tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN April 6, 2011 5:00pm-8:00pm EDT
i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. all time for debate has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. waxman: madam chair. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: i ask for a roll call vote. the chair: does the gentleman from request the yeas and nays? -- does the gentleman request the yeas and nays? the chair: i -- mr. waxman: i request the yeas and nays. the chair: all proceedings will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 7 printed in house report 112-54. for what purpose does the the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. quigley: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in house report 112-54 offered by mr. quigley of illinois.
the chair: pursuant to house resolution 203, the gentleman from illinois, mr. quigley, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. mr. quigley: thank you, madam chairman and to the ranking member and chairman. my amendment would require that the g.a.o. report to congress the results of a study of health care costs in the u.s. as affected by the elittle nation of e.p. regulation under this act. further report would also detail cost in the u.s. preceding under the current regulatory as determined in 2007 in massachusetts vs. e.p.a. it is science, hard facts fakts and figures that have led to hundreds of scientists to confirm that global warming is real. the most convincing number is that there are over 200 peer reviewed scientific studies that have determined that global warming is real and that man contributes to that and exactly zero that have proved or shown evidence to the contrary. it was science that led the congress to pass the clean air
act, the act which designated e.p.a. as the body charged with overseeing, adapting and implementing these regular laces. it was science that led the supreme court to rule in 2007 that the environmental protection agency does in fact have the authority to regulate greenhouse gases. my amendment is simple. it directs the g.a.o. to report the cost of health care onunder the clean air act and then report the -- health care under the clean air act and then report back to the congress. in 2010 alone, the e.p.a. reported a deduction from the clean air act prevented more than 160,000 premature deaths, 130,000 heart attacks, 13 million lost work days and 1.7 million asthma attacks. this burdens the government with serious bills. we face serious budgetary times. we may be out of a recession but we are far from recovered. if we are committed to making a
government more efficient and effective to cutting waste, fraud and abuse, then we must acknowledge that spending a smart dollar upfront saves many dollars on the back end. i encourage my colleagues to support this amendment that will allow the experts at the g.a.o. to show us in a world with the clean air act and a world without. my estimation is that less mercury in our water will cost far less dollars in debt than the opposite. i'll defer to the experts and look forward to their report on this subject. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from illinois reserve the balance of his time. does the gentleman from mississippi seek time in opposition? >> yes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> this study would be completed one year, analyzing
the g.a.o. report from massachusetts vs. e.p.a. this case did not determine how or whether e.p.a. should regulate greenhouse gases. to the contrary, it did not mandate that e.p.a. move forward with global warming regulations and it certainly did not direct e.p.a. begin regulating tens of thousands or millions of stationary sources across the united states economy. mr. harper: in any event, no g.a.o. study is needed because e.p.a. itself has already concluded that greenhouse gases pose no direct adverse health effects. here's what the e.p.a. has stated. current and projected ambient concentrations, greenhouse gas concentrations remain well below published thresholds for any adverse health effects, such as respiratory or toxic
effects. so even if the e.p.a. had concluded that there were direct health impacts, e.p.a.'s own administrators concluded that the agency's greenhouse gas rules are not going to be effective in reducing temperatures or global emissions. administrator jackson has said, and i quote, we will not be able to reduce co-2 that is accumulating in the atmosphere alone. if anything, e.p.a.'s global warming rules will cause global emissions to increase as u.s. manufacturing and industry goes to countries with much less stringent environmental laws. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time to the gentleman from georgia. the chair: the gentleman will reserve the balance of his time. the gentleman from illinois. mr. quigley: thank you, again, madam chairman. i guess my response to this, with all due respect, prove me wrong. if there's no health care risk,
let the g.a.o., independent analysis, prove us wrong, but there's a lot at stake here. and i would defy anyone to say that greenhouse gases are not in and of themselves put aside global warming, dangerous because many are the precursor to ozone. i live in chicago which is the morbidity and mortality capital of the united states for those inflicted with asthma and there is a dramatic and direct impact of what ozone does to those people suffering from asthma. so prove me wrong. show me how we're wrong on this. let there be a study which goes to this because if i'm wrong, no damage done. but if there's some danger here and we have decided that it's not worth our study, then we have done a great disservice to the american public and put their lives at risk. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields
back. the gentleman from georgia. mr. gingrey: madam chairman, i want to thank the chairman of the energy and commerce committee, mr. upton, and the gentleman from mississippi, mr. harper, for yielding time for me to speak on this amendment. i rise in strong opposition to the quigley amendment because it represents an unnecessary use of case law in massachusetts vs. e.p.a. some of what i say is repetitive. mr. harper has just said it. it bears repeating, madam chair. it analyzes how health care costs will be affected if the e.p.a. does not proceed with regulation in its role as determined in massachusetts vs. the e.p.a. madam chair, i'd like to remind the author of the amendment, mr. quigley, that massachusetts vs. e.p.a. did not determine whether or how the e.p.a. should eliminate greenhouse gases. furthermore, a g.a.o. study on this matter is not necessary because the e.p.a. has already concluded that greenhouse gases
have noed a fers health effect. specifically, the e.p.a. has stated, and i quote, current and projected ambient greenhouse gas concentrations remain well below published thresholds for any direct adverse direct health effect such as respiratory or toxic effects. opponents to this legislation have tried unsuccessfully to assert that the underlying bill will block e.p.a. from safeguarding public health from the effects of air pollution and will result in increased asthma attacks or other respiratory illnesses. nothing can be further from the truth. madam chair, h.r. 910 does not affect the e.p.a. from hazardous air pollution whether or not e.p.a. imposes these cap and trade regulations, the agency will continue to have the authority to regulate all of the high priority pollutants that raise public health concerns. as an original co-sponsor of h.r. 910, i strongly support the underlying bill to prohibit
the environmental protection agency from using the clean air act to regulate greenhouse gases. by avoiding these harmful regulations, h.r. 910 will save countless of number of jobs and prevent the implementation of an energy tax that will cost our economy literally tens of billions of dollars when we can least afford it. madam chairman, i urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and supporting the underlying bill. if i have remaining time i'd like to yield it to my friend from california. >> i want to point out the comment was made to precursor to ozone. ask the airbase in california, never regulated co-2 as a precursor to ozone because it was so minuscule that there were so many other issues that are absolutely essential to address that you didn't even look at that. if you didn't think those of us in california that were working on air pollution, air quality, our county in san diego went from severe -- from severe down
to serious. it wasn't chasing ozone. not chasing co-2. it was chasing true toxic emissions. mr. bilbray: understand you're talking about sacrificing efforts -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. bilbray: i yield back. the chair: all time for debate has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois, mr. quigley. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 8 printed in house report 112-54. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. polis: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in house report 112-54 offered by mr. polis of colorado. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 203, the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, and a
