H.Res. 315

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

Mr. Chairman, we have spent much time talking about the need for Congress to consider jobs legislation. This is a piece of pro-jobs legislation. This bill is unique because it is also a pro-states' rights legislation and pro-environment legislation.

But focusing on jobs for a minute, let me explain why a ``no'' vote is anti-jobs, placing anywhere from 39,000 to 316,000 jobs at risk at a time when we can least afford it.

We are here because over 3 years ago the EPA put out three proposals on coal ash, including regulating coal ash as a hazardous waste. This caused massive uncertainty in the marketplace and created an unnecessary stigma on legitimate recycling of this product, and I have a piece of shingle that's made and produced by coal ash.

And the States agree. As highlighted in a letter from the State of Michigan in support of H.R. 2218:

Enactment would end the regulatory uncertainty that has

hindered our efforts to promote the beneficial use of coal

combustion residuals.

EPA announced in litigation proceedings recently that it will not have a final coal ash rule before 2014. The fact that EPA continues to leave a ``hazardous waste'' designation on the table even though three decades of science and fact point the other way, that coal ash is not hazardous, it directly is contributing to the loss of current and future recycling.

Coal ash is not an abstract substance. It is used in important infrastructure in this country. The American Coal Ash Association informed us that uncertainty in the marketplace caused by EPA's proposal to regulate coal ash as hazardous waste is diminishing their economic prospects down to just 40 percent of eligible coal wastes--and they support this bill.

This bill establishes a solid framework for regulation of coal combustion residuals in a manner that is protective of human health and the environment, or the State environmental regulators--including the Environmental Council of States, ECOS, and the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management officials--would not be endorsing this bill.

Coal ash makes concrete stronger, more durable, and cheaper. A ``no'' vote against this bill means that you support less durable, more expensive highways, schools, and green buildings. Don't take my word for it. The American Road and Transportation Builders Association and many other road and bridge builders, and also the Building and Construction Trades Union, want this bill because they want high- quality construction material for buildings, roads, and bridges.

For Members concerned about wall board from China, coal ash is a stable, domestic source for wall board and will control costs. Don't take my word for it. The American Forest and Paper Association supports this bill.

Mine workers across this country need a stable way of having America's energy future secured. This bill accomplishes that. Don't take my word for it. Ask the United Mine Workers, who supports this bill.

Coal ash is recycled and used as a raw material in making cement. Voting ``no'' means you choose to put coal ash in landfills rather than putting it back into roads and building projects. Don't take my word for it. Organizations like Portland Cement Association, the Phoenix Cement Company, the Wisconsin Ready Mix Concrete Association, and the Washington Aggregates and Concrete Association all support this bill.

A vote against this bill is a vote for prolonged regulatory uncertainty. A vote against this bill is a vote to increase costs on the Federal, State, and local governments and infrastructures. A vote against this bill is a vote to increase costs on all Americans and to dare unemployment to go even higher. A vote against this bill is a direct message to career State employees in States across this country that you do not trust them to do the right thing regarding regulation of coal ash.

This bill is a pro-jobs, pro-environment, anti-bureaucracy bill. If you want progress instead of process, protection instead of politics, and jobs instead of continued uncertainty, vote for this bill.

We find ourselves in this morass of regulatory uncertainty because of the existing approach to environmental regulation. This bill presents a new approach that will reduce the inefficiencies of the Federal rulemaking process by setting a national standard in the statute and charging the States with implementation.

If you support protecting jobs and preserving states' rights, and if you trust your State environmental regulators to protect your communities, you need to support this bill and vote ``yes'' on final passage.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleague to look at the 11 additional changes that have been made in this bill versus the last bill and realize how much we have moved in the direction that he speaks of.

I now yield 7 minutes to the author of the legislation from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley).

Mr. Chairman, I remind my colleagues that the administration has not issued a veto threat on this bill.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Chairman, let me remind my colleagues of some of the special interests: United Mine Workers of America, Building and Construction Trades, and the Transportation Workers of America.

I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a member who has been very helpful on this legislation, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).

