.

What we are trying to do is to ensure that there is a balance between that industry and, as well, the fairness of allowing those to be able to comment. As it's presently drafted, this bill would reach, in fact, it would make it much more difficult, if you will, to deal with the question of rulemaking.

The people in the State of Texas and the city of Houston appreciate the ability to drink cool, fresh water. So does everyone else. The idea of not being able to comment on the impact of this particular process is challenging.

I ask my colleagues to consider the importance of coming together and extending, or going back to, the 90-day comment period to balance, if you will, the timeframe and to ensure that all are heard on any aspects that would impact the environment, impact the environment of this particular procedure.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time remains.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch).

Mr. Chairman, let me just clarify what is happening with this legislation. It eliminates the EPA's authority to apply minimum Federal water quality standards sufficient to protect human and aquatic life, and it is weaker than State standards in many places. It strips the EPA's authority to object to the State discharge permits that fail to meet Clean Air Act requirements.

Now, this is not about creating jobs, Mr. Chairman. I ask, on the names of our children yet unborn, to be able to have a quality of life, quality of water and quality of air that the requirements that they are trying to eliminate in this bill, the proponent of this bill, to the extent that they will narrow the comment period to 30 days rather than 90 days.

Why is that not a simple request if my good friend could not say, Congresswoman, we support the amendment. I hope that's what he will say. The difficulty that I have is I would rather, Mr. Chairman, be doing Medicare, tax breaks, jobs, urgent priorities that are needed.

I just ask for a little bit of consideration on recognizing that the Nation is better when we have provided a quality of life for all Americans. Who are we to speak of the needs of the people who have coal in their region? What we have asked is that we put in the four parameters of common sense and reasonableness.

My amendment is that. It expands back to its regular order the existing comment period, Mr. Chairman, to 90 days. It strikes the provision, and this bill that limits it to 30 days.

I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment that speaks to the health and good quality of life for all Americans and America's children.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks, I want to take a few moments to thank Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and Ways and Means Chairman David Camp for their help in bringing this worthwhile piece of legislation to the House floor. In addition, I want to say a special thanks to Congressman Sam Johnson for his work and guidance through the process.

I also want to recognize and thank the family of Lance Corporal Andrew P. Carpenter for bringing this matter to my attention. I am truly humbled to have had the honor of introducing the Andrew P. Carpenter Tax Act.

We are all familiar with the verse in John that says: ``Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.'' On February 19, 2011, due to wounds suffered while on a combat mission in the Helmand province of Afghanistan, Lance Corporal Andrew Carpenter did indeed lay down his life for his friends and country.

A graduate of Columbia Central High School in 2002, Andrew enlisted in the United States Marine Corps in 2007 and was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force out of Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. He was serving his second tour in Afghanistan.

Leaving behind a wife, Crissie, and soon to be born son, Landon, Andrew gave his life in defense of our Nation and the cause of freedom. In a fitting tribute to his and his family's sacrifice, the city of Columbia, Tennessee, held a memorial service that sent a clear message that his valor would not be forgotten. Unfortunately, the aftermath of this outpouring of support was soon tarnished by the grim hand of the Internal Revenue Service. As hard as it is to believe, Mr. Speaker, the pain and anguish of his parents and wife were compounded by a tax bill from the Internal Revenue Service for over $1,000 due to the fact that an educational loan from a private institution was forgiven. Imagine the dismay of having to bury a son, daughter, husband, or wife that had paid the ultimate sacrifice only to have the IRS say you haven't paid enough.

Three years prior, Andrew had taken out a private educational loan. After

learning that Andrew had been killed in action, the company administering the loan agreed to completely forgive the debt. However, the IRS did not. Upon forgiveness of the debt, the family, who had cosigned the loan, received a 1099C form informing them that the debt discharged would be factored into their gross taxable income for that year. Not knowing what the tax bill was for, the family paid the tax and then contacted my office and brought this matter to my attention. As a newly elected Congressman, this was a rude introduction to just how broken our Federal system was.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today attempts to shield American families from ever having the IRS add to their loss by callously presenting them with a tax bill. Simply, my bill amends the Internal Revenue Code to exempt private student loan forgiveness from being categorized as gross taxable income for families of veterans who have lost their lives while serving in active duty in the United States Armed Forces. It is important to note that this bill would not make it mandatory for private lenders to forgive educational loans. Private loan companies would still have the option of whether or not to forgive a loan.

