Energy Consumers Relief Act of 2013

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 1582.

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

This evening, we will be debating H.R. 1582, the Energy Consumers Relief Act of 2013, authored by the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Chairman, one of the major issues that the American people face today is a slow growth in its economy. Our economy has been sluggish for some time. The last quarter of 2012 and the first quarter of 2013, gross domestic product grew by less than 2 percent. And in the last 15 quarters, the growth of our economy in America has been the slowest since World War II. So we need to do everything in this country to promote economic growth, and this bill looks at the impact of regulations as obstacles to economic growth.

I want to just read a few of the regulations that have been adopted by EPA since January 2009:

Greenhouse gas regulations for cars, and these are EPA numbers. It cost $52 billion. Greenhouse gas standards for cars 2017-2025, $144 billion; greenhouse gas standards for trucks, $8 billion; Utility MACT, $9.6 billion annually; Boiler MACT, $2.2 billion annually.

Now, I could go on and on, but I think that that shows that the cost of some of these regulations present serious obstacles to economic growth. So the legislation that we consider tonight is simply a commonsense approach, a way to review the impact of energy-related regulations at the Environmental Protection Agency.

All this legislation does is this:

The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency may not promulgate as final an energy-related rule that is estimated to cost more than $1 billion unless:

One, they make a report to Congress setting out what the regulation does; and

Two, the Secretary of Energy, working with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Administrator of the Energy Information Administration, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Small Business Administration will look at these regulations and look at the impact on consumer energy cost, the impact on employment, and the impact on economic growth. The Department of Energy certainly has the expertise to analyze these kinds of figures, and if the Secretary determines that it would be harmful to economic growth, then the Secretary can actually stop the regulation from taking effect.

Now, the good news is, at that point, EPA could go back and redo the process. But I can tell you, from my personal experience of working with people in my district who are affected by regulations every day, most people genuinely believe that there's not anything wrong with having other government agencies review the impact of the cost of regulations on the economy, on jobs, on the price of fuel. That's precisely what Dr. Cassidy's bill does. I think it's a commonsense approach and something that the American people need as additional protections.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Affordable and reliable energy is critical for our basic necessities, from heating or cooling

homes, to transportation and obtaining healthcare. When energy prices rise, it threatens public health because it hurts the poor and disadvantaged disproportionately.

Energy is also critical for a growing economy. When energy prices rise, it can cause job losses that can be devastating to public health.

Given the prolonged weakness in the economy, high unemployment, and rising gasoline and other energy prices, the Nation can ill-afford to be further burdened by billion-dollar energy regulations that destroy jobs and significantly harm the economy.

Today we have an opportunity to help protect families, consumers, and manufacturers from rising energy costs triggered by billion-dollar energy regulations imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency. We can do this by requiring greater transparency and more inter-agency scrutiny of EPA's most expensive energy regulations, and that is why I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 1582, the ``Energy Consumers Relief Act.''

This additional scrutiny of EPA's costs and benefits analysis is warranted. For example, EPA estimated that only 4,700 MW of coal-fired generation would be lost as a result of its Utility MACT rule. Yet, with 2 years left until the 2015 compliance deadline, nearly 44,000 MW of coal-fired generation have already announced retirement.

Further, we received testimony before the Energy and Power Subcommittee that under EPA's formula used to measure job impacts, the more costly the regulation, the greater the job increase EPA's formula will project. The use of such fuzzy math to calculate employment impacts led one economist to conclude, ``one cannot characterize the current formula favored by EPA as an economic methodology at all.''

It's exactly these types of skewed methodologies and flawed results that H.R. 1582 will help shine a light on. We owe it to the American people to ensure that our federal agencies are not overstating benefits or understating economic impacts to further political agendas.

Such scrutiny will become increasingly critical as EPA and the Administration attempt to justify its forthcoming greenhouse gas regulations on coal-fired power plants with unsound and untested ``Social Cost of Carbon'' methodology.

With more EPA billion-dollar energy-related rules on the horizon, it is imperative that we understand the impacts of these rules on jobs and the economy before they are implemented.

By passing the ``Energy Consumers Relief Act'' we have the chance to protect American consumers and businesses from billion-dollar regulations that significantly harm the economy. And I might add that this Act does nothing to affect existing laws and regulations that protect public health and the environment.

I urge all my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Chair, I might say, with all due respect to my friend from California, that he is exactly correct. I was not satisfied with Utility MACT, but primarily because EPA misled the American people. Publicly they were always talking about the mercury reductions and that the benefits would come from mercury reductions. Yet at the hearing, EPA's own analysis showed that the benefits were not there for mercury reductions; the benefits were there from particulate matter reduction. So I don't see why they deliberately misled the American people on that.

I might just make one other brief comment. We were talking about the money involved by the Department of Energy in implementing this bill. At the end of fiscal year 2012, the Department of Energy had over $2.36 billion in excess carry-over balances.

At this time, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Cassidy, the author of this bill.

Madam Chair, I yield an additional minute to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Madam Chairman, I would like to remind everyone once again that this legislation applies only to energy-related regulations that exceed $1 billion. That's all that it applies to.

At this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).

(Mr. ROTHFUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Chair, may I ask how much time is remaining.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

We have no other speakers.

Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Once again I want to thank Dr. Cassidy for authoring this bill and bringing it to the House floor.

I would like to remind everyone that EPA has made great strides. We all recognize the improvements that have been made in our air quality, water quality, particulate matter, et cetera. As a matter of fact, carbon dioxide emissions are the lowest that they've been in 20 years here in America. Yet I would say that EPA is not the Holy Grail. The EPA does make mistakes.

I would like to just read a couple of comments from some witnesses who testified over the last year at the Energy and Commerce Committee's Energy and Power Subcommittee. Dr. Peter Valberg, former member of the Harvard School of Public Health, testified that ``there are major questions about EPA's forecast of serious health effects caused by small increments in particulate matter levels. EPA's statistical approach is fraught with numerous assumptions and uncertainties.''