I want to thank my colleague from Texas, who has helped us move the bill forward.

I would remind my colleagues that the President has not issued a veto signal on this piece of legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon), a neighbor to my congressional district.

Mr. Chairman, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management wrote a letter in support of this bill and its safety and protection.

Now I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

Mr. Chairman, to my colleague from California, we're waiting for a few Members. I'm not sure they are going to get here. I'm willing to have you close, and then I'll close after you're finished.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

It's been a great debate. It's been a great process. I'll just summarize some of the issues. Yes, the issue is about beneficial reuse, like this shingle here; but it's also about the storage.

We were very close to passing this legislation the last Congress, as the ranking member knows. This bill is better, as my colleague from Texas says. There are 12 additional changes made in this bill versus last year's bill that addresses many of the concerns that the minority asked and also concerns by the Environmental Protection Agency. We worked very closely with them. That is why--and I'll say it again--the administration has not issued a veto threat on this bill. That's a signal that they may have issues, but there's not an outright veto threat on this bill. That's a signal that we've worked with them to address some of the major concerns.

Again, I want to highlight some of the special interest groups that are forcing this legislation, like the United Mine Workers, the building and construction trades, the transportation workers. Those who are historically considered in the minority's coalition are now moving to the pro-job coalition of this bill and hopefully other bills in the future.

I want to reemphasize that the EPA in 1993 and 2000 stated that coal ash does not have the characteristics of hazardous waste, including toxicity, and should not be regulated under subtitle C. That's not us. That's the EPA, and that's the EPA making that ruling twice.

We believe that the Federal Government can set standards. We believe that the Federal Government can enforce that the State do certification, and we trust the States to be able to monitor and meet the standards. That's why I listed in support the Environmental Council of the States and Indiana's Department of Environmental Management, because what they want to do is get a handle on this. And let's not confuse the issue. If the EPA is able to label fly ash as toxic, it does depress the beneficial use. So the cheap concrete that's mixed with fly ash will not be put in. The road mitigation issues which we've done will not be put in. My colleague, Marsha Blackburn, did a great job talking about how we use today coal ash and fly ash.

So I want to thank my colleague, Mr. McKinley, for moving this bill and my colleagues on the subcommittee, who have made the changes and moved it forward. We look forward to the debates on the amendment, and we look forward to passing the bill and sending it to the other Chamber and eventually a signature by the President of the United States.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I claim the time in opposition, but I don't oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague for working with us and making some changes that we thought were appropriate.

We agree with my colleague from Virginia that States should identify what their emergency response procedures are in the certification process, and so we are prepared to accept the amendment. He's made it a better bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, the State permit program must incorporate minimum requirements which are based on regulations promulgated by the EPA to ``protect human health and the environment,'' which include groundwater monitoring of all structures, fugitive dust control, structural stability requirements and closure of structures that cannot be corrected.

The premise of this is, if you have Federal standards, that they're not protective, and that the States will not do that.

We find this debate very curious, in that my colleagues on the other side have so much of a disrespect for the States and their environmental communities and the ability of States to ensure the protection of human health, the environment from a State position, Federal standards, State certification process, States.

Under RCRA, the States do this anyway. This is what the States do. Under the Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Act, the States are the ones who are enforcing this. All we're doing is saying we can do this now for fly ash and coal ash.

So while my colleague's amendment is well-intentioned, it really undercuts the purpose of the legislation and is unnecessary because the bill contains specific criteria by which the EPA will judge State permit programs, and I listed those earlier.

This is a politically appealing amendment, but it has many flaws, not the least of which is that any State can request that EPA review another State's coal combustion residual permit program, regardless of the location, and whether there is actually a cross-border impact.

As my colleague pointed out in the Rules Committee on Tuesday, there's no requirement in this amendment that a State that requests a review needs to even be impacted by the contamination allegedly coming from another State.

While my colleague has probably scoured the country to come up with an example or two of coal ash contamination crossing State lines, the fact of the matter is that cross boundary is not really an issue with respect to coal ash disposal because regulation of solid waste disposal is typically an issue that remains within the State.