member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, madam chair. this amendment is simple. and i appreciate the rule making it in order. it allows the environmental protection agency continue protecting the american people from the greatest public health and environmental challenge in global history, global climate change. the overwhelming scientific evidence suggests that greenhouse gases and carbon pollution if left unchecked poses a significant threat to public health. this is not a scientific conclusion that anybody in the investigative community desires or wants. it is an unfortunate reality. i simply want the administrator to have the ability to temporarily unlock the handcuffs on the bill if there is a significant threat to the public health. let's walk ourselves through what this bill does. the bill tells the e.p.a., e.p.a., you've done your home work just like the supreme court told you to do and every
inch of credible science is telling you there is a danger to america's health and yet we here in congress know better. we will pretend there is not a danger to the american health. we won't allow you, the e.p.a., that we set up and charged with this, to pay attention to the warnings while protecting americans from the dangers. to me that's a very dangerous directive, telling the e.p.a. they can't act even though they know we're in danger. if there was a meeteror hurling toward us, i hope the body won't tell nasa to ignore it, step away from the telescope, specifically telling people to get out of the way. this bill does that at the very real and present danger. i want the e.p.a. to protect me, my family and my constituents and all american families when the overwhelming warning signs say they should do just that. but if this body sends a message to the contrary, at the very least we should be smart enough to include a temporary
escape hatch, a safety valve that my amendment provides. madam speaker, i'm going to vote today to put america's health before big polluters. the other side of the aisle likes to skew the facts. intead of paying attention to warning signs, they confuse the facts. it's critical that we provide a safety valve that when there is a clear and present danger to the health of the american people we don't hamstrung the very agents that we have set up to protect the very health of the american people and be able to move forward to protect us. this endangerment finding, the title of the e.p.a.'s study, was based on sound science and found that as climate change increases so does ground ozone level, air and water-borne pathogens and mold allergens and make things like asthma and respiratory problems and heart disease worse. we cannot oversimplify an easy
problem with easy answers. i would like to submit to the record the endangerment findings. the chair: the gentleman's request will be covered under justice leave. mr. polis: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. does the gentleman seek time in opposition? >> yes, i do, madam speaker. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. burgess: i'd like to yield to the gentleman from georgia as much time as he might consume. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for as much time as he might consume. mr. gingrey: madam chairman, thank you. i'd like to thank my friend from texas, mr. burgess, for yielding, and, again, thank the chairman of the energy and commerce committee and the chairman of the energy and power subcommittee, messrs. upton and whitfield, for allowing me to speak on this amendment. much like the previous amendment, i rise in strong opposition to the polis amendment because it gives duplicative authority to the e.p.a. this amendment would
temporarily suspend h.r. 910 if the e.p.a. administrator has ruled that ground level ozone, extreme weather events or an increase in food and water-borne pathogens presents a significant danger to the public health. or there are other significant threats to public health. madam chair, under section 303 of the clean air act the e.p.a. already has the authority to respond to any imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or welfare or the environment. . therefore this amendment is unnecessary. the polis amendment would give the e.p.a. administrator the authority to move forward with a cap and trade agenda if the administrator believed there were threats to public health from ozone, extreme weather or other significant threats to
public health, which could be completely unrelated to greenhouse gases. i believe that this amendment is literally a hammer in search of a nail. the e.p.a. already has the authority to address the concerns raised by this amendment and my friend from colorado. i would urge my colleague from colorado to consider withdrawing this amendment, but if he doesn't, i would urge all of my colleagues to oppose it and support, continue to support the underlying legislation. i will reserve the balance of my time, madam chair. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i thank the gentleman from georgia, my concern is that the underlying bill removes some of the authority under these conditions that this amendment would reinstate if this amendment merely restates this, i would hope that we can clarify the bill by specifically allowing the e.p.a. the
authority to suspend the prohibitions in the bill, if a detailed analysis demonstrates that ground level ozone or extreme weather event are a significant threat to public health and of course, we would hope that under their charge, the e.p.a. would then proceed. if given this authority with regard to protecting the public health. to the extent that this clarifies something that was against the intent of the original bill or consistent with the intent of the original bill, i would hope the gentleman would accept it. if it is contrary to a small element in the bill, we would hope to re-establish that authority in the case of a significant threat to public health. we would require a detailed analysis under the law. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. gingrey: i want to point out to my colleague, the e.p.a., i
previously said, but let me repeat it, the e.p.a. has already concluded that greenhouse gases pose no public health emergency and they state, and i quote, current and projected ambient greenhouse gas concentrations remain well below published thresholds for any direct adverse health effect such as respiratory or toxic effects, end quote. i want to yield such time to the gentleman from california, mr. bilbray. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for up to 2 1/2 minutes. and the gentleman from georgia has the right to close. mr. bilbray: we're not talking about greenhouse gases here, because the regulations that have been proposed by the e.p.a. do not address climate change.
they don't address climate change. we're not talking climate change here. we're talking about e.p.a. proposing regulations that admitted by the administrator, does not have any projections of what reductions we'll have here. and remember, the minimum we need to do to address the threat of climate change is 17% within nine years. so let's be up front. this is not about climate change. this is about proposed regulations by a bureaucracy in a field of law that was never meant to address this issue at all. and i say that as somebody who worked for over a decade working to implement the clean air act. and with the problems that you're pointing out, they are legitimate issues, but what is being proposed as an answer to a problem has nothing to do and will not affect climate change or affect the issues you have
raised. your amendment is not germane because the issues you are concerned about don't exist. because you can't change anything. and the fact is keeping somebody from selling a placebo does not solve the problem or aggravate the problem. the fact is what has been proposed by the e.p.a. is a placebo. let's not be concerned that if it is not available that there might be concern with the legitimate items. the e.p.a. and the underlying bill does not affect those issues. mr. polis: point of parliamentary inquiry. is the amendment germane to the bill? the chair: the chair will not
render an advisory opinion. the gentleman from colorado has one minute remaining. mr. polis: the rules committee found and i believe the parliamentarian advised that the amendment was germane and i have not been informed otherwise other than by the gentleman from california. does the gentleman want to appeal the ruling of the parliamentarian? i believe it is germane. the chair: will the gentleman suspend. the request is pending and the amendment is pending. the amendment is pending. mr. polis: again, if the rule does waive this, we discussed in committee -- rules committee yesterday and i believe all the nongermane amendments were not included under this rule. i yield to the gentleman for a moment. mr. bilbray: not germane to the
issue. mr. polis: reclaiming my time. there might be a different use of the word germane. i would encourage all of us to be on the same page with regard to the word germane. it is germane to the bill. all my amendment does is if the e.p.a. sees a danger, they should act. the amendment respects the finding of the supreme court findings and ensures it has the ability to protect the public and not removed from the underlying bill. the underlying bill tells the e.p.a. to perhaps ignore some science. my amendment says the science shouldn't be ignored. it's an important clarification and i urge support of the amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia has 45 seconds remaining and the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. gingrey: this would be an avenue with the e.p.a. to move forward on back door regulations regardless of any facts.