Dr. Tony Cox of the Colorado School of Public Health testified that ``the use of statistical associations to address causal questions about health effects of regulation is not only technically incorrect, but, as practiced by EPA and others, is also highly misleading to policymakers.''

Then Dr. Anne Smith, an economist with NERA Economic Consulting, talked about the uncertainties and the statistical models used by EPA having serious flaws.

All we're saying is at a time when the economy is struggling-- particularly now--and when EPA is the most aggressive that it has been in recent memory--as a matter of fact, even though our CO2 emissions are down to the lowest level in 20 years, America is the only country in the world where you cannot build a new coal-powered plant. All this legislation does is it says if EPA comes up with a new regulation, energy related, that costs over a billion dollars, they've got to make a report to Congress.

Then the Secretary of Energy, working with the Secretary of Commerce and the Small Business Administration and the Energy Information Agency, they will look and they will see what is the impact of this regulation upon the cost of energy, the cost of gasoline, the cost of electricity; what is the impact on causing jobs to be lost or a plant maybe not to be built and a job will be lost or a plant will close. So it's not dictating anything.

It's the Cabinet members of the same administration simply reviewing all of the evidence, doing its own analysis, and then deciding that if it has significant impact on the economy, then they can rule that the regulation will not take effect, at which point the EPA can go back, make some adjustments, and redo it.

I think it's a good piece of legislation that provides additional transparency and additional review of the regulation, the impact on the economy, the impact on jobs, the impact on prices. And what is wrong with that? What is wrong with the Congress getting a report back from the agency and letting the other Department heads in the government review it? That's all this legislation is about.

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

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

As the gentleman said, his amendment would, in effect, strike the provisions preventing EPA from finalizing rules that the Energy Secretary determined will cause significant adverse effects to the economy, and that's precisely why I respectfully oppose the gentleman's amendment.

All of the debate this afternoon has focused on how EPA is focused totally on health benefits, and health benefits are vitally important. We recognize that.

I think I also pointed out from experts that EPA makes mistakes in their benefit analysis, in their cost analysis when they look at costs. And so once again, what we're trying to do with the Cassidy bill is look at health, yes, but what is the impact on jobs. What is the impact on those families who lose a job because of the regulation? What is the impact on the children of the family who loses the job because of the regulation? What is the effect on their ability to provide the needs for their family, their health insurance, their food, and so forth?

So all we're saying is that the Secretary of Energy in the same Cabinet as the administrator of the EPA would head up an analysis to review the EPA rule that exceeds $1 billion and affects energy alone. And if they decide that it will have significant adverse impact on the economy, then they can stop it. And by the way, under the legislation, EPA would also have to give a report to Congress on the impact on energy cost, how much will gasoline go up, electricity, how many jobs would be lost, how many jobs would be created.

So when we have a struggling economy, the last thing we want to do is to create additional obstacles that really are not necessary at a time when you can do other things and protect health also.

So with that, I would respectfully oppose the gentleman's amendment and ask that Members vote against the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Madam Chair, I would say, first of all, with all due respect, we have no intent to pollute additionally the waterways that the gentleman referred to in Michigan, and I rise to oppose his amendment simply because he would say that this legislation would not apply to any rule that relates to air quality or water quality. So this amendment would exclude virtually all EPA rules from the transparency and inner-agency review requirements of the act.

I would just summarize, once again, we are talking about energy- related rules that exceed $1 billion. We know that EPA looks closely at health benefits, health impacts; and we certainly favor that. But that's not the only thing that should be examined, and that's what this legislation is about. The Secretary of Energy, with other Cabinet officials in the Obama administration, would look at the impact of the regulation on the cost of electricity, the cost of gasoline, how many jobs might be lost, how many jobs might be created, would it have significant adverse impact to the economy as a whole.

And I would think that everyone would say if it does, particularly with the slow economic growth we have today, the last 15 quarters have been the slowest since World War II, and the last quarter of 2012, the first quarter of 2013, the gross domestic product increased less than 2 percent. So we need to pay special attention to the impact that regulations may have on creating job loss and the impact on those families that lose those jobs, and that's what the gentleman's legislation is all about.

I know the gentleman rose with the very best intentions, but I would respectfully oppose this amendment and ask Members to defeat his amendment.

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

Madam Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This Republican bill is simply a disguised assault on EPA rules that protect human health and the environment. That's why the White House has said that the President would veto this bill--if it got to him.

Last Congress, this House, under Republican leadership--they know how to dress, but they don't know how to legislate. The Republicans voted over 300 times to roll back environmental laws. Nearly half of these votes were efforts to block EPA rules.

The House voted to block EPA standards for mercury, a serious toxin, and other air pollutants that are similarly poisonous from power plants and incinerators.

The House voted to strip EPA of authority to set water quality standards. The House even voted to overturn EPA's scientific finding that carbon pollution endangers health and the environment.

The problem the Republicans face is that the public doesn't want more air and water pollution. They don't support these attacks on public health standards that protect our kids and our seniors. The public doesn't want to weaken the Clean Air Act or the Clean Water Act or the Safe Drinking Water Act. The public supports our bedrock environmental laws.

So it should come as no surprise that none of these attacks on EPA in the last Congress became law. They all died in the Senate.

Now, House Republicans are trying a new approach: rather than blocking EPA action directly, they want to give another agency veto power over EPA rules.

Under this bill, if the Department of Energy determines that a rule proposed by EPA would cause any ``significant adverse effects to the economy,'' EPA would be blocked from finalizing the rule.

This bill would set a terrible precedent. If we give DOE a veto power over EPA, where do we stop? Are we next going to give the Department of Commerce a veto over the State Department or the IRS a veto over the FDA? This kind of thinking would mean that our government would be so dysfunctional that the whole government would look like the Congress of the United States.

Even if DOE does not veto an EPA rule, the extensive analysis required under the bill could delay EPA rules for years, which means more air pollution, more asthma for our kids, and more danger to our planet.

We have an obligation to our children and future generations to protect our atmosphere while there is still time. We need to be acting faster, not putting on the brakes to benefit the big polluters.