This amendment attempts to create another hook for the EPA to measure State coal combustion residuals permit programs using the subjective yardstick of what is protective of human health and the environment, which my colleague did a good job defending in the other amendment.

I understand that my colleague believes that the Federal Government must step in to save the day, but I trust that our State environmental regulators are up to the task of making sure that our communities are protected.

This amendment diminishes the important role of the States, and I urge opposition to this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order, and I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, the basic premise of this bill is that the Federal Government can set safety standards and the States can enforce it, so reject the motion to instruct.

I am going to turn my comments to people who live in the coal areas of our country. Coal is just not a commodity product, it is, really, a way of lifestyle if you live in coal country.

I am a fourth-generation Lithuanian immigration family. My great- grandfather went directly into the coalfields. My grandfather went into the coal mines at age 10. He performed the job of a trapper.

In my hometown of Collinsville, Illinois, we have Miner's Theater; in a community up north, we have Miner's Park; and in Gillespie, Illinois, we have Black Diamond Days.

Coal is a culture. Coal is who we are. That is why I really appreciate my colleagues from West Virginia, David McKinley and Shelley Moore Capito. There are some States in this Union that coal is their only job, and that's why they fight and they stand up for coal.

I remember being with the late Senator Byrd in a rally on The Mall to save coal jobs. He held up his hands and he said, ``There's coal in these veins.'' This was Senator Byrd--``There's coal in these veins.''

My colleagues and my friends, that's how we feel in coal-producing States in this country. It is part of who we are. It is our culture.

Now, don't think this is a passe debate. There's a young Iraqi vet named Jimmy Rose. You may have seen him. He's 32 years old. He's also a coal miner. He's competing on ``America's Got Talent.'' Do you know what his song is? His song is ``Coal Keeps the Lights On.'' He talks about feeding his

family. He talks about putting coal in the family household. He talks about that's their livelihood, that's their culture. It's an impassioned ballad for areas of our country that feel under attack, left behind, attacked by this administration.

Mayor Dietz from McLeansboro, Illinois, is happy when new coal is opening up. Coal is keeping the lights on in the small communities and the shops and stores for a community that's kind of been left behind for 40 years. He's excited about the jobs and the tax base that's coming because of coal.

I'm asking you, my colleagues, to stand up for coal, because coal keeps the lights on. I request that you reject this amendment and support the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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.

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

Today, the House is considering legislation to block EPA from acting to ensure that toxic coal ash is safely disposed of. Coal ash is the result of the coal that has been burned, and this coal ash needs to be disposed of.

Now, what the Republicans who are suggesting this bill be adopted are suggesting is that we remove public health protections in order to allow polluting disposal sites to continue with business as usual. That's a little tough to justify. As we led up to today's debate, we've heard some outlandish justifications, and I just want to set the record straight.

First of all, we've been told this is a states' rights bill because we need this legislation in order for the States to impose adequate regulation on dangerous coal ash disposal sites. Well, that's not true. The States can regulate coal ash disposal today and, in fact, many do. The problem is that many States are not doing a good job.

For example, in Ohio, four coal ash disposal sites have serious groundwater contamination problems. The coal ash at these sites has contaminated groundwater with arsenic, mercury, and radioactive levels of materials higher than allowed under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Well, in total, EPA has identified 133 cases of groundwater and surface water contamination at coal ash disposal sites. All of this has occurred under existing law, where State laws can be effective and States can act. The problem is they're not all acting.

Secondly, the proponents of this bill have argued that we have to pass this legislation to allow coal ash to be recycled. They argue that EPA wants to designate coal ash as ``hazardous.'' Well, that isn't what EPA proposed at all.

They say that this designation would be a stigma on coal ash and would ensure there would no longer be any market for recycled coal ash, but that argument is just plain wrong. Hazardous labeling and restrictions on beneficial reuse are simply not at issue.

When EPA issued its proposed coal ash rule, the agency offered a couple of alternatives. Neither of these proposals would involve labeling coal ash as ``hazardous.'' Quite frankly, even if it were designated ``hazardous,'' that doesn't mean it can't be reused. It can be reused.

