Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 470, the Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 3094, the Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act.

The misleadingly named Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act has one overriding goal--to frustrate workers' right to vote in a union election.

Seventy-six years ago, this body passed the National Labor Relations Act, which stated: ``It is declared to be the policy of the United States to . . . encourag[e] the practice and procedure of collective bargaining . . . for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of [workers'] employment.''

The legislation being considered today would undermine the very intent of the NLRA by setting aside decades of labor jurisprudence set by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and our nation's courts, and replace it with new and untested processes that would cause uncertainty, delay elections, and prevent rather than encourage collective bargaining.

The Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act would do this by mandating a set of waiting periods and a full, pre-election hearing over any issue that is raised by a party.

For instance, no election would be allowed to occur no sooner than 35 days after the filing of a petition. However, there is no limit on how long an election may be delayed.

Delay gives unscrupulous employers more time to use any means, legal or illegal, to pressure employees into abandoning their organizing efforts.

Also found in this legislation are provisions that would encourage frivolous litigation for the purpose of slowing the election process and stalling any vote. This will create a massive backlog of cases on the taxpayer's dime.

This bill would also give employers the ability to gerrymander elections through the proposed legislation's one-size-fits-all test in defining who would be allowed to vote in an organizing election, thereby making a majority vote all the more difficult to achieve.

It is time for this Chamber to put aside its war on the American worker and his or her right to organize and collectively bargain.

I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand up for working Americans and vote against this rule and the underlining legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to welcome ESPN's College GameDay to the campus of the University of Houston. This is the first time in the history of that show that the University of Houston and the city of Houston has been given this honor.

The University of Houston Cougars, led by Heisman hopeful Case Keenum, is the highlighted game, as the 10-0 Cougars face the SMU Mustangs this Saturday. The Cougars will push for an undefeated season and potential at-large BCS bowl opportunity.

The University of Houston has a long, storied tradition of athletic success, including 55 NCAA individual championships and 17 NCAA team titles, 19 college football bowl appearances, five NCAA men's basketball Final Fours, and a trip to the College World Series.

The University of Houston has received the Tier-One research university distinction from the Carnegie Foundation. The University of Houston is one of only three Carnegie-designated Tier-One public research universities in Texas.

The University of Houston is also known as a first-generation school, for many of the students are the first in their families to attend college. Our undergraduates choose from 120 majors and minors. The University of Houston also offers 139 master's, 54 doctoral, and three professional degree programs.

The University of Houston is the second most ethnically diverse major research university in the United States. Students come from as many as 137 nations and from across the Nation.

As a proud alumnus of the University of Houston, I salute the successes of the athletic and academic programs and welcome ESPN to our campus today.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this balanced budget amendment. It's not because I support reckless spending, deficit spending, or believe that we don't have a fiscal problem in this country. I oppose this balanced budget amendment because I believe it is a heavy handed approach, which has the potential to harm Social Security and Medicare recipients and will hamstring our Nation's ability to respond to natural disasters, terrorist attacks, and acts of war.

We balanced our budget in the 1990s without a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution and we can do it again. Balancing our budget is good policy, I am even open to the idea of a carefully crafted amendment that will not threaten Social Security and Medicare recipients and not endanger our future national security and emergency preparedness. The proposal before us today does none of this and is just bad policy.

It is true that our Nation's debt has gotten too big and it is projected to expand even more if nothing is done to curtail it. For this reason, I support immediate measures to reduce our debt to a level that is both manageable and sustainable, which will put our country on a path to economic stability and prosperity. I oppose this proposal, but look forward to working with my colleagues, Democrat and Republican, to find better ways to address our fiscal challenges.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011.

This important, bipartisan, legislation reinforces fundamental rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution by allowing any person with a valid, state-issued concealed firearm permit to carry a concealed firearm in any state that issues concealed firearm permits.

As an avid hunter and outdoorsman, and as a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association, I can share with personal experience the frustration of my fellow hunters and outdoorsmen the absurdity of having to know which states recognize visiting permit holders from other states and which states that do not.