This is a costly bill. The Congressional Budget Office says that the price tag for all the reviews and the reports required under this legislation would be $35 million over 5 years. This is money that we don't have to spend, especially since the DOE reviews will simply be duplicative of exhaustive analysis already done by the EPA. And while EPA is acting, they can give EPA their point of view.

And consider this point: at the same time that the House Republicans are telling DOE to undertake exhaustive analysis of EPA rules, they are slashing DOE's budget. DOE could end up with no resources to do these reviews. Existing statutory deadlines for EPA to issue public health standards would be replaced with indefinite delay.

This bill is a recipe for making the Federal agencies dysfunctional. No one should want that.

Let me give you an example of the kind of public health standard this bill is designed to block. During the committee markup, the chairman of the Energy and Power Subcommittee argued that this legislation is needed because he was not satisfied with EPA's analysis of the mercury and air toxics rule. He wasn't satisfied. EPA did a whole analysis. They got the costs; they got the benefits. It was all quantified.

Every year, EPA's standards will help reduce mercury pollution, prevent up to 11,000 premature deaths, and deliver up to $90 billion in benefits to the Nation. But this individual Member wasn't satisfied. It's a tremendous success story that will deliver up to $9 of benefits for every $1 spent. That's what EPA was proposing to do. No Member of Congress, no other department, should stop those kinds of regulations from being put in place.

The fact that this rule is the poster child for the public health rule this legislation is designed to block shows just how misguided this legislation truly is.

This bill is deeply flawed; it is a veiled assault on critical public health and environmental protections. I urge all Members to oppose this latest Republican attempt to gut our Nation's cornerstone environmental laws, which were adopted by bipartisan votes. And now the Republicans in a partisan way are trying to make sure those laws do not work to protect public health and the environment.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I am pleased at this time to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), the ranking member of the subcommittee from which this bill emerged.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Chair, I am now pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), who is the ranking member of the subcommittee called Environment and the Economy.

Madam Chair, I would like to yield 3 minutes to a very important member of our full committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Madam Chair, I only have one more speaker on my side.

May I inquire of the manager of the bill, how about you?

So, under those circumstances, I would like to yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, there was a claim from one of the supporters of this bill that the EPA is using faulty science to justify its rules. In fact, the proponents of this bill are using faulty examples to try to justify this ridiculous bill. For example, the gentleman from Louisiana's chief example of a faulty EPA rule is what he refers to as a ``formaldehyde rule.'' In fact, this isn't a rule. It is a draft scientific assessment that is completely unrelated to the energy- related rules that are the subject of this bill. I do want to point out that pollution control regulations create jobs because they create clean technologies that the whole world wants.

The proponents of this bill claim they are worried about jobs and the unemployed. I think they're crying crocodile tears. The Republicans are for the sequestration, which is costing hundreds of thousands of jobs. They are threatening the U.S. with default. They are against food stamps for people who don't have jobs and who don't have food to eat. Give me a break. They're not trying to save jobs; they're trying to save some of these big polluting industries that have to pay to reduce their pollution.

Now, we've heard that this bill is going to provide more checks and balances because the EPA will then have its rules reviewed by the Department of Energy, but EPA rules go through a very extensive interagency process. Other agencies, including the Department of Energy, can make their views known to the EPA. The Office of Management and Budget already has the ability to have any concerns addressed before they allow EPA rules to go forward. These rules go through months or even years of scrutiny before they are issued, but this bill creates a new, unchecked authority for the Department of Energy to veto public health rules. That's a terrible idea.

Why would we give one agency the unchecked authority to block another agency's rules? There are plenty of checks and balances in the existing law.

Then we hear the argument that this bill is really about transparency because somebody else should be overseeing EPA rulemaking. But, in fact, this bill will do the opposite. The bill creates a duplicative and confused regulatory process for EPA rules. After EPA has done its analysis, they've weighed the risks and the costs and the benefits, they've heard from people who are claiming the costs are too high, they've heard from people claiming the benefits are not enough. Whatever the claims are, they evaluate those claims based on science. And according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, if we let EPA review all these regulations again from scratch, the taxpayers are going to pay $35 billion.

The bill gives the Department of Energy an unprecedented veto over EPA public health rules. And you know what? There's no public comment when DOE does that. They don't hear from the public. They'll hear from the industry, but they won't hear from the public. They're not equipped to evaluate the scientific health benefits. They're looking at the costs. It's a skewed DOE analysis. This bill is not about transparency.

We were told this is not over any simple rules; it's only over the expensive ones, regulations that will cost over a billion dollars. A billion dollars over a year? A billion dollars over 10 years? A billion dollars over 20 years? There is no definition of that. They say a billion dollars. Okay. But that could, then, be used to stop a rule that is far less than what people think it would cost, and, of course, the benefits have to outweigh the cost before the rule can even be issued by EPA.

I want to give a good example of regulations that would be stopped by this legislation. EPA and the Department of Transportation work together on tailpipe standards and fuel efficiency rules for automobiles and other motor vehicles. There are huge benefits. They help consumers save money at the pump. When you have a car that runs on more miles per gallon, you're saving money. We're also protecting the environment because we're not burning as much carbon.

Under the rules, by 2025, Americans will be able to travel twice as far on a gallon of gas, which will save consumers thousands of dollars. But that rule won't go into effect because the DOE now has to get involved. Transportation and EPA are proposing rules over their jurisdiction, over transportation and over air pollution. These rules, which could lead to consumers seeing gasoline at the pump drop by over a dollar a gallon, could be held up.

And even though these rules are all supported by the major auto companies, including Ford, GM, and Chrysler, these rules will cut U.S. emissions and carbon pollution by $6 billion, but this bill could prevent EPA from adopting new vehicle rules that will save consumers even more money and continue to address the threat of climate change.

This is a very bad bill. It doesn't make sense, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment under the rule.

Madam Chair and my colleagues and anybody listening to this debate, under this bill, if DOE determines that a rule by the Environmental Protection Agency would cause any significant adverse effects to the economy, EPA would be permanently blocked from finalizing that rule. That's a pretty broad assault on the rules that EPA might issue because EPA rules are to protect public health and the environment.

