To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit the use of public funds for political party conventions.

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.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5912. H.R. 5912 terminates the public financing of nominating conventions. The Presidential Election Campaign Fund was created and designed to restore public confidence in the political process in a post-Watergate world. Since 1976, both parties have requested and received public funds to finance their nominating conventions, including as recently as this year. The aim of H.R. 5912 is to inject more private influence over elections, even though the current level is already appallingly high. This bill turns over another electoral function to private interests. It invites the very corruption the Presidential Election Campaign Fund was created to combat. This system needs to be reformed, not repealed, and we ought to be having a serious debate about the outsized role money plays in our politics.

Because the majority has failed to act, the ranking member of the House Administration Committee, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, was forced to have his own forum on the poisoning effect of money in politics. We have not considered the DISCLOSE Act or any legislation of substance to deal with the secret money influencing our politics. The Voter Empowerment Act was introduced months ago. Yet absolutely nothing has been done to address the threat of millions of voters being disenfranchised this November. Most appalling, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that

this Congress is making its own history as the least productive Congress in a generation.

This Congress has already considered the substance of the measure before us--at least twice--in November, 2011, and again this past January. To be blunt, Mr. Speaker, this is simply a waste of time. Unemployment insurance and Medicare physician payment rates need to be tackled. Middle class tax cuts are set to expire and we need to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. This bill does nothing to address deficit reduction, but here we are considering it while ignoring the looming sequester. We voted to repeal ObamaCare more than 30 times without voting on a serious jobs bill once. This piece of legislation further intertwines our political process with the private interests while pleas from the middle class are blatantly ignored and the economic future of this country hangs in the balance.

For almost 2 years now, serious issues have been ignored in favor of politically convenient empty gestures. And this is more of the same. It is time to get serious and it is time to get to work. We can start by opposing this legislation and urging the majority to address the real issues facing this country.

I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Just to be clear, let me first say it will not reduce the deficit. This is a voluntary checkoff. This does not come from taxpayers' dollars. It will not reduce the deficit. So let's be clear.

Secondly, when he talked about the Senate having passed this on a 95- 5 vote, he doesn't say it was an amendment to the farm bill. It was not a standalone bill for this purpose.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Let me be clear again: This is a voluntary checkoff. They check the box because they want the money to go to conventions and/or political activity. It is not something that we require them to do. It is voluntary. So if, in fact, we are going to stop and give the money back, the money should go back to the American people, not to reduce the deficit, because that is the purpose for which the money was sent to us in the first place.

With that, I urge a ``no'' vote and yield back the balance of my time.

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.

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.

I thank my friend for yielding.

H.R. 5912 is a bipartisan bill to end public financing for political conventions. And that's all it is.

I want to begin by thanking my friend, Mr. Loebsack from Iowa. We belong to different parties. I have no doubt we'll be voting for different Presidential candidates. But we both agree that it's wrong to use taxpayer dollars to finance partisan political events. And I appreciate his support in helping push this legislation.

Let me make it clear to everybody. I'm not opposed to political party conventions. I've gone to 10 of them. I actually had the privilege of helping stage one in 2000, when I was chief of staff of the Republican National Committee. And I can assure you that experience taught me that the parties are more than capable of putting on their conventions. They essentially do that now. The Federal component of the cost to the convention is about 23 percent of the total cost. So the idea that they can't find the resources to do this for themselves I think simply falls flat on its face.

This year, at a time when we're going to be running trillion-dollar deficits for the fourth year in a row, we wrote checks to the Democratic Party and to the Republican Party, as my friend Mr. Lungren mentioned, for almost $18 million each. For what? Was it really necessary? Does anybody really believe that was the best use of public money? Is there no program that's more important? I can give you a list of better places for that money to go that we would probably agree on on both sides of the aisle.

It's remarkable to me that we've reached a point in this body that this becomes an issue of some degree of partisan contention. The United States Senate passed, essentially, this legislation by 95-5 in an amendment by my friend, Mr. Coburn, to a larger piece of legislation. So there's broad agreement in the Senate, which Democrats control, that this is a Federal expense that we no longer need to incur.

This bill is a small step, but it's a stall step in the right direction. It's a step to save taxpayer dollars for things that people need as opposed to things that politicians and political parties want. We ought to take this opportunity, work together, save the money, reduce the deficit by at least a modest amount, spend money in places where it's necessary, and pass this bill. It's a quite simple piece of legislation. Those folks that have a different point of view, bring your legislation to the floor, we'll deal with that. But there's no reason to pay for the Democratic and the Republican national conventions with taxpayer funds.

One last point, if I may, Mr. Speaker. We don't do this for anybody else. There are other political groups and parties in America that I'm sure would like to have their conventions paid for. We don't give them a single dime. So this actually perpetuates a bipartisan monopoly, if you will. There's no public purpose in spending this money.

So I urge the passage. I urge some bipartisan cooperation.