Our country should not force its law-abiding citizens to check in their fundamental right to self-defense at the state line.

The National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act would clarify this matter by requiring states that allow concealed carry to recognize each other's permits, similar to how states recognize each other's driver's licenses.

Right-to-carry laws also help deter crime. Presently, 40 states have right-to-carry laws. Based on crime data from the FBI, right-to-carry states have 22 percent lower total violent crime rates in comparison to the rest of the country.

In my home state of Texas, violent crime has dropped 20 percent and the murder rate has dropped 31 percent, since the enactment of its right-to-carry law in 1996.

This legislation is also in-line with recent rulings found by the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller and again in 2010 in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the high court found the right to possess a firearm for self-defense cannot be infringed.

I am a proud co-sponsor of the bill and have co-sponsored similar legislation in previous Congresses.

I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand up in support of the U.S. Constitution and the millions of hunters and outdoorsmen in our country and vote in favor of this bill.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this bill and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

The 29th District of Texas that I represent encompasses the Port of Houston--the largest foreign tonnage port in the country. It drives economic activity in region, and is home to one of the largest petro- chemical complexes in the world. Because of this, security on the waterway is critical, and the Coast Guard has been exceptional in providing that security.

The Coast Guard enforces the nation's laws in U.S. waters and on the high seas, and protects the lives and property of those at sea. The Coast Guard's missions include maritime search and rescue, illegal drug and migrant interdiction, oil spill prevention and response in the marine environment, marine safety, maintenance of aids to navigation, enforcement of U.S. fisheries, and other marine environmental laws, and maritime defense readiness.

I know this bill is not perfect, but I support it because it provides the Coast Guard with the resources they need to meet the security and environmental demands they are tasked with. The measure authorizes programs of the Coast Guard in FY 2012.

Passage of the bill will continue today's high levels of offshore safety, ensure important projects are not delayed, and will protect the lives and livelihood of those who live and work around American waterways, such as the Houston Ship Channel.

Mr. Chair, I again thank the Committee for their work on this bill and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the McCaul Amendment to the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act.

For over 75 years, the Jones Act allowed only one non-governmental organization, the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), a not-for-profit marine classification society located in my district in Houston, the authority to review and inspect U.S. flagged vessels on behalf of the U.S. Coast Guard.

In 1996, Congress expanded this authority to allow foreign-based classification societies to perform similar tasks.

Today, five foreign classification societies act as Agents of our government on behalf of the Coast Guard.

Unfortunately, four of these foreign organizations also act as Agents of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the review and inspection of Iranian flagged vessels.

These foreign-based classification societies also continue to have business interest with, and often operate within, other rogue nations and state sponsors of terrorism.

I support the McCaul Amendment, which would close this loophole in our laws and send a clear message to foreign-based classification societies that you must choose to work with the United States or work with state sponsors of terrorism, such as Iran.

I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the word and spirit of the Iranian sanctions regime that this Chamber has supported time and again, and vote in favor of this amendment.

Mr. Speaker and Members, I rise in support of the 54 million retirees, disabled workers, children and spouses in our country who currently receive Social Security. For 75 years, Social Security has served as a promise to the men and women who worked hard all their lives to make this country great that they could look forward to financial security later in their lives.

Social Security was designed to be one leg of a three-legged stool. Unfortunately, the other two legs--savings and pensions--aren't there for many seniors. Only 41 percent of seniors have employer-sponsored pensions. Three out of five senior households have no retirement savings at all, and one in three seniors rely on Social Security for 90 percent or more of their entire income.

The Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction should not look at Social Security as a way to pay down our national debt or as a way to offset tax cuts for the most fortunate in our country. Social Security is not in crisis. It presently has a surplus of over $2.6 trillion-- enough to pay its obligations in full over the next 25 years.

Social Security needs to be reformed over the long term. These reforms need to be debated in proper order inside the appropriate committees in the House and Senate and not hastily put together. I ask my colleagues to stand together with America's seniors and support a strong, robust Social Security program.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support one of our Nation's crowning achievements, the Social Security program, and the 55 million Americans who benefit from this critical program. Since 1935, Social Security has kept its promise to America's seniors that after a lifetime of working and playing by the rules, you should not have to live in poverty when you retire.