Having lost their son in Afghanistan, the Carpenter family is comforted by the knowledge that Andrew died a hero. His memory lives on in his son, Landon. It is for them and all those who may have or may face similar hardships that I urge that the House suspend the rules and pass H.R. 5044.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment will prohibit the EPA from retroactively invalidating permits after they have been issued. On January 13, 2011, the EPA took unprecedented action by retroactively revoking a lawfully issued section 404 permit for the Spruce No. 1 surface mine in Logan County, West Virginia. This permit had been issued 4 years earlier after an extensive 10-year environmental review, including a 1,600-page environmental impact statement in which the EPA fully participated and agreed to all the terms and conditions included in the authorized permit.

But this amendment is intended to address far more than coal mines. If the EPA can retroactively revoke a water permit for this industry, they can do the same to any other manufacturer, refinery, municipality, farm, or other government agency. Imagine an entrepreneur contemplating making an investment requiring an EPA permit but then stopping once they learn that the EPA could first grant the permit, allow the business to proceed, and then invalidate the permit, crushing the investment. Or, imagine a lending institution contemplating whether or not to loan money to someone subject to an EPA regulation. Should any of us be critical of them for being reluctant once they, too, become aware that their loan could go into default once the EPA retroactively revokes the permit on which the loan was granted?

All of us in Congress should be concerned about the chilling effect these actions by the EPA have had and will have if they continue this threat to the creation of jobs by exceeding their statutory authority. At a time when our country is facing economic uncertainty and our families are struggling to make ends meet, I'm appalled by this continued assault on American businesses and families that the EPA has taken. Our job creators need a consistent and predictable regulatory program that will protect jobs we have and create new ones in an environmentally responsible manner. Remember, this amendment is not just for coal mining but rather it addresses virtually every business in America which requires certainty in their regulatory environment.

I urge your support, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I ask how much time remains.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs).

Do I have the right to close?

Mr. Chairman, briefly, let me just underscore here how people try to distract attention away from the argument. We've heard all these other arguments. I've heard the opponents talk about this is the first time or the third time or whatever that is. Let's go back to what the courts have said. Perhaps we need to have on the other side a little bit more education. Because the Federal courts have already struck down that initial reading. Shame on you--anyone--for not having read all this.

The Federal court said the EPA's interpretation of the act is not reasonable. Neither the statute nor the memorandum of agreement between the EPA and the Corps makes any provision for a post-permit veto, and this agency was completely unable to articulate what the practical consequences of its actions would be.

In addition, the court went on to say that the Clean Water Act does not give the EPA the power to render a permit invalid once it has been issued by the Corps.

We ought to put this to rest, codify it, and move on.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the subcommittee ranking member on the Ways and Means Committee for his leadership, and I thank my friend from Texas, Congressman Johnson, for managing, and the sponsor of this legislation as well.

Let me rise in support of what I think is a recognition, a recognition of the sacrifice that families make and those who remain behind after our soldiers fall in battle--a fall pursuant to a service- related injury--and to not have the added burden of having any forgiven debt be included as income to be assessed by the IRS.

I believe that this is a fair and important collaborative exercise, a reasonable response to taxation. I hope, as we come together around veterans and this removal of this burden, we can clearly see pathways to address the question of tax reform that responds to working Americans, that protects working Americans, for that is obviously what this family is. They sent a son off to war, or a daughter off to war-- or a mother or father or uncle or aunt, cousins. America is about family. Therefore, now we have the legitimate response that they would not, through some procedural snafu, be burdened by having that forgiven debt be part of the remaining family's income, particularly those who may have cosigned. I know the fallen soldier would not want that to happen.

As I stand here, I cannot help make mention as well of the resolution that saluted the fallen in Libya, H. Res. 786. I just wanted to acknowledge the passion that all Americans have for Ambassador John Christopher Stevens, Foreign Service information management officer Sean Smith, and security officers Tyrone S. Woods and Glen A. Doherty.

As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I have often said that terrorism is franchised. It does not have to be an army of millions or thousands, it does not have to be a battalion, it doesn't have to be anything but one wanting to do evil. Therefore, it is important to say to the families of these men in particular, and others that fell, and others that were injured, and the men and women that serve as our face--civilian face, if you will--in embassies and consulate offices around the world, particularly those who have served in the horrific backdrop of 9/11 in a region that is now overwhelmed with conflict--to say to their families that our priority will be to offer you sympathy and to mourn with you and to love you and to indicate that we will not allow divisiveness to fall on the issue of who did it.

What we will do is to raise the flag as Americans and evenhandedly and quickly investigate the source of this horrific incident to our family members. We will not let their memory be diminished by quarreling and squabbling about pointing the finger as much as it will be to investigate what actually happened.