Third, we've been told that we must pass this legislation because it's a careful compromise from the version of the last Congress. Well, I'm not sure who was in that compromise because the bill is even worse than the bill from the last Congress. The Republicans have refused to work with the Democrats on the committee. There's no bipartisan coal ash bill in the Senate. And the administration has identified five problems with the bill that cause it to fall short of protecting human health and the environment.

Let's focus on reality. This debate is not about a ``war on coal'' or putting a stigma on coal ash. It's not about whether State governments are inherently better than the Federal Government. It's not about job- killing regulations. This debate is about whether or not we're going to allow coal ash disposal sites to contaminate our water supplies and threaten human health.

If this bill is enacted, coal ash disposal sites will continue to pollute our groundwater; and once contamination is confirmed, well, this bill would allow it to continue for another 10 years--and do nothing. Then, after that, they might even continue it for another indefinite period of time. So it will continue to pollute groundwater, the water we drink, and our water supplies and our water sources.

This bill says that a dump site that is contaminating groundwater today can pollute for 10 years--more arsenic, more mercury, more lead. Is that what Members of the House want to vote for? If the owners of the polluting structure can't control their contamination within 10 years, this bill says States can give them even more time to keep polluting.

New information released yesterday reveals that three-quarters of existing unlined coal ash impoundments do not have the space at their existing location to construct an additional disposal facility. Those facts practically guarantee that if this legislation were to be enacted, communities across the country--many of them poor and minority--will simply have to endure contaminated water, polluted air, and the risk of catastrophic dam failure. And why? For states' rights, where the States already have the rights? It's really for polluter rights. And polluters do not have and should not have a right to pollute our water supplies.

This can be handled effectively through a serious piece of legislation that will make clear that public health protection must be enforced.

I urge my colleagues to tune out the special interest misinformation that seeks to weaken our laws and prolong pollution, and oppose this legislation.

No matter how you voted in the last Congress, this bill is worse; and I urge Members to vote against it today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the administration and I would like to work out a bill with the Republicans, but this bill has two problems. After all is said and done, there is no requirement that they protect public health and the environment. There's all sorts of language that says we want them to. But if the States don't do that, the second problem is there's no enforcement; there's nothing to make them do it.

Now, if you have no real clear standard to protect public health and no enforcement to make sure public health is being protected, that's a bill that's asking for continuation of pollution of our groundwater supplies.

We can work together and get a bill, but this administration has said it does not adequately protect public health and the environment; it doesn't address the real problems. Even some of the changes that they have made have made this bill worse. It is a bill that we should reject and then go back to the negotiating table.

Mr. Chairman, at this point, I wish to yield 5 minutes to the ranking member of the subcommittee on the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, if coal ash is reused, it is not a hazardous waste. If it is stored and leaks into our groundwater or into our drinking water, it can be very hazardous.

The problem with the Republican bill is that it doesn't clearly state that public health must be protected, and when they state it, there is no clear enforcement. The EPA cannot be sure that the job is being done, and even citizens cannot file lawsuits to require it to be done. This is a special interest bill that does not serve the interests of the American people.

I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman who is the ranking member of one of our energy subcommittees, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is left on both sides.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a very distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. Chairman, before I yield back my time, I want to point out to my colleagues that this bill will not make it into law. The Senate will not accept it, and the President will not support it in its present form because it doesn't protect public health.

Coal ash contains arsenic, barium, cadmium, lead, mercury, hexavalent chromium, and other toxic materials. It's a threat, not when the coal ash is used for other purposes, but when it's in a disposal site and leaks into our drinking water, and that's what this issue is all about.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

When coal ash is recycled, it is not a waste; and, therefore, EPA has no jurisdiction. It is not a problem. When coal ash is put into a landfill or disposal site and leaches into the water, then it is a problem. This bill doesn't address that problem. It doesn't adequately ensure protection of the public health; or if they have a law at the State level that seems to talk about public health, there's no clear enforcement of it. That is our problem with the legislation.