I was happy to see last week that after 2 years, our Nation's seniors will receive a well-deserved cost-of-living-adjustment increase of 3.6 percent. The American people should be concerned, however, that the recently announced COLA increase would effectively disappear if this Congress decides to adopt a chained CPI formula for Social Security. The chained Consumer Price Index would lower benefits by $112 billion for current and future beneficiaries over the next 10 years.

I support efforts to reduce our Federal deficit, but we should not balance the Nation's budget on the backs of seniors, the disabled, and children. I call on our colleagues to stand with America's seniors and support Social Security. It's not a Ponzi scheme, as some candidates for President allege; and let's celebrate the 3.6 percent for our seniors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Jeff Davis High School in Houston, Texas, for their 85 years of excellence and dedication to improving the education of young adults.

As a Jeff Davis High School graduate I am proud to say that since 1925, Jeff Davis has established a legacy of success in academics as well as in extracurricular programs by providing students with opportunities to ensure that they are equipped with the tools that are necessary to excel. Due to the hard work of the school's faculty and staff, Jefferson Davis has been able to significantly decrease its dropout rate and increase its programs to prepare students for college. In 2009 Jefferson Davis increased its number of students enrolled in dual credit courses in Houston area colleges by 450 percent. Since 1993 the school has sent approximately 100 juniors to participate in the Cornell Summer Program, where students are able to spend a summer at Cornell University to earn college credit while still in high school.

In just the last school year, Jeff Davis was recognized for the dedication to decreasing dropout rates and increasing the number of college-bound students. Jeff Davis has been nominated as a candidate to be featured on the U.S. Department of Education ``Doing What Works'' website based on its success with dropout prevention. One hundred fifty-two students were able to successfully earn college credit through dual enrollment at the University of Houston Downtown and Houston Community College and over 50 individuals were awarded in numerous UIL competitions in areas such as math, writing, and accounting. In 2009-2010, the graduation rate increased to 80 percent and there was an amazing 250 percent increase in student advanced placement passing scores. In 2008-2009, the school became TEA recognized for the first time in Davis history and received the Gold Performance Acknowledgement for comparable improvement in mathematics. In recognition of this outstanding work, Jeff Davis was recognized as one of the top ten most improved high schools in Harris County and its surrounding counties by Children At Risk.

In 1993, Project GRAD & Gear Up programs were founded by former Tenneco CEO James Ketelsen at Jeff Davis. This program provides scholarships to students as an incentive to complete high school and continue their education after graduation. Last year the program awarded 2.8 million dollars in scholarships to over 700 graduating seniors in HISD.

Jefferson Davis offers a wide range of extracurricular activities, ensuring that students become well rounded and are given a wide range of opportunities to prepare them for our ever-changing society. In 2010, Davis received international recognition in Robotics, as well as significant regional awards in dance, ROTC and Culinary Arts.

I congratulate the past and present administration, faculty, staff, and students of Jefferson Davis High School for all of their hard work and dedication to excellence.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 358, the Protect Life Act.

At a time when the current unemployment rate is 9.1 percent, we need to focus on creating jobs and spurring economic growth.

Instead, the Majority has chosen to focus on unnecessary legislation aimed at endangering the health of women across this country.

The Majority has spent weeks and months in the House trying to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care act. After those attempts failed they began attacking individual provisions in the health reform law.

The Protect Life Act is another attack on health reform. Beyond that, the legislation is unnecessary.

We already established that no federal funds will be used to perform abortion under health reform because these protections are already included in the underlying law of the land known as the Hyde amendment, which simply states that no federal funds from being used to perform abortions.

Supporters of the Protect Life Act assert that they are ensuring no federal funds being used for abortions, but this argument ignores the overreaching nature of the bill and the dangerous consequences for women associated with this legislation.

Under this legislation, health care entities could refuse to ``participate in'' abortions. This could mean that a hospital employee could refuse to process bills, handle medical records, or set up an examination room.