So if this bill became law, a lot of clean air and clean water protections would be at risk, and the terms in the bill are so expansive and vague that nearly every major public health proposed rule could be delayed and would be affected because DOE is not going to do this extensive analysis.

My amendment is straightforward. It eliminates the bizarre provision in this bill that gives the Secretary of Energy the unprecedented authority to effectively veto public health rules. It makes no sense for DOE to veto an EPA public health rule, especially since the veto would be based on DOE's analysis of the economic impact, which is by its terms a macroeconomic analysis.

What is this going to do to the economy if this rule goes into effect? Did anybody ever think that the DOE does not do that kind of analysis? Perhaps they should have had the Department of the Treasury do a macroeconomic evaluation. They do things like that. But instead, the authors of this bill want DOE to do it. All right. It's outside of DOE's area of expertise. This, I think, would be a terrible precedent.

Time and time again, Congress has turned to the EPA to trust the agency with the mission of protecting our air and our water from pollution. The Department of Energy should not have the power to veto the public health protections that Congress required in the Clean Air Act or the Clean Water Act or other bedrock environmental laws. The DOE veto is inconsistent with the stated purpose of this bill because the other side of this bill thinks DOE ought to do an independent analysis. We would concede it: let DOE do an independent analysis, but don't let it stop the rule from going into effect.

EPA's analysis, before they issue their proposed regulation, goes through an interagency process, DOE can intervene, the Office of Management and Budget can review it and even hold up the regulation. So let the regulation go forward and let DOE do its additional analysis, but don't let that analysis lead to paralysis if we're talking about affecting the public health in this country.

This amendment would stop the veto of an EPA regulation by DOE. It does not stop the Department of Energy from doing its analysis, but it would stop them from--while they're doing the analysis particularly-- holding up a regulation and then leaving it to them exclusively to decide that they're going to veto the regulation based on a different kind of analysis than one would expect, which is to look at the benefits, to look at the costs, and make sure those benefits are more of a benefit in dollars and cents even. Put a price on life. That's what we're talking about. Put a price on a kid's asthma. That's what we're talking about.

But EPA tries to do that analysis and has to show that its regulation is going to be more economically beneficial than the cost of the regulation. And of course you imagine when they look at costs and benefits, the costs are always overstated. I've seen that in all of the years I've been here, and I've been here for decades. The costs are always overstated by the polluting corporation that doesn't want to have to take the steps to reduce their pollution.

EPA hears what they have to say, but they do their own analysis of the cost to do the regulation.

So I would urge support for this amendment. Leave the bill if you want

it, but don't give that veto power to DOE.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 315 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 315 provides for consideration of two pieces of legislation passed by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The first, H.R. 2218, the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act of 2013 introduced by my friend on the committee, Mr. McKinley from West Virginia, passed out of committee with a strong bipartisan vote with 54 bipartisan cosponsors. The second piece of legislation, H.R. 1582, the Energy Consumers Relief Act of 2013, was introduced by my friend Mr. Cassidy from Louisiana.

The rule before us today provides for 1 hour of general debate on each of the bills included in the rule. A total of nine amendments were made in order between the two bills, six on the Democratic side and three on the Republican side. Further, the minority is afforded the customary motion to recommit, allowing for yet another opportunity to amend each piece of legislation before it's final vote.

H.R. 2218, the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act of 2013, is a product of hours of work over the course of the past few years that the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley) has put in to perfect this legislation. Indeed, the legislation includes numerous provisions offered by Democrats and even reflects input by President Obama's own Environmental Protection Agency.

This legislation was prompted by a move in June of 2010 by the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate coal combustion residuals. In this rule, the Environmental Protection Agency set out three proposals for coal residuals, commonly referred to as coal ash. Coal residuals are often recycled in an environmentally sound fashion and repurposed for use in roads, parks, golf courses, and any other number of safe manners. Unfortunately, many in the industry viewed these proposed Environmental Protection Agency regulations as placing barriers to the continued use or recycling of coal ash.

In response to these concerns, Mr. McKinley's bill would provide for minimum Federal standards but allow States to craft a permitting program that could be tailored to the needs in each individual State. The bill makes clear that it does not provide the Environmental Protection Agency with new rulemaking authority. Further, it requires the Environmental Protection Agency to defer to the States with respect to the regulation of coal ash. This would allow Sates to protect human health and the environment by adapting an existing solid waste regulatory program for coal ash. To ensure adequate safety measures for human health, the bill requires installation of groundwater monitoring at all structures that receive coal ash.

The second bill included in today's rule has been carefully designed to protect consumers from a runaway Environmental Protection Agency which, in my experience as a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, constantly uses some pretty strange figures and some funny math in depicting the so-called benefits of its rules and rarely fully admits to the full cost of the rules it promulgates.

Since the beginning of President Obama's, Lisa Jackson's, and Gina McCarthy's tenure with the Federal Government, the Environmental Protection Agency has promulgated regulations imposing billions of dollars in costs on our critical power infrastructure. Famously, the Environmental Protection Agency has been so out of control that the President himself was required to intervene and pull the ozone rule in August of 2011, knowing that the cost to the country far outweighed the benefits that the Environmental Protection Agency was claiming.

In response to this out-of-control agency, Dr. Cassidy has carefully crafted H.R. 1582, the Energy Consumers Relief Act, which would add another measure of protection for consumers legitimately frightened of whether or not they will be able to afford their air-conditioning this summer or their heating this fall, or even to turn on their lights at nighttime.

The bill is straightforward. It requires that, before promulgating a final rule that would impose an aggregate cost of $1 billion on the American people, the Environmental Protection Agency must consult with the Secretary of Energy, a Cabinet member who will be working for the very same President as the Administrator at the Environmental Protection Agency. The Energy Secretary must then determine that the rule before him would not cause significant adverse effects to the economy or to electric reliability, as is his job. That's what his mission statement is as the top energy official for our country.