e.p.a. should not be authorized to move forward with back door global warming regulations. i urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment and i yield to my colleague from texas. mr. burgess: greenhouse gases do not have a direct health impact but in the odd event that someone were sprayed in the face with a greenhouse gas such as methane, the emergency powers exist under section 303 of the clean air act to respond to the imminent and substantial endangerment of public health. i yield back. the chair: all time for debate has expired. the question is on the amendment. offered by the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i request the yeas
and nays. the chair: does the gentleman ask for a recorded vote? mr. polis: yes. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado will be postponed. it's now in order to consider amendment number 9 printed in house report 112-54. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. markey: i rise in support of my amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9 printed in house report 112-54 offered by mr. markey of massachusetts. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 203, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey, and a gentleman opposed each will have five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: my amendment is quite simple, which says nothing that the republicans are proposing today should put a limitation on the ability of the e.p.a. to reduce the demand for inputting oil from opec, which should be the number one
objective in our country. you know, we only have 2% of the world's oil reserves and consume 25% on a daily basis. and there is nothing we can do about it. and so the only way in which we can solve the problem is we reduce consumption by increasing the efficiency of the vehicles we drive, of the boats we use, the planes that we ride in, of the other sources that consume the oil that we use in our country. and what they're going to do, the republicans, is tie the hands of the e.p.a. to back out the five million barrels of oil that we import from opec on a daily basis. opec isn't afraid of the foreign affairs committee or the armed services committee, it is the energy committee tche are afraid of. they are afraid that one day we will have a policy that backs out their imported oil, that denies them the $150 billion
that we send over to them that allows them to continue their dictatorships. and what the republicans are doing today is tying the hands of our country to be able to tell opec, we don't need their oil any more than we need their sand. that's the message they are sending here today. that's the message that republicans are sending to opec. have a good night's sleep, don't worry. we are going to tie the hands of opec to back out that imported oil. this amendment goes right to the heart of the national security of our country and the heart of our economic independence as well as reducing greenhouse gases. the national security is at stake in this amendment. and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. does the gentleman from illinois seek time in opposition? mr. upton: -- mr. shimkus: i do. my colleague said that's the
only way to reduce demand, that's not the only way. we move to increase supply. you know what happens when you increase supply? you increase jobs. look what we can do. we can open up the o.c.s., thousands and thousands of jobs to be created by oil and gas exploration. look what we can do, hundreds of years of supply of coal and turn it into liquid fuel and bring the oil sands from canada down. we can be independent on transportation fuels. we cannot be, based upon allowing the e.p.a. to price carbon. the only way my colleagues want to get us from driving less is to make gasoline so high that no one can drive. that's ok when you live in major metro areas, but when you live
in rural southern illinois where you have to drive long distances to get to school, to get to a hospital, to get to church, every time you raise the price of gasoline, it hurts the poor and the middle class of rural america. so my col -- colleague is just wrong and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: i yield to the ranking member of the energy and commerce committee, the gentleman from california, mr. waxman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. waxman: the important thing about this amendment is we reduce the demand for oil, which is the primary area where we are dependent on opec countries and to do that, we have tighter fuel efficiency standards. without the markey amendment, the e.p.a. would not be able to continue with those tight fuel efficiency standards for motor vehicles, planes, et cetera. according to lisa jackson from e.p.a., who testified before our
committee, that this bill, quote, would forfeit hundreds of millions of barrels of oil in savings when gas prices are rising again. i can't understand why anyone would vote to increase america's dependence. i urge support of the markey amendment so we don't increase oil dependence. and i yield back. mr. shimkus: madam chair, how much time do i have remaining? the chair: 3 1/2 minutes and the gentleman from massachusetts has 2 minutes. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: i am surprised that this amendment has been offered because our bill preserves the car rule under which e.p.a. sets greenhouse gas emission standards for passenger
cars and trucks for model year 2012 through 2016. that was agreed to by the obama administration, environmentalists, e.p.a. and everyone and that's preserved in this bill. but, let's talk about the electricity side. if we allow e.p.a. to regulate greenhouse gases, we're going to skyrocket the cost of electricity, which is going to make us less competitive in the global marketplace and lose more jobs to china and india, because those two countries are burning more coal, because coal produces the lowest cost electricity. and that's why we are opposed to this amendment of the gentleman because we have already preserved the car rule that the gentleman is concerned about. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: i yield myself one minute. i had an amendment to increase
fuel economy standards from 25 to 35 miles per gallon in 2001, 2003, 2005. you voted against it every time. you said, it will ruin the auto industry if we improve the economy standard. you know who ruined the industry? you did. general motors had to declare bankruptcy and we have fuel standards at 35 miles a gallon and recording record profits. record hiring. you know who is opposed to your bill today, united auto workers oppose you because they believe it will undermine the efficiency and job efficiency. so, ladies and gentlemen, if you are looking for jobs on national security on this bill, make sure you vote for the markey amendment, because you are historically so far off base with this bill that it can't even begin to be measured and i reserve. .