I think it is time now, as we saw occurring just a few days ago with the welcoming home of their bodies, that America draws together to show that we are united around those who have fallen in battle and those who have served, to express our deepest respect, and of course our deepest honor for them.

I will go forth to work harder to ensure that we are protected with secure Council offices and embassies and enhanced security for those who are willing to put themselves on the front line. I think this is appropriate in conjunction with this present legislation, H.R. 5044, that helps our fallen veterans as well.

I thank my colleague for yielding the time.

Mr. Speaker, on September 19-21, 2012, I was not present for the following votes.

Rollcall vote 585 on passage of H.R. 5044, the Andrew P. Carpenter Tax Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Rollcall vote 586 on passage of H.R. 5912, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit the use of public funds for political party conventions. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Rollcall vote 587, on ordering the previous question providing for consideration of H.J. Res. 118 and H.R. 3409. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Rollcall vote 588, on agreeing to the resolution providing for consideration of H.J. Res. 118 and H.R. 3409. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Rollcall vote 589 on passage of H.J. Res. 118, Providing for congressional disapproval of the rule submitted by the Office of Family Assistance of the Administration for Children and Families of the Department of HHS relating to waiver and expenditure authority under the Social Security Act with respect to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Rollcall vote 590, on passage of HR 6429, To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to promote innovation, investment, and research in the United States, to eliminate the diversity immigrant program, and for other purposes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Rollcall vote 591, on passage of H.R. 5987, to establish the Manhattan Project National Historical Park in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Los Alamos, New Mexico, and Hanford, Washington, and for other purposes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Rollcall vote 592, on Markey of Massachusetts Amendment No. 1. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Rollcall vote 593, on Waxman of California Amendment No. 3. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Rollcall vote 594, on Kelly of Pennsylvania Amendment No. 4. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Rollcall vote 595, on Markey of Massachusetts Amendment No. 5. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Rollcall vote 596, on Jackson Lee of Texas Amendment No. 8. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Rollcall vote 597, on McKinley of West Virginia Amendment No. 9. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Rollcall vote 598, on Markey of Massachusetts Amendment No. 10. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Rollcall vote 599, on DeFazio of Oregon Amendment No. 11. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Rollcall vote 600, on Flake of Arizona Amendment No. 12. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Rollcall vote 601, Gosar of Arizona Amendment No. 13. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Rollcall vote 602, on motion to recommit, to limit the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to issue regulations before December 31, 2013, under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Rollcall vote 603, on passage of H.R. 3409, the Coal Miner Employment and Domestic Energy Infrastructure Protection Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3409.

I rise to claim time in opposition.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we haven't declared war on wind or solar or anything else. We simply don't believe that when you have a $16 trillion Federal debt that the Federal Government should use taxpayers' money to serve as venture capital for risky ventures like Solyndra that received $538 million and now is bankrupt. If this technology is so good, let the free market develop it. It does not need taxpayer support.

Yet, on the other hand, this administration has adopted policies that you can't even build a new coal-powered plant in America because there's no technology available to meet the new emissions standards of the Obama EPA.

On this particular amendment, on page 7 of the amendment, it says that by the year 2035 that 50 percent of the electricity would have to be produced from renewables. The gentleman in his comments said 25 percent, but this amendment says 50.

Well, I'm just reading from page 7.

Anyway, this amendment simply creates a national renewable electricity standard. We've seen it before. It was in the Markey-Waxman cap-and-trade bill in the last Congress, which was rejected by the Congress.

This amendment does nothing more than determine for the American people where their electricity will come from and that they are going to be paying more for it.

So I urge people to vote against the Markey amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition.

We have great respect for our friends on the other side of the aisle. I think we all recognize that we do have basic differences in our philosophy about the way energy is produced in America. It's quite clear that many people on the other side of the aisle are very much opposed to coal. Not only do they not want us to burn coal in America; they don't want us to export coal to other countries even though it would help our trade deficit and would preserve jobs in the coal industry.

This particular amendment on fugitive dust is really unnecessary because fugitive dust from the transport of coal is already regulated at the Federal and State level under the Clean Air Act, as well as State fugitive dust laws and regulations. EPA already is required to study the environmental and health impacts from particulate matter from all sources, including fugitive sources, and of all compositions, including coal dust. The most recent summary of that science was published by EPA in 2009 and supplemented in 2010. In fact, this week the Army Corps of Engineers also announced that it will conduct an environmental assessment of the proposed coal terminal in the sponsor's district.

So I would say that we already have adequate protection. There's no need for this amendment, although I'm sure it's offered with the very best of intentions.

So I would urge our Members to oppose this amendment and would yield back the balance of my time.