The bill also endangers women's health and lives by creating a dangerous loophole in longstanding state and federal laws that require hospitals to provide appropriate emergency care to pregnant women and would eliminate existing protections for women seeking care in emergency circumstances--allowing a hospital to deny abortion care to a woman, even if it would save her life.

The Protect Life Act also allows states to enact sweeping ``conscience'' laws that would allow health plans to refuse to cover women's preventive services, including birth control, without cost- sharing--potentially undoing a new protection that 66 percent of Americans support.

This legislation goes far beyond any legislation passed by the House with regard to abortion. Quite simply, it endangers the health and lives of women.

Beyond that, we are wasting valuable time on a bill that cannot pass the Senate and will be vetoed by President Obama instead of debating and voting on the American Jobs Act.

Our constituents both Republicans and Democrats want us to work on creating jobs and reducing our deficit. I fail to see how this legislation accomplishes either of those goals.

I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

I thank our ranking member for allowing me time to speak.

I rise to express my support for H.R. 2273, the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act. As a Member of Congress from basically an oil and gas and refinery and chemical plant area, for the last 8 months I have learned more about coal ash than I think I have ever wanted to.

We know that coal combustion waste can be responsibly recycled and beneficially used. Wisconsin recycles 97 percent of their coal ash. Encouraging beneficial reuse of coal ash ensures less of it in landfills, which is good for our environment and good for the economy. The great debate with coal combustion waste is how do we ensure we have enough environmental protections for coal ash disposal without discouraging beneficial use.

As ranking member of the Environment and Economy Subcommittee of Energy and Commerce, I believe the legislation before us today is a vastly improved version of the legislation considered by our subcommittee for markup, which would simply ban EPA from deeming coal ash as a hazardous material. This legislation would further be improved by the adoption of the Shimkus amendment, the manager's amendment, later.

Currently, there is a patchwork of State programs to regulate the disposal of coal combustion waste. H.R. 2273 for the first time establishes comprehensive, minimum Federal standards for coal ash management and disposal. Contrary to statements made, H.R. 2273 does include groundwater monitoring provisions. The legislation

applies existing requirements for groundwater monitoring and corrective action measures to coal combustion residuals. Facilities would be required to monitor and respond to any releases. In addition, States have the authority to require facilities that don't meet the standards to close.

Additionally, this legislation includes a provision championed by my good friend, Congressman Doyle from Pennsylvania, which would ensure adequate closure standards for surface impoundments, including closure plans and drainage standards. I know some Members have concerns about the legislation, but we worked diligently with the majority and stakeholders to make improvements to the bill. There has been an assertion by some of my colleagues that the legislation does nothing to protect the environment. EPA has no current authority, and this bill for the first time sets those standards.

The assertions by some of my colleagues that this legislation does nothing to protect the environment are misleading at best. EPA has no authority now and this bill for the first time sets national standards.

No, this bill is not perfect. But part of legislating is moving the ball forward and we cannot continue to spend months working on legislation that is simply sent to the Senate to die.

I believe my colleagues on the Majority made significant improvements since their first draft of the bill and a good faith effort to address many of the concerns raised by the minority.

I yield 3 minutes to our colleague and committee member, Ms. Castor from Florida.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague and a member of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle).

I thank my colleague.

I think what Congressman Doyle was saying was, we're doing something here we don't do very often in this House: We actually have a bill that came out of committee that has bipartisan support. It moved the bill to where EPA does not have the authority under current law unless they label it toxic coal ash so the EPA has oversight. We're giving them oversight over what our States have been doing--in most cases, very good.

That's why this bill is something we haven't done on this floor very often in the last 10 months. We actually compromise and come up with good legislation. And we hope the Senate will pass it.

I thank the ranking member on our subcommittee for accepting the amendment.

This amendment does make the bill better, but if we're looking for the perfect, you're in the wrong place. A legislative process is not where you get perfection. We come together. We compromise.