For too long, the Environmental Protection Agency has dictated our energy policy rather than simply our environmental policy. Former Energy Secretary Steven Chu seemed to have no problem passively delegating his job to Lisa Jackson. I suppose he was too busy losing America's money to solar companies. The era of the Environmental Protection Agency dictating energy policy must end, and this bill is a solid step toward that goal.

Mr. Speaker, American consumers are struggling. They watch the cost of food as it rises right before their eyes. They watch the gas prices. Where are they going? Nowhere but up. They watch their electricity bills. They are also going up. There is no relief in sight on the horizon under this President and this administration.

House Republicans have not abandoned their promises to protect consumers from an out-of-control bureaucracy imposing cost after cost on the American people. Today's legislation is yet another few arrows in the quiver to stop the Federal Government from taking more money out of Americans' pockets.

As I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the two underlying bills, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute for a couple of brief responses.

First off, I don't know whether the gentleman misheard or only caught me

in midsentence. I was responding to the minority leader's statement about this September is the 4-year anniversary of the crash in the economy, and the preceding 20 months, from September of 2008, in the Congress, all of the levers of power were handled by the Democrats.

Now, on this issue of fighting Washington, good strategy, bad strategy, I can't address that. But I do know what's going on out in this country--people are frightened of Washington. They're not fighting Washington; they are scared. Why are they scared? What are they seeing with the NSA? What do they see with the TSA when they go to the airport? What are they seeing with the IRS? Nobody likes the IRS to start with, but now people are concerned that their First Amendment rights are going to be trampled by an out-of-control Federal agency. And I have to tell you what, Mr. Speaker, it all devolves back to the administration. Yeah, the Congress has its own problems, but the administration is actually what is driving the frightening of America, not the fighting of America.

I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley).

Mr. Speaker, let me yield myself 30 seconds for response, pending which I'm going to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from West Virginia.

In the brief 7 months that I have spent on the Rules Committee in this Congress, there's only one time where the administration has not issued a veto threat to legislation we were considering under the Rules Committee. This is H.R. 2218, Mr. McKinley's bill. They voiced problems, but they did not issue a veto threat. That is a red letter day in this institution.

Every other piece of legislation that's come to the floor has done so under a threat of a veto by the administration.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

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

Mr. Speaker, we all know, in order for this economy to flourish, energy has to be available and energy has to be affordable. Unfortunately, the situation we've seen in recent years is anything but that.

The Department of Energy was created back in the 1970s in response to the Arab oil embargo. The Department of Energy was created to deal with the situation of scarcity.

Unfortunately, the Department of Energy has not evolved since that time. And where do we find ourselves today? We find ourselves right on the threshold, right on the horizon of America being an energy exporter, again, for the first time in a couple of decades. That's a huge change.

Has the Department of Energy changed and kept pace with the reality that is going on in development of energy in State lands, private lands, and, yes, some Federal lands? Have they kept pace with the development within the industry? I submit they have not. I submit that they have been an impediment.

Yes, I'd be happy to work on improving where the Department of Energy could be, in fact, a facilitator rather than an obstruction for developing energy for our economy. Because we know without available and affordable energy, the promise that the economy can create the number of jobs that it needs to create--not just to replace those jobs that have been lost, but all of those people who are getting to the age where they expect a job to be there for them--and without that energy production, it's not going happen.

Now, I do want to talk about the other bill that's before us today, Dr. Cassidy's bill, H.R. 1582. Let's think about this for a minute. The Congress works its will on a bill. It becomes law. That law then goes to the regulatory agency. They work their will on the bill. And we all know the story. A thousand-page bill here on the floor of the House can generate 10,000 pages of regulation in the Federal Register.

I don't know about you, Mr. Speaker, but it's hard to discipline myself to wake up every morning and read what was written in the Federal Register the day before. The American people who are out there creating and producing certainly don't have time to do that.

But when these rules are then visited upon the people, what happens then? Well, they just simply have to accept the effect of those rules. Congress did that a couple of years ago. They are not playing in that arena any longer.

Here's what Dr. Cassidy says. He says that before promulgating a final rule that would impose an aggregate cost of $1 billion on the American people, the Administrator of the EPA has to consult with the Secretary of Energy. This seems like a logical and straightforward maneuver. In fact, we will talk about the REINS Act in the weeks to come. And they have to come back to Congress and get us to either say ``yes'' or ``no'' on that regulation that is going to have such a profound effect on the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I've been in business before. I've made investments before. I know very well if someone comes to investors with a cash call and says you're going to have to pony up a lot more money here, the very least that the investor expects at that point is a pro forma, a profit and loss sheet, or some reasonable expectation that there can be a return on investment.

You say, Wait a minute, nobody's coming to the American people with a cash call. Well, it's called April 15. And it is a cash call. And we owe them that scrutiny. The Congress owes them that scrutiny; the Department of Energy owes them that scrutiny. I would assert we owe them an up-or-down vote on those regulations that are going to have such a profound effect on the economy.

Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of two critical bills ensuring that the American people are not further penalized by out-of-control policies coming out of the Environmental Protection Agency. Consumers need relief, it is clear.

For that reason, I urge an ``aye'' vote on the previous question, an ``aye'' vote on the rule, and an ``aye'' vote on the two underlying bills.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

An amendment to H. Res. 315 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

sections:

Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the

Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare

the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on

the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.

2070) to protect consumers from price-gouging of gasoline and

other fuels, and for other purposes. The first reading of the

bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against

consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be

confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally

divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority

member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. After general

debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the

five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in

the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of

the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report

the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been

adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered

on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without

intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or

without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and

reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then

on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately

after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of

rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further

consideration of the bill.

Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H.R. 2070.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purposes of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come, and I yield to my friend, the majority leader, Mr. Cantor.

I thank the gentleman for his information with respect to the legislation for next week.

I note that there was not on the notice for next week--the Senate has now voted to go to conference on the farm bill. Clearly, that is a matter that I think both sides, or certainly our side, I think your side as well, feels is a priority item. Does the gentleman have any plans to move to go to conference now that the Senate has asked for a conference next week on the farm bill?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for that comment; however, I'm somewhat perplexed, Mr. Leader.