Recycling coal ash for any purpose doesn't make it hazardous, doesn't make it toxic. It can be reused, and we want to encourage that. But we don't want public health threatened. That's what our concern is all about.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Knowing that we want to wrap up this general debate, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I will just repeat that the EPA proposed to act, and that is what has caused this whole furor. Rather than to discuss what is the appropriate balance between the EPA and the States, the Republican bill would take this away from EPA, keep them from regulating, and turn it over to the States, where the States can already act and many have. They don't need us to give them the power to act. This bill says it's up to the States. It doesn't have a uniform standard of protecting public health. It doesn't require States to have the goal of protecting the public health. And if the States achieve the goal in their legislation to protect public health, there's no guarantee of it being enforced because EPA cannot come back in and enforce the State law and citizens cannot file lawsuits. That's one of the so-called ``improvements'' that has been made since the last time this bill was before us. It has weakened the ability to enforce protection of public health.

So I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and in doing so tell us to go back and work on the problem and get a real, true bipartisan bill that can be supported by the majority of the Democrats and by the President of the United States.

I urge Members to vote against the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I support your amendment and urge all of our colleagues to support it as well.

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

Mr. Chairman, under all of our environmental laws, the Federal Government sets a standard, and then the States implement the law looking at the different circumstances in their community. For example, the Clean Air Act says, in effect, everywhere in this country, we cannot have air pollution that exceeds the standard to protect the public health, but the States decide the implementation to achieve that standard.

Under this bill, we're not setting a national standard. We're telling the States to set a standard. If we're going to let the States set the standard, my amendment would require that the standard in every State be to protect the public health, to protect human health and the environment. That's the goal of these laws, and that should be the requirement under this law.

The standards are the yardsticks under which we determine whether a State's effort measures up and ensures a consistent level of protection throughout the Nation. If we're not going to have a national standard by EPA, let's require the State to set that standard. This is an approach that has worked well because it ensures that all Americans enjoy a minimum level of protection and residents of one State are not threatened by inadequate laws in a neighboring State.

For example, if one State has a good, strong law to protect the public health, another State, trying to get the business away from that State to locate in theirs, will drop their standards lower to try to entice that business to relocate. The laxest protection becomes the dumping ground for the neighboring States. We don't want to put States in a race to the bottom.

When Congress passed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, we assigned EPA a simple mission: to protect human health and the environment from unsafe disposal of solid waste. Achieving that mission can be complex, but we have a clear goal. It provides direction for the Agency's technical work. But the bill we are considering today doesn't contain this standard.

Disposal of household garbage, for example, must be disposed of in a way that protects human health. But under this bill, coal ash would not be required to be disposed of in a way that protects human health.

My amendment would fix this serious problem by calling on the States to require measures necessary to protect human health and the environment. If we had the Republicans willing to accept the amendment that every State have an emergency plan, we're simply asking that every State have a goal, clearly stated, to achieve the protection of human health and the environment, otherwise a State's plan is not adequate; there would be no recourse as long as a State meets all of the other requirements of this law but still does not get to the goal.

The Congressional Research Service examined this legislation, and they told us that nothing in H.R. 2218 requires the States to establish programs that will achieve any specified level of Federal standard or protection. CRS concluded:

The degree to which a State program may protect human

health from risks specific to coal ash disposal would not be

known until individual States begin to interpret the bill.

That means the one thing we know for sure is that this bill will take EPA off the beat--take the EPA off the beat, like we took the SEC and other regulators off the beat, where Wall Street took huge risks and drove our economy over the cliff. It'll take EPA off the beat, and then we'll gamble on each State government doing a good job. That's a pretty risky gamble. And if it doesn't pay off, who's going to suffer? Well, the price will be borne by communities in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Alabama and elsewhere whose water supplies will suffer from toxic contamination.

Members from some of those States come in here and argue we need those jobs. Well, of course we need the jobs, and we're going to keep those jobs. But why shouldn't we, in keeping jobs, have waste disposals be constructed in a way that will not pollute our drinking water and harm human health?

So I would urge that we set this standard in the bill and adopt this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, 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.