This floor amendment by the ranking member actually makes the bill better than it was when it came out of committee, and I voted for it out of committee. So I'm glad he made it better with this amendment. But we'll never get perfection, whether it be the House, and I can guarantee, almost, not in the Senate.

But this bill is better by this amendment, and that's why I encourage its adoption.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of American families whose jobs and livelihoods are being undermined by China and other countries which purposely undervalue their currency.

For the past several years, the best economic research has shown that China manipulates the value of its currency by at least 25 to 30 percent against the dollar.

This blatantly unfair trading practice has contributed to our trade deficit with China, growing it from $68 billion to $273 billion in just 11 years. Worst of all, the American people have become the ultimate victims. Last month, the Economic Policy Institute found that 2.8 million U.S. jobs have been eliminated or displaced since 2001 due to the growing U.S.-China trade deficit.

Last year, the Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act passed this Chamber with strong bipartisan support. Yesterday, unfortunately, the new House majority voted nearly identical legislation down. The Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act has been supported by Members on both sides of the aisle and would give this and any administration the authority to take countervailing measures against currency manipulators, like China, in support of hardworking Americans.

We need to change that, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2832, legislation that will extend the Trade Adjustment Assistance program and the 2009 TAA reforms for workers, firms, and farmers through December 31, 2013.

Since its creation nearly half a century ago, TAA has helped millions of Americans whose jobs were lost to outsourcing, off-shoring, and increased foreign competition.

For many, TAA is a critical lifeline that provides retraining and education, health insurance assistance, and other crucial support initiatives to workers affected by international trade.

TAA also helps small businesses and farmers become more competitive through the TAA for firms and TAA for farmers program.

This legislation will also extend important reforms made to TAA in 2009, but were allowed to expire in February of this year. These improvements include guaranteeing access to training for American service and manufacturing workers, as well as allow workers to qualify for TAA benefits if their firms shifted production to any country, including China and India, not just countries with which the United States has entered into a free trade agreement.

More than 185,000 additional trade-impacted workers have become eligible for training opportunities and benefits under the 2009 reforms.

In my state alone, over 20,000 workers have benefited from TAA's services and support since May 2009. Nationwide, nearly half a million Americans have benefited from TAA over the past two years.

TAA has historically received bipartisan support in this chamber. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me and support this legislation.

Unfortunately, programs like TAA would not be necessary if this Congress and this Administration would push for trade deals that would focus on job creation here at home.

The history of free trade agreements shows that the promised benefits of FTAs, be with Mexico and NAFTA, or with China and Most-Favored-Trade Status, have not materialized.

In fact, it has been the opposite.

Soon after the enactment of NAFTA in 1994, six factories in my district in Houston were shut down. The thousands of Houstonians who were laid-off were able to get assistance through TAA, but would have much rather have kept their jobs than seen their livelihoods moved to Mexico.

Before NAFTA came into effect, the United States had an annual trade surplus of over $1 billion with Mexico. Last year, our nation's trade deficit with our southern neighbor reached $66 billion.

The story is similar with China. In 1999, the year before permanent MFT status was granted on China, our trade deficit was $68 billion.

Today, that deficit has exploded to $273 billion, and with it, millions of American jobs. A recent study by the Economic Policy Institute found that the trade deficit with China eliminated or displaced 2.8 million jobs between 2001 and 2010.

I fear that enactment of the trade agreements debated in this chamber today will further exacerbate job losses in our country.

EPI found in a study last year that the Korea FTA alone would displace 159,000 jobs in the United States. The same study found that the Colombia FTA would cost the American people 55,000 jobs.

It is time for this chamber to ask why our nation gives open access to our markets to foreign competitors--as is the case with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama--and only, years later, look to gain similar access into their markets.

History has shown me that genuine free trade comes when all parties receive equal access to each others' markets. All three of these agreements fail to do so.

I close by calling on my colleagues today to vote in favor of working Americans by voting against these trade agreements and voting in favor of TAA.

Madam Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record a letter from the International Brotherhood of Teamsters in opposition to the Korea, Panama, and Colombia Free Trade Agreements.