the chair: the gentleman from illinois. mr. shimkus: i yield to the former ranking member, joe barton. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. barton: i rise in opposition to my friend, mr. markey's, amendment. he must think that the e.p.a. stands for energy punishment agency rather than environmental protection agency. e.p.a.'s role is not to regulate the oil and gas industry. it's not to set an oil import fee. it's not to set quotas. it's to protect the environment. and the bill before us today does that. it restricts the clean air act to its original intention which is to regulate the criteria pollutants for which it was intended when it was passed in the early 1990's. we are trying to segregate greenhouse gases from regulation under the clean air act. that's all this bill does. it's not affecting fuel
efficiency standards that nhtsa states, that nhtsa regulates and will continue to regulate. it doesn't have anything to do with that. we're simply saying greenhouse gases should not be regulated under the existing clean air act. we disagree with the supreme court decision that gave the e.p.a. the authority to make a decision and we definitely disagree with the endangerment finding which i think was fatally flawed. you know, we can do a lot on decreasing oil imports both by supply increases in the united states and letting the market operate in an efficient fashion. we don't need the e.p.a. to have some sort of a strangle hold on oil production -- strangle hold on oil production in the united states of america. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts has one minute remaining. mr. markey: and how much time does the other side have? the chair: the gentleman from
illinois has one minute remaining. mr. markey: and who has the right to close? the chair: the gentleman from illinois has the right to close. mr. markey: i will yield myself my final minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. markey: thank you. what the republicans are doing in their bill is stripping the e.p.a. of their authority to regulate the fuel efficiency of vehicles that we drive in our country, of the planes, the trains, the boats, where we put the petroleum. that's what the bill does. that's what the supreme court gave them as authority. the gentleman says, you know, e.p.a., you know, is misnamed. well, let me just tell you, under the republican's e.p.a. stands for every polluters' allies. and our e.p.a. stands for end petroleum administration. we need to say, we are going to use the oklahoma oil, the texas oil, the louisiana oil, but we do not need that oil coming out
of the persian gulf any more than we need to send 100,000 young men and women over there. let's set a new policy path over there, madam speaker. let's give those opec ministers a few sleepless nights. let's not allow them to look at the congress once again, ignoring the strength of our country which is our technological genius, to be able to invent the new technology that makes us less dependent. and what does the republicans do? one month ago -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. markey: they repeal all of the loan guarantees for solar and wind. they did it -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. markey: that's their y'all -- their all-of-the-above legislation. the chair: the gentleman from illinois. mr. shimkus: h.r. 910 completely preserves the car rule under the e.p.a., emission standards for standard and cars from 2012 to 2016. we had this debate in the subcommittee and full committee. it's still there. unfortunately you're acting like it doesn't.
this is a really simple debate. this is a debate of whether we want more supply or less supply, whether we want more jobs or less jobs, whether we want higher energy prices or less energy prices. when you allow the e.p.a. to regulate greenhouse gases which is not a toxic emission, they do it by setting a price. and that price will drive our country into a slowing economic growth, more job loss, higher costs. so that's why we're here today. we're very excited about this debate today. it's about time we get to the floor and have a chance on whether we want the e.p.a. without legislative language to raise the cost of energy in this country. we say no, reject the markey amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. all time for debate has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to.
the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: madam chair, on that i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 10 printed in house report 112-54. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? mr. rush: madam speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 10 printed in house report 112-54 offered by mr. rush of illinois. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 203, the gentleman from illinois, mr. rush, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. mr. rush: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, my amendment revokes the provision of this act from going into effect until the e.p.a. administrator, in consultation with the
secretary of defense, certifies that the consequences of not regulating greenhouse gas emissions, and its subsequent impact on climate change, including the potential to create sustained natural and humanitarian disasters and the ability to likely foster political instability where societal demands exceed the capacity of governments to cope, do not jeopardize american security interests at home or abroad. madam speaker, the overwhelming majority of scientists and scientific organizations worldwide all agree that man-made greenhouse gases do contribute to climate change and these impact can be mitigated to policy to curb these emissions.
a study by the national academy of science conducted at the request of the u.s. navy concluded that climate change will pose an emergency challenge for the united states navy and the emerging frontier. one of the most serious threat analysis was done by a dozen of the country's most respected retired generals and admirals. in the 2007 cnn report, the national security and threat of climate change report. in this study, madam speaker, these retired generals and admirals concluded that climate change poses a serious threat to america's national security and that the national security consequences of climate change should be fully integrated into
national security and national defense strategies. the report goes on to say that climate change, national security and energy dependence is also related -- affects our military and these threats should not be ignored or pushed down the road for future accidents. unfortunately, this bill does exactly that, it pushes the challenges of regulating greenhouse gases which contributes to climate change firmly down the road for action at some later day far into the future. i do not mean it is in america's best interest to delay action on these threats that we know are currently endangering our health and our way of life. so, madam speaker, i urge my
colleagues to support this amendment so we are not ignoring the warning from our most esteemed military men and we are citing the threat to climate change before we pass this tipping point. with that, madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. does the gentleman from michigan seek time in opposition? >> i do. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. rogers: i can't think of something more disconnected from climate change than this amendment. i yield to the gentleman from california, mr. bilbray. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. bilbray: i receipt grettably rise in opposition. the science doesn't reflect the concern that the gentleman has pointed out. and i say that in fact the science, not talking about the concern about climate change, bull the lack of science behind the -- but the lack of science
behind the regulations that e.p.a. has discussed. there has been no one before our committee that said that the proposed changes that e.p.a. is bringing forward with us today or in the future will address or solve the problem. the fact is that the problems that the gentleman's concerned about may be out there somewhere, but no one is saying that what the e.p.a. is doing is going to avoid those problems. so by not having e.p.a. implement a program that nobody in the scientific community says will address the problem doesn't mean that somehow this will de facto cause the problem to be implemented or not avoided. in a point, basically, it says again what is being proposed by the e.p.a. is an agency that was not designed to address climate change with plans that not only were not designed to -- and using a vehicle was not to design this problem but by
the own admission of the administrator cannot give us even a slight percentage of what reduction we'd have. so i just have to say to my dear colleague from illinois that i appreciate his concern but your concern should not be us telling the e.p.a. not to implement rules that they admit will not address the problem and will not solve the problem. our issue we ought to be talking about how do we address those problems going down the pipe. let's be frank about it. the problems you're talking about is going to happen and it's not because anyone on this side is denying the science. it's because people are trying to take advantage and exploit a crisis rather than address it. i ask the gentleman again to be concerned but make sure that when you propose the said action let's make sure that those actions actually have a possibility of addressing the issues that you so sincerely are concerned about. and i yield back to the gentleman. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from illinois. mr. rush: madam speaker, i yield myself 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is
recognized. mr. rush: madam speaker, i am really astounded by the remarks of my friend from california. it seems that first of all they deny the scientists that have come before the committee. many scientific organizations throughout the world who said -- that said climate change is a reality. they deny these -- this science and these scientists' reports. madam speaker, they are denying the opinion and the warnings from the command center of our military. i just don't know -- madam speaker, i yield two minutes to -- how much time do i have left? the chair: the gentleman from illinois has one minute remaining. mr. rush: i yield that to -- the chair: does the gentleman -- mr. rush: i ask -- the chair: will the gentleman reserve? mr. rush: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman
reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. rogers: madam chair, can i inquire how much time is remaining? the chair: the gentleman has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. rogers: i'd yield myself two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. rogers: and i appreciate the gentleman's passion for the issue, but i think when amendments like this hit the floor it does a huge disservice to even the basis of their argument. you know, getting ready for world war ii we had a truck company in michigan that went from building pickup trucks with several thousand parts in about eight weeks they converted to building bomber airplanes with over a million parts. only in america could that have happened to win the war, the great industrial arsenal of democracy happened in the great state of michigan. if you want to talk about national security issues, when you try to do this on cap and trade, what you're doing is wholesale departing manufacturing jobs and our ability to produce things in this country to places like china and india who have
laughed at cap and trade and said we welcome those jobs. . we lost a million manufacturing jobs in our state alone. in cap and trade, we'll lose 1.4 million more jobs. admiral mullen said the greatest threat to our national security is our debt when people aren't working, when america can't produce things. i'm telling you we will do more to harm our national security than anything i can think of. >> will the gentleman yield? mr. rogers: no, i will not. we will lose over 100,000 jobs over the next 25 years. you want to talk about national security, someone who is unemployed and not paying taxes is a national security threat. when you make unreasonable expectations, i want clean water and clean air and i don't want e.p.a. shutting down factories that produce and actually
produce the largest middle class in the history of the world, why we would attack that and label that as a national security interest defies even the greatest of imaginations, madam chair. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from illinois. mr. rush: madam chair, i yield one minute to the ranking member -- the chair: does the gentleman wish the gentleman from california to close for your side? mr. rush: yes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. waxman: i rise in support of the rush amendment. the problem of national security is threatend in two ways by the inhofe-up ton bill. it increases our oil dependence, because we take away the tools for addressing this oil dependence but not allowing e.p.a. to set tighter efficiency standards which reduces our
demand for oil. and secondly, it takes away our tools to deal with the problem of climate change itself. former senior military officers wrote to us and asked us we not undermine the clean air act. they are concerned this will increase our dependence on oil and such dependence is truly dangerous. in 2009, 12 retired generals and admirals described how our oil dependence funds terrorism and puts money in iran and venezuela. iran gives weapons to hezbollah. and climate change is going to bring about more refugee flows and catastrophic natural disasters. that is a threat to our national security. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired.
the gentleman from michigan is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. rogers: when you shut down production of oil and natural gas in the united states, we have to import more because we're still driving more. we absolutely have put ourselves at the mercy of the world where we are trying to figure out where they are. it is now up to four bucks a gallon. if you want to get this right, let the e.p.a. do what it does best, clean air, clean water and let the national security folks keep us safe and increase production so someone can afford to drive to work. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois, mr. rush. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman from illinois. mr. rush: i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: gentleman request a record vote?
mr. rush: yes. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois will be postponed. it's now time -- now in order to consider amendment number 11 printed in house report 112-54. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. doyle: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 11 printed in house report 112-54 offered by mr. doyle of pennsylvania. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 203, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. doyle, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. doyle: i yield myself two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. doyle: i sit on the energy and commerce committee and subcommittee which has primary jurisdiction of h.r. 910. i have been to several hearings on this bill where my colleagues on the republican side of the aisle claim that the pending
regulations on greenhouse industries will pack up and move overseas taking with them our jobs and our carbon emissions. at a committee hearing held in march, our chairman told us, we live in a global economy, with global competition and nations like china absolutely have no intention of similarly burdenening their industries. manufacturing will leave this country unless the e.p.a. is stopped. madam chair, unfortunately, my colleagues on the republican side of the aisle have forgotten to check with the chinese. two days, a report came out saying china, to tax energy usage in energy-intensive industries. china will impose a tax of eight industrial sectors, including iron and steel, aluminum and cement. madam speaker, the vice chairman of national development and reform, said that china has
launched carbon emission trading schemes in some of their provinces, so much for this idea that all these jobs are going to china because there's no taxing there or not looking at a trading scheme. while i dispute the claim of my colleagues that china has no intention of addressing climate change, what i'm more concerned about is the varying claims that this will shift jobs overseas. we have an amendment here to address that very question, are these industries here in america that utilize energy-intensive processes, what will the effect of those regulations be on those types of industries? i worked with congressman inslee to address this when we didn't clean the security act. we addressed a fair system of distributing these allowances. this amendment proposes to do the same thing. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired.
mr. doyle: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from illinois -- does the gentleman from illinois seek time in opposition? the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> this is an interesting amendment. this is an amendment to a bill to study the cost of regulations that if this bill goes through, regulations won't exist. i don't get it, but ok. we don't need another study. we need jobs. i come from the 11th congressional zict in illinois. and we have high unemployment, and it's a manufacturing base where i come from. americans are hurting. we have high unemployment. statistics show that jobs are leaving at a record pace. i tell you what. there is no longer any question about whether the e.p.a.'s climate change regulations would actually hurt international competitiveness and affect american companies. we already know it would. i talked to a factory in my
district that said when cap and trade was going to be passed or defacto being looked at, that will definitely result in them leaving. there is no benefit to high costs of doing business and makes us uncompetitive in the free world especially in areas where we have the ability to trade with other countries. here is the interesting part about that, though. we are concerned about the environment. when you add cost to doing business in a country that regulates what is coming out of an industry's smoke stack, you drive businesses overseas into areas where they have far lessen tall regulation. not only are we losing jobs in the united states and not only is the middle class being squeezed again by not having their manufacturing jobs, but now we have hurt the
environment. this is backwards. this isn't what we want to do or the kind of america that we strive to come back to get a middle class, producing things and exporting them overseas and people getting a good pay check. this amendment regulates studies , something that will not exist if we pass this bill. we heard from a wide cross section who testified as to what the harm this bill will do -- the harm these regulations will do, in steel, chemical and refineries. the fact that china, india and other industrial competitors have no intention of imposing similar regulations is further evidence that such regulations are costly and economically damaging. and i reserve. dial doyle i say to the -- mr. doyle: china is imposing a tax on their industries, is
looking at cap and trade. i would say to the gentleman why do we want a study for a bill that is going to abolish these regulations. this bill has a veto threat. we need to do need to do a study and i yield one minute to the gentleman from ohio, mr. ryan. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. ryan: i would like to lend my voice to taking this and studying this, because there are issues here that will be a transition. we want our businesses to be aware of what the actual statisticsr study these regulations, what they are going to be and what the effects are going to be. but this in no way shape or form diminish minor anyone else's support for a green energy future that we need in the united states. i have been sitting here listening and you have several members saying, china isn't going to do cap and trade. china isn't going to tax carbon.