You and I had a relatively animated colloquy some, I think, 2 or 3 weeks ago, at which point in time you said that we passed the farm bill that, of course, we didn't like and none of us voted for, that we passed the farm bill so that, in fact, we could follow regular order and go to conference. We passed that farm bill.

The Senate has now voted to go to conference, but what I hear the gentleman saying is, like the budget bill, we're not going to go to conference unless something else happens; in the case of the budget, until Mr. Ryan apparently gets Ms. Murray to agree on--I don't want to characterize it too heavily, but to agreeing with him as opposed to compromise.

But I'm a little, as I said, perplexed, because a few weeks ago you told me that the reason we passed that farm bill without the provision for nutrition, which had been in there for half a century, was so that we could go to conference. Well, now we're there, but there's no motion to go to conference. I'm perplexed, and I would appreciate if the gentleman--because we now have the opportunity to follow regular order. We now have the Senate who has voted to go to conference, acted on our bill that we sent there, substituted their bill for ours, and now have asked for a conference on the same. That is regular order.

Can the gentleman tell me: Are we now making a condition, as we lawyers say, precedent--that is, something's got to happen--before we go to conference? Because, very frankly, Mr. Leader, you and I both know that the nutrition bill is what made the farm bill apparently fall on the rocks, which is why you dropped it in order to pass the farm bill. It was a totally partisan bill, but now we need to get to agreement.

I tell you, we're running out of time, Mr. Leader, and I think we need to get this farm bill done; and I would hope that we could go to conference, as the gentleman said we were going to do, with the Senate on the House-passed bill.

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for his observation.

The truth in legislating is that we are not legislating. We are putting forth the positions of your party in this House, not shared by the Senate, not shared by the President of the United States, also elected by the people of the United States; and absent agreement by those two entities, coequal branches of the Congress and a coequal branch of the government, the executive, absent their agreeing with your party's perspective, we're not legislating. That's the problem, Mr. Leader.

And again, I express to you, you said--and I don't have the words in front of me exactly, but we can pull them out. But I am perplexed because you said, when we passed the farm bill without the nutrition program in it--which had been done for a half a century. They had been paired by Republican Congresses and Democratic Congresses, signed by Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents. It's only this last 2 years that we have been unable to come to grips with bipartisan agreement on the farm bill. It's only in the past 2 years that we've been unable to get a bill that was bipartisan in fashion to the floor and, ultimately, voted on final passage.

The bipartisan bills that came out of committee both in the last Congress and this Congress were turned into--the first one, of course, in the last Congress didn't come to the floor, as the gentleman knows. He didn't bring it to the floor at all, notwithstanding the fact it had bipartisan support in the committee. And notwithstanding the fact that the bill that was brought to the floor had bipartisan support and the support of the ranking member, Mr. Peterson, notwithstanding he didn't agree with some portions that were adopted, for instance, on milk, he was, nevertheless, prepared to adopt it until three very partisan, we thought very harmful, amendments to people without means were adopted.

You knew that was the case. You then had told me--and I repeat, I know, and reiterate. But the simple representation you made was that we did that--and Mr. Sessions made that and said,

by the way, that the nutrition part of the program, getting support for people who needed food, was extraneous to the bill. That's not our perspective over here, but that was the perspective that the chairman of the Rules Committee laid out when we considered the rule.

But you then said, in that colloquy, that the reason we did that was because you wanted to get a bill through. And, frankly, that's the only way you could pick up the overwhelming majority of the 62 of your Republicans who voted against it. I can only conclude that because you got the majority to do it, failing the first time because 62 Republicans decided they didn't like, apparently, the nutrition part of the bill and they voted against it. When you dropped the nutrition part of the bill, which had been in there for 50 years, then you got the majority on your side. That's when you got zero of us. You had 24 the first time.

So I'm perplexed that now that we have done what you said we were going to do, not about budgets, not about--you and I agree we need to get a handle on it. That's not what this issue is about. This issue is about whether or not we're going to have a farm bill and whether we're going to have such in a timely way. I'm going to talk a little bit about the CR.

But we have 17 days left to go between now and September 30, and we think it's timely to move. I don't know. Your nutrition bill is not on the program here. We'll have 1 week after next week.

We're not sure because we haven't seen a nutrition bill that you have. We don't know what's going to be in that. But we have passed a farm bill. The Senate wants to go to conference. The Senate wants to go to conference--at least the Democrats do--on the budget. And we're not doing it, Mr. Leader. And we need to do it.

It takes two to be bipartisan, Mr. Leader. You know that and I know that. I've got a pretty long record of working in a bipartisan fashion. But I will tell you, I disagree with the majority leader, respectfully, that there aren't the votes on this floor to pass the SNAP program and the agriculture program.

We agree on this side that there's a relationship between those who produce food and those who eat food. We think there's a direct relationship, which is why for half a century these have been related, so that the folks in the city would understand that those on the farm are very important people and we need to make sure that we have a partnership with them. Very frankly, it's worked for half a century. Unfortunately, it didn't work this year.

I will say to my friend, you are accurate in saying there are a majority of people on this floor--not in our party--but a majority on this floor, including Mr. Lucas, who twice has reported out a bill with bipartisan support and argued for it on the floor. He argued for it and pleaded with your party to support the farm bill, even though from both parties' standpoint it wasn't a perfect bill. But 62 of your Members rejected his plea. And my view is Mr. Lucas is still in that position of where he sees the rationale of having those together. He's the Republican chairman of the committee. I respect Mr. Lucas for his comments both times the bill was considered on the floor.

I will move on. But allowing the farm bill to languish is dangerous for this country, for the farm community, and for others. It undermines our economy. Moving with dispatch is in the best interest of our country.

Now, let me ask you something. As I said, we have 17 days left to go until September 30. This Congress has not passed an appropriation bill. We've passed three appropriation bills. The Senate is going to consider one, apparently, next week. We won't be here on September 30. We're only here 2 weeks in September. There are holidays and Labor Day. So we're only going to be here 2 weeks.