International Brotherhood

of Teamsters,

Washington, DC, June 15, 2011.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.4 million men and

women of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, I am

writing to urge you to oppose the three pending so-called

free trade agreements (FTAs)--South Korea, Colombia, and

Panama--when they reach the floor of the House for a vote.

All three agreements are modeled after the job-killing North

American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

Trade agreements based on the NAFTA model have resulted in

nearly two million job losses in the U.S. The three pending

FTAs continue this trend. With the unemployment rate at a

record high of more than nine percent, we must focus on job

creation and growth in the U.S. Not only will these trade

agreements result in job losses, they will further exploit

workers and deny basic human rights.

The South Korea FTA is projected by the Economic Policy

Institute to cause job losses of 159,000 in the U.S. and the

International Trade Commission estimates the trade deficit

will increase in seven high-paying sectors. In addition, the

South Korea HA forbids reference to the International Labor

Organization (ILO) conventions.

The South Korea FTA's investment chapter would give South

Korean investors rights to challenge U.S. laws, regulations,

and even court decisions in international tribunals that

circumvent the U.S. judicial system. Any potential benefit

from reduced tariffs would be mitigated, as South Korea is

one of the three countries that the U.S. Department of

Treasury lists as a currency manipulator.

Even more troubling is that the South Korea FTA lacks

assurances that products assembled in South Korea will not

contain parts from North Korea's Kaesong Industrial Complex.

These three pending agreements insult basic human rights.

The country of Colombia remains the global capital for

violence against workers; more unionists are killed every

year in this country than any other country. Most recently, a

lawyer representing sugarcane workers was gunned down in

May--only five weeks after a so-called U.S.-Colombia Labor

Action Plan was released.

Nearly 2,680 unionists have been murdered in the country.

Only six percent of the murders have been prosecuted. Most

are never even investigated. In June, a Colombian rights

leader campaigning for the return of land snatched by illegal

militias was gunned down. While the Action Plan is a step in

the right direction, it does not go far enough to ensure

enforcement and compliance. We must see real improvement in

labor laws and a stop to the killing of unionists in

Colombia, before any trade agreement is approved. Simple

public relations gimmicks and laws that go unenforced are not

enough.

The Colombia FTA will result in the further displacement of

the country's Afro-Colombian population. The country has the

highest population of displaced people, an estimated 5.2

million. The agreement will only accelerate the displacement

of impoverished Afro-Colombians and farmers.

Panama remains one of the world's top tax havens. The

country is home to approximately 400,000 corporations,

including U.S. firms, which incorporate in the country to

avoid paying taxes. The pending Panama FTA does not require

U.S. construction and other firm's equal access to work on

the Panama Canal improvement project. In addition, Panama

continues to be a main site for drug money laundering by

Mexican and Colombian drug kingpins.

Each of these three pending trade agreements remains

flawed. None will further U.S. job growth, which should be

our nation's top priority. Ensuring basic human rights and

dignity is a moral imperative. For economic and moral

reasons, we urge you to vote against these agreements. If you

have any questions, please contact Lisa P. Kinard, Director,

Department of Federal Legislation and Regulation,

International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

Sincerely,

James P. Hoffa,

General President.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 771, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

I thank my colleague from Illinois for yielding to me.

The EPA is currently developing a tier 3 rulemaking that would further reduce sulfur levels in gasoline to an average of 10 parts per million, a 70 percent change from today's already low standards, while reducing the gasoline volatility.

The EPA is expected to issue a proposed rule by the end of this year. The problem we have is that in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, section 209 required the EPA to conduct a study 18 months after the enactment to determine whether the renewable fuels required by the section would adversely impact air quality and not later than 3 years after that enactment. The problem is EPA has not finished that study we require them to conduct even before these new regulations. Now they're moving forward with a rule with a half-baked study, and that's why I support this amendment to the TRAIN Act, Mr. Chairman. This is not a delay amendment. This is just to make sure we don't get the cart in front of the horse, and we need to have that study finished before the EPA moves forward with that sulfur criteria.

That's why I support my colleague from Illinois' and my colleague from Texas' amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.