the fact is, we are they are starting to do and we vice president dropped to second place, now third behind china, germany and now the united states. these are manufacturing jobs. tons and tons of steel going into a windmill. 8,000 component parts. they manufacture them in illinois, pennsylvania, and ohio. why would the united steel workers of america be against this and be for the green revolution. we are making this happen and we have to get out of our own way while we do it. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from illinois. mr. kinzinger: there are hundreds of opportunities for american companies to go overseas if they are forced and squeezed out of this. this is no manufacturing jobs future. and i yield to the gentleman from california. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes.
mr. bilbray: i enjoy my colleague, mike doyle, because i have a good friend mike doyle, who is a world class champion surfer. but let me say to my colleagues, i hope you aren't under an illusion that china is considering reducing their greenhouse gas emissions by 17% in this decade. i hope you don't have that illusion. but what we need to address with this issue, you do not need a study, congressman, about the impacts. your state is sitting at 8%. my state is sitting at 12% unemployment. if you really want to see what really happens if you're not careful about the impacts and costs of going green, which we have. we have had a breakthrough. our air has been cleaned up a lot more, but the challenge of going beyond that and going into
things that are not cost effective. the great successes we have had with cleaning up our air in california, we gave priority to those emissions that had the greatest health threats. we didn't even go after the one that is on the scale. co-2 is not even on the scale. let me give you an example. our scientists in california developed algae fuel and our scientists and our educational institutions, the scientists have developed the technology to be able to make fuel out of algae. but when it came time to produce it, when it came to create the jobs, i hope the gentleman understands that our scientists had to leave the state and go to new mexico because our environmental regulations were such that it didn't allow us to implement our green revolution. so i hope all of those who are talking about a green revolution today are willing to take on the environmental, regulatory and
oversight problems that exist in implementation because without casting those aside, you'll never see the revolution. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. doyle: how much time is remaining? the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania has 1 3/4 and the gentleman from illinois has one minute. mr. inslee: our republican colleagues are so willing and able and apparently eager to shut down the government. this bill fundamentally shuts down the government. it shuts down the ability of the environmental protection agency to help lead us into a clean energy future. why shut down an agency that can help develop these biofuels that we were just talking about? why do they want to shut down the engine of innovation and why
do they want to shut down our effort to find solutions for energy-intensive industries, the aluminum industry, steel industry, paper and pulp industry, they need solutions to this. we offered one, and yet the republicans have no solutions. shutting down government is not a solution. shutting the e.p.a. is not a solution. shutting down american innovation is not a solution. this is an amendment that makes a statement that we ought to study science and economics and come up with a solution in a bipartisan way. . >> this doesn't shut down the clean air act at all. by the way, if we're looking at a government shutdown, it's not because we haven't tried on this side. it's because no budget was passed last year. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time
has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> we have 45 seconds, is that correct? the chair: that is correct. >> i'd like to yield 15 seconds to mr. ryan. mr. ryan: i just want to make two points because we hear a lot from the other side about ronald reagan and i know they burn incense and light candles for ronald reagan. in the 1980's it was president reagan who used cap and trade for leaded gasoline. george walker bush used gasoline for sulfur. this is something that can be done if we put a price on this. lead the world, not be -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. bilbray: thank you, madam chair. let me just close by saying to my colleague, all we're asking for is to put some good data behind this. let's study, let's have the e.p.a. take a look at this, let's see what the affects are on our energy and ---intensive industries because this is an issue we're going to have to deal with eventually and we want to have good data behind it. let's have the agency study this and let's work together to find
solutions to protect our industries while we clean up our environment for our kids and our grandkids. with that, madam speaker, i will yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time for debate has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. doyle. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not -- the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. doyle: i request the yeas and nays. the chair: does the gentleman request a recorded vote? boil boil i do. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 12 printed in house report 112-54. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? mr. kind: madam speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 12 printed in house report 112-54 offered by mr. kind of wisconsin . the chair: pursuant to house resolution 203, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. kind, and a
member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. kind: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kind: madam speaker, the bill that we have before us today that we're debating just goes too far. it repeals the scientific finding and represents an aggressive assault on the clean air act. a bipartisan law, originally implemented by president nixon, that has successful protected the public health for over 40 years. it represents -- i represent a rural district in western wisconsin that has approximately 180,000 rural electric coop members that are concerned about possible new e.p.a. regulations and their impact on them. i share their concern. and i agree that we have to approach this issue reasonably. still the approach under h.r. 910 isn't the right one. there is a middle ground that can be found and that's why i along with my friend and colleague from new york, mr. owens, is offering this amendment, really an amendment in the nature of a substitute today. this amendment would permanently protect farms, small businesses, small and medium-sized
stationary sources from greenhouse gas regulation, by codifying the environmental protection agency's tailoring rule. the tailoring rule itself represents a compromise. despite being court ordered to regulate greenhouse gases, the e.p.a. took into account our fragile economy and proposed a nar o'rule that would exempt the vast majority of stationary sources from any regulation. through the rule the e.p.a. takes the appropriate approach to regulate greenhouse gases by only requiring very large new and expanded emitters to seek permits. my friends on the other side of the aisle however believe that the e.p.a. intends to go even further than the tailoring rule and will ultimately implement a tax on energy, just as china is beginning to today. but voting for this amendment will prevent the e.p.a. from doing this. some fear that farms or businesses will be regulated under this rule. our amendment prevents this from ever occurring. under the tailoring rule, e.p.a. is not identified even one farm that would meet the regulation threshold.