I want to ask my friend if he or the majority or the Budget Committee or the Appropriations Committee and the leadership in concert has a plan for what we might do to assure stability in government and in our country's confidence that the government will be operating on October 1.

There's a way to do that, of course. It is called regular order, as we've discussed. The conference committee is where you do that. But not withstanding that fact, we have for over 100 days now seen languishing the Senate-passed budget and our budget, and an attempt by the leader in the Senate, Mr. Reid, to go to conference, but no effort to go to conference to, as you say, in a bicameral, bipartisan way to resolve differences. They're very substantial. But everybody is sitting in their corner.

Patty Murray wants to come to the midpoint to have a conference. I've talked to her. She's the chairman of the Budget Committee. But we have not moved, unlike the Senate--and they haven't succeeded because of Republican opposition--but they have tried to go to conference. We have not made any effort to go to conference, Mr. Leader, and you can't have a bicameral resolution and compromise and bipartisanship if you don't sit down and talk to one another in conference.

Mr. Ryan asking Senator Murray, Do it my way, is not going to get us there. A conference may. I don't think it's guaranteed, but it may. And I would hope we could go to conference and follow regular order on the budget. We should have adopted a budget 4 months ago. We need to adopt a funding resolution by September 30 in some form or fashion. The failure to go to conference is undermining our ability to do that.

I'm surprised to hear the majority leader say budget has no relationship to the appropriations process or the continuing resolution.

I've been on the Appropriations Committee, as the gentleman knows, for 23 years. I'm not on it now. And you've adopted a budget, not because the budget passed but because you deemed the budget passed, you've pretended it passed. We did that ourselves to get a number. Why is that important? Because that's the spending number. Ours is $967 billion. The Senate's is $1.058 trillion. It's some $91 billion more.

So there's a very substantial difference between the two Houses. It has to be resolved. Maybe the gentleman can tell me, since we don't have a resolution of what the number is going to be, which is what a budget conference does, and what I hear the gentleman saying is, unless the Senate agrees with your perception of revenues--and I know that you repeat that all the time. I get it. I know your position. I know the position of your party. My position, of course, is we need to pay for what we buy. You're right. If we don't buy it, we don't have to pay for it. And we have to make that judgment on behalf of the American people. That's what they sent us here to do.

But the fact of the matter is, if your position is that unless they agree with your perception--they have a different point of view. They were elected by the American people. By the way, this side was elected by the American people, 1.4 million more of whom voted for us than voted for your side of the aisle. You have the majority. Redistricting provided for that, God bless you. I wish I were in your position, not in mine, from that standpoint. But the fact of the matter is more of the American people voted for us than they voted on your side. But you have the majority.

You ought not to be in the position, I suggest, respectfully, Mr. Leader, of saying unless the Senate will accede to our position, we're not going to go to conference. I don't understand saying you want a bicameral, bipartisan agreement without going to conference.

Let me ask you about immigration. There's nothing on here about immigration. The Senate has passed a bipartisan bill. Does the gentleman have any reason to believe that we're going to move ahead on immigration? President Bush said just the other day the system is not working. The system is broken. Your chairman of the Budget Committee, talking about the budget, said we have a broken immigration system that needs to be fixed.

Can the gentleman tell me whether there's any action contemplated on immigration?

Mr. Leader, the last question. You said the defense authorization bill is coming to the floor. Can the gentleman tell me whether that will be coming to the floor under an open rule or a rule other than open?

I thank the gentleman, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 322, I call up the bill (H.R. 2879) to provide limitations on bonuses for Federal employees during sequestration, to provide for investigative leave requirements for members of the Senior Executive Service, to establish certain procedures for conducting in-person or telephonic interactions by Executive branch employees with individuals, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2879 and include extraneous materials thereon.

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

Madam Speaker, H.R. 2879, the Stop Government Abuse Act, combines three bills that were each voice voted out of my committee. They are H.R. 1541, the Common Sense in Compensation Act; H.R. 2579, the Government Employee Accountability Act; and H.R. 2711, the Citizen Empowerment Act.

The Common Sense in Compensation title of this bill brings common sense to the policies of governing employee bonuses while still providing agencies flexibility to recognize outstanding performance.

Madam Speaker, 75 percent of senior executives will receive bonuses of at least $6,000 while more than 650,000 defense employees are in the midst of 11 furlough days. This sends the wrong message to our Federal workforce. The men and women of the Federal workforce work hard--all of them.

Some of them do exceptional work, and bonuses are not only an incentive but a recognition. But these bonuses come on top of annual salaries ranging from $119,554 to over $179,000. Going in the range of $30,000 or more sends a message to many of our Federal workforce--in fact, Madam Speaker, most of our Federal workforce--that people at the top get even more.

Following the President's decision to impose a 2-year pay freeze, the administration issued a memo limiting the amount available to pay bonuses for fiscal years 2011 and 2012. Moreover, this past February, the administration issued a memo limiting bonuses to those legally required. In June, the administration suspended rank awards for senior leaders. H.R. 1541 builds on the President's initiatives.

The Government Employee Accountability title of the bill helps ensure Senior Executive Service employees are held accountable for their actions while maintaining due process rights. From Jeff Neely at GSA to Lois Lerner at the IRS, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee has uncovered numerous examples of high-ranking government officials engaging in behavior that certainly seems to be contrary to the principles of public service.

When people come before Congress and cannot even answer questions as to what they have done in their official capacity by ``taking the Fifth'' and find themselves fully paid for not working, it sends the wrong message to the vast majority of Federal workers. In some cases, these employees could face civil or criminal penalties.

In the private sector, these behaviors would be grounds for serious disciplinary action and, likely, termination. But in the Federal bureaucracy, that isn't what happened. Only in Washington could these employees be not terminated but, instead, placed on administrative leave with full pay, full benefits, and accruing additional retirement.

This bill provides agencies with additional tools to use when senior managers behave badly. It does not require these tools be used, but it makes them available. A similar version of this bill was passed by the House by a vote of 402-2 in the last Congress.