that's because you'd have to have over 116,000 beef cattle or 152 million broiler chickens on a single farm to trigger the regulation. there isn't a farm in the united states, let alone western wisconsin, that fits that destination. further this amendment will provide the utility industry with the certainty that they've requested. industry will know precisely what will trigger permit requirements and will be able to plan accordingly. h.r. 910 takes an extreme approach to e.p.a. regulation of these carbon emissions by repealing a scientific finding so compelling that even the bush administration determined that they are unable to ignore it. the science is clear. the climate change is real. and greenhouse gases pose a serious threat to human health. i think we can all agree that we'd rather have congress act to curb greenhouse gas emissions and i would certainly prefer that approach. but we haven't been able to get our act together in this body. what we can do is protect public health and local economies by codifying the tailoring rule. i urge my colleagues to support
this amendment because of the commonsense solution that accepts the scientific evidence that greenhouse gases are dangerous to human health and enacts a workable solution that will protect human health and ensure clean air while shielding the vast majority of sources from any regulatory requirements. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. does the gentleman from kentucky seek time in opposition? >> i do. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> at this time i'd like to recognize the gentleman from virginia, mr. griffith, for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. griffith: thank you, madam chair. i'd like to thank the gentleman for bringing this amendment. because the e.p.a. has passed this so-called tailoring rule without any authority in the clean air act to do so. the proper place for this type of debate as the underlying bill makes clear is in the halls of congress, not in the halls of the e.p.a. there's a button that was very
popular in my district and still is that says, who elected the e.p.a.? and the answer is no one. but we know who elects us. the people of the united states elect us. and they elect to us make the laws and this amendment makes it clear that this is where it belongs and thus we should pass the bill. the amendment should be defeated, the bill should be passed. it also makes it clear that the e.p.a. is overreaching and they had to come up with the tailoring rule because as they say, without it it creates a absurd reality. but those absurd results flow from the e.p.a.'s determine nation to reach these greenhouse gases as if they were harmful pollutants. now, ladies and gentlemen, this amendment, contrary to its patron -- to its patron's assertions this amendment does not shield small business or
farms because it does not block the avalanche of additional greenhouse gas rules that come under various clean air programs. the e.p.a.'s green house regulations will drive up the prices of gasoline, electricity, food, goods and services and the cost of these regulations will be passed on to everyone including small businesses. that's why the national federation of independent businesses supports house resolution 910, a vote in favor of 910 will be scored as a major vote for the nfib. nfib has said that using the clean air act as framework would trigger an avalanche of regulatory requirements that burden hundreds of thousands of previously unregulated sources, including many small entities. i ask that you reject the amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. kind: madam speaker, i'd like to yield two minutes at this time to the co-author of this amendment, my friend from new york, mr. owens. the chair: does the gentleman from wisconsin -- the gentleman from wisconsin has only two minutes remaining.
would the gentleman like the gentleman from new york to close? mr. kind: i'd like to yield a minute and a half. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. owens: thank you, madam speaker, thank you, mr. kind. i'd like to point out that my press seder, -- my predecessor, a respected member of the other side of the aisle, was very supportive of regulation of mercury and acid rain because it negatively impacted the new york 23rd. i think we need to act responsibly in each of these situations and we need to make sure that we are working off good, not the science of proponents but the science of understanding of the issues. when with we look at my district it has taken great strides in terms of moving forward with green and renewable energy. we have wood which we have plenty of, we have wind energy and we have hydro. all of which are contributing to jobs and making our economy a
green and sustainable economy. i think it's very important to understand that what this legislation does is in fact eliminate regulation for the small businesses and farms in my district and i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to reject the underlying legislation. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky. >> do we have the right to close? the chair: the gentleman is correct. the gentleman from kentucky has three minutes remaining. the gentleman from wisconsin has a half minute remaining. the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. >> ial point -- i apologize but i have to say, word burning under the environment is terrible, particular pollutant. i don't think anybody involved
in air pollution issues would ever point out that wood burning is something we want to point to. mr. bilbray: it may be renewable and i appreciate you saying that. it's very good that you said. that because i think we mix renewable with clean all the time. but there are those renewable sources that are very, very bad for the air pollution issue. and i just want to make sure we went by and didn't point at that. california, we've actually tried to outlaw wood burning stoves because of the problems with the air pollution and the toxic emissions that are caused by the particulate problem with it. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. the gentleman has 30 seconds remaining. mr. kind: 30 seconds. does the gentleman want to yield some more time on his side? we're getting close -- >> i'm the only speaker left. i'd asoon close. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. kind: at this time i'd like to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from california.
mr. waxman: the underlying bill, excuse me, the advocates of the underlying bill have said that e.p.a.'s going to regulate a lot of other sources. what this kind-owens amendment does, it says that e.p.a. will not be allowed to regulate farms, small businesses and other small and medium sized sort sources of pollution. this makes sense. it deals with the problem that's been raised about e.p.a. as a commonsense solution. we ought to support it and make sure that the tailoring rule is all that would be applicable for e.p.a. to do. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky. >> well, i would say to you that e.p.a. adopted this tailoring act because they by the off more than they can chew conscious they bit off more than they can chew initially. that's why a lawsuit's been filed against them, because they violated the clear language of the clean air act that says, if anything emits more than 150
tons per year or 250 tons per year, it must be regulated. mr. whitfield: if they've had an endangerment finding as they did in this cafmentse so this amendment would simply get the entire bill and place the tailoring law there in its place. and under this tailoring law they would be able to -- or tailoring rule, they would be able to go down to 50,000 tons per year emissions, but the question becomes, what happens after the year 2013? you have two conflicts parts of this clean air act as a result, if we had adopted this amendment, one thick we know for certain, the e.p.a. is already involved in too many lawsuits. in fact, we're trying to find out now exactly how many lawsuits. we feel like that this bill, that we're trying to pass in the congress today, h.r. 910, is simply congress reasserting itself into the clean air act.
because for too long decisions have been made by unelected bureaucrats at e.p.a., lawsuits are being filed almost every time anyone applies for a permit, e.p.a. runs and enters into a consent decree and then the federal judge will award legal fees to the plaintiffs and we think it's time to reassert ourselves in this process, this is a good bill, h.r. 910. it says that it was never the intent of congress for e.p.a. to regulate greenhouse gases. we do not in any way interfere with their ability to regulate am bent air quality standards, particulate matter, the hazardous air pollutants that we have about 200 or so of those listed, as i had rain, any of those things. this is a great bill, let's defeat this amendment and i urge passage of 910.
the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. all time for debate has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. kind. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. . >> i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from wisconsin will be postponed. pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in house report 112-54, on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 1 by ms. jackson lee of texas, amendment number 2, amendment number 5, amendment number 6, amendment number 8, amendment number 9, amendment number 10 by mr. rush
of know, amendment number 11, mr. doyle of pennsylvania and amendment number 12 by mr. kind of wisconsin. the chair will reduce to two minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business the request for recorded vote on amendment number 1 printed in house report 112-54 by the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, on which proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report 112-54 offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote
followed by two-minute votes. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 161, the nays are 259 and the amendment's not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 printed in the house report 112-54 by the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
nays prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-54 offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. mbers will record their votes by electronic di device. this will be a two-mine vote -- members will record their votes by electronic device. . this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. [captioning ma possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of
the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 157, the nays are 266 and the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 5 printed in house report 112-54 by the gentleman from connecticut, mr. murphy, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevled by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in house report 112-54 offered by mr. murphy of connecticut. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote.