The final title of the bill before us today consists of the text of House Resolution 2711, the Citizen Empowerment Act, as reported from my committee. This legislation protects individual citizens from harassment, intimidation, and inappropriate behavior by a few Federal officials representing agencies such as the IRS, EPA, and the SEC.

Unfortunately, these few bad actors at agencies have, from time to time, threatened, intimidated, coerced, lied, or violated the public trust. And yet, in 12 out of our 50 States, citizens are not empowered to unilaterally record these conversations for their own protection. In 38 States, they may. We simply seek, in this bill, to harmonize across the government a predictability. When intimidation and wrong behavior happens, we need to make sure that there is a simple solution that every American can avail themselves of.

This bill ensures individuals have a right to record in-person meetings and telephone calls with Federal employees, including regulatory officials engaged in enforcement activities that can lead to the imposition of fines and penalties. In essence, what this bill does is provide consistency on behalf of the Federal employees acting in their official capacity. I want to make that very clear, Madam Speaker.

Federal employees today don't have an easy answer. In some States--38 of them--they can be recorded; in one State, they may be recorded; and in 11 States, they are likely not to be recorded because, in fact, it requires their advance permission. Uniformity across the Federal workforce is a good thing. We believe that it also will tell every member to treat people the same, whether they live in a State where they may be recorded or not.

I encourage all Members to support these three bills and remind all that these passed on a voice vote out of our committee and were not considered controversial in the previous Congress.

I reserve the balance of my time.

This is probably Groundhog Day, because these were the same statements made yesterday by the ranking member from Maryland, who implied that somehow what happens in 38 States would be draconian if it happened in 12 more.

I yield 5 minutes to the gentlelady from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).

Madam Speaker, the gentleman is entitled to his opinion, but not his facts.

In the bill itself, which I read yesterday, it says:

An employee removed under this section shall be notified of

the reasons for such removal within 30 days.

I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the gentleman from Virginia would have kept this person on for how long--weeks, months, more than a year? This individual received a bonus after more than a year.

When this bill came through our committee, the amendment to say ``in all cases 30 days'' could have been offered; it wasn't. This came through in regular order of the committee. The language was published. There was every opportunity.

When the gentleman from Virginia said ``redrafted,'' with all due respect, not a word was changed in any of these three bills from the time it left our committee until today when it's being considered.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bentivolio).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the distinguished minority whip presumes to tell me about the private sector and how much people make. The problem is that I came from the private sector. I know the difference between management and labor, and I know the difference between people who elect to be the top-paid management of entities and who typically serve at will in the private sector. Those of the Senior Executive Service are, in fact, people who choose to get additional pay for these special responsibilities, and they know what they're doing when they get into it. We are proud of most of them, the vast majority of them.

The fact is that Mr. Hoyer has people who serve at will. He fires them without notice if he chooses to. Yet he cannot understand the fact by that picture I held up--I won't hold it up again; it's reprehensible even though it has been well seen--that that man continued to work and get a bonus during the 10 months in which the GSA Administrator knew wrongdoing had occurred on his watch. It wasn't until he decided to retire--to be honest, my understanding is with criminal allegations-- that he even left and stopped getting his pay, and, today, he enjoys a very comfortable retirement.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Then I will close at this time and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, controversy comes in all forms. Sometimes it's legitimate; sometimes there are differences that are unresolved; sometimes, though, you find yourself befuddled.

These three bills passed on a voice vote. It didn't mean that they would have been authored by any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle or that they loved them. It meant that they were given a full opportunity to evaluate these, to offer amendments, to have up-or-down votes on them. Many of the suggestions they made were taken into account on many of the bills marked up during that long day. Many of the things being brought up here today simply were not brought up, and it's not because they didn't know about this.

When you have a version of this bill that's almost identical to that passed on December 19 of last year by a vote of 402-2, that means that you have people that today are vehemently opposed to provisions that they already voted for. I repeat, they're vehemently opposed to provisions they already voted for. I don't have the names of the two people that voted ``no.'' They certainly have a right to express why they voted ``no'' last December.

I can tell you that when you have to only terminate 4/100 of 1 percent of the workforce, if you do it at all, the head of the agency has to determine that the employee has done something seriously wrong in regards to negligence of duty or misappropriation of funds or malfeasance. They have to determine that the employee did it knowingly, and they have to consider it necessary and advisable to protect this enterprise.

On top of that, the employee does have to be told why they're being terminated. I think that's important, because the ranking member and I heard from a woman in a hearing who left me feeling absolutely shocked. She's been on leave without pay, and to this day, an investigation that is ongoing, months into it, she's never been told why she's on leave without pay. To be honest, she's a member of the Senior Executive Service.

Maybe she would fall under this bill. But in order to fall under this bill, some things would have to happen. First of all, the head of the agency would have to make a decision of wrongdoing, and it would be held by that decision being reasonable after the fact. They'd have to have told her why she's being removed, and she would already have had an opportunity in front of the Merit Systems Protection Board and the U.S. Court of Appeals, known as the Fed circuit. She already would have had all this due process, except months go by and she doesn't know and she's on administrative leave.

The fact is this is a tool. They don't have to use it. If they use it, they have to make sure that it's only for serious violations: neglect of duty, misappropriation of funds, or malfeasance. These are very serious. An extremely small part, highly compensated, respected people, and a few bad actors for neglect of duty, misappropriation of funds, or malfeasance can be removed. They still have their rights. We knew this was constitutional. To be honest, the complaint we seemed to have in committee for hours was something that I want to share with you, Mr. Speaker.

Members of my committee, when talking about the idea that only one- third without special exception of employees in any agency could receive bonuses rather than the 75 or 80 percent you heard about here today, they said, But this is their right. They've negotiated that. You're interfering with their contracts.

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Government does not allow negotiation in collective bargaining or otherwise for wages. We have a standard scale. Bonuses were created for only one purpose, and that was, in fact, to reward good behavior as an incentive.

These bills are well thought out and are only controversial today because the minority wants to make them controversial to create a controversy.

I urge support, and I yield back the balance of my time.