for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? >> permission to address the house out of order for one minute and revise and stepped my remarks. the chair: without objection. mr. dingell: i ask unanimous consent that all members have permission to revise and extend their remarks. mr. speaker, i rise to pay tribute to one of our dear friends and colleague, our good friend from west virginia, congressman rahall, who will cast in this next vote, 20,000th vote in this house of
the chair: order. mr. dingell: mr. chairman, this is a milestone event. it gives us an opportunit to recognize the great work done by our distinguished friend and colleague from west virginia. he is always serving his constituents and doing so well. he also strifes to work -- strives to work across the aisle and he is a mmber i feel we all should be. i ask my colleague, mr. rahall, so we may join together in paying tribute to our friend and
colleague. nick rahall, on the occasion of his 20,000th vote. without objection, two-minute voting will continue. unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on amendment number 6 printed in house report 112-54 by the gentleman from california, mr. waxman, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the nays prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 6, printed in house report 112-54, offered by mr. waxman of california. the chair: the recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request
for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a suffient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. and this is a two-minute vote. two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united stas house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of epresentatives.]
the chair: on this vote, the ayes are 184 and nays are 240. the the request for recorded vote on amendment number 8 printed in house report 112-54 by the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in house report 112-54, offered by mr. polis of colorado. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device.
this is a two-minute vote. a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 160 -- the chair: on this vote the yeas are 168, the nays are 257. the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 9 printed in house report 112-54 by the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by
voice vote. the clerk will resignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9 printed in house report 112-54 offered by mr. markey of massachusetts. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in operation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purses is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of
the chair: on this te the yeas are 156, the nays are 266 and the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 10 printed in the house report 112-54 by the gentleman from illinois, mr. rush, on ich further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 10 printed in house report 112-54 offered by mr. rush of illinois. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote.
gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. doyle, on which further proceedings were post uponned and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the endment. the clerk: amendment number 11 printed in house report 112-54 offered by mr. doyle of pennsylvania. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will rord their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of
the chair: on th vote the yeas are 173, the nays are 250 and the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 12 printed in house report 112-54 by the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. kind, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice ve. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 12 printed in house report 112-54 offered by mr. kind of wisconsin. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. it is a two-minute vote.
the ayes have it, the amendment is adopted. accordingly, urn the rule, the the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker. the committeef the whole use on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 910. pursuant to house resolution 03, i report the resolution back to theouse.
the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 910 and pursuant to house resolution 203 reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the previous question is orded. is a separate vote demanded on an amendment to the amendment reported pr the committee of the whole? if not, the question is on adoption of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it, the amendment is agreed. to the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend the clean air act to prohibit the administrator of the environmental protection agency from promulgating any
regulations concerning taking action relating to or taking into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to clause 1c of rule 19, further proceedings on this bill will be postponed. the house will be in order. the house will be in order. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourn today it adjourn to meet at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow.
the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, the first week of april is national public health week this year's theme, safety to live injury free, highlights the fact that nearly 30 million people are injured severely enough to require emergency room treatment. of those injured, 150,000 died from these unintentional and often preventable injuries which are ranked among the to 10 -- top 10 causes of death to
those between age 1s and 44. these injuries account for 12% of annual medical spending in the united states, totaling as much as $65 billion each year. these statistics highlight a critical public health challenge for the 21st century. for that reason, i introduced h.res. 27 which recognizes the first week of april as national public health week and calls on all americans to take a proactive approach to addressing injuries in our country. i urge my colleagues to co-sponsor h.res. 187. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. are there further requests for one-minute speechs? for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida rise? >> i want to revise and extend my remarks for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. waters: just yesterday, the veterans affairs committee had a hearing where -- ms. brown --
ms. brown: they said because of the possible government shutdown the veterans' pension check mace not go out on time. a the same time my republican colleagues want to extend tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires. just last december, we were supposed to vote on extending the bush tax cut for millionaires and billionaires adding $700 billion to the deficit. the republican plan for the fiscal 2011 budget year as well as the new budget plan just released is nothing more than reverse robin hood. taken from the poor and middle class people to give huge tax breaks to the rich. you know, mr. speaker, you can fool some of the people some of the time but you can't fool all
of the people all of the time. the american people will wake up. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. further requests for one-minute speeches? for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. engel: thankfully this congress rejected the goldstone report. guess what happened last week? judge goldstone said his report was erroneous. what did the report say? it said that israel deliberately targeted civilians in gaza. and that has now been proven not to be true. of course the people in the u.n. that bash israel all the time will continue to pretend
that judge goldstone didn't repudiate his own report but the fact of the matter is, he did. the truth is that it is hamas, the terrorist group that took over the gaza strip, they target israeli civilians all the time. and israel, in trying to protect its own citizens to go and destroy the terrorists' nest the terrorists of hamas build their nests and rockets and munition in-ly populated areas. if civilians die, it's their fault. the goldstone report is a lie. the united nations should kill it once and for all and we should be leading the way. thank you, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman's time -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. are there further requests for one-minute speeches? under the speaker's announced spoil of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from texas, mr.
live in and as we sit here this evening, we have a lot of things that are kind of up in the air about what's going to happen to our country and what's going to happen to our ability to fund the government for the rest of our time. unfortunately, we don't have answers to that question. i wish we did, but we don't. but there's some things that are happening that we ought to talk about because the american people are concerned about what's going on. in some ways they are confused. as we sid here today, we are looking at the possibility on friday night at midnight of there being no more appropriated funds for the operation of the government.
some people call that shutting down the government. but that's the real term, we have no appropriated funds that are available for the operation of the government. and there's already the blame game going on. this blame game is confusing to most americans out there. i think it's kind of important that we start off by trying to explain what is going on up here. i'm going to give you a quick synopsis of what i think has gone on recently. let's start off with the fact that the republicans fully funded the troops and the rest of the federal government through fy-2011, which would be the first of october of this year, with h.r. 1 in march.
the democrats refused that submission. the republicans are ready with a submission today to fully fund our troops through fy-20 -- through f.y. 2011 again next week and come back next week to debate the rest of the budget. it seems we're hearing a message that the senate will -- the democrats will refuse. the house and senate republicans have a bill that will guarantee that troops get their pay without any budget agreement. so far, the democrats have refused. that's a bill that was put together by congressman gohmert and congressman jack kingston. so i guess we can say that -- at least i would offer this as a submission, it seems that the
democrats want to hold our fighting men and women's pay hostage so that they can continue their runaway federal spending because really the debate here in this house today and in the senate, which is down away if us, is are we going to continue to spend like drunken sailors as usual? or are we going to take a hard look at what this government's doing and try to turn this ship of state to a ship of state that is moving in a direction of saving the american people from this runaway spending. the president has submitted us a budget proposal which is -- which carries almost $1.5 trillion of deficit spending involved in it. what this house is trying to do is change the mood and the attitude of where this congress sits on the issue of spending.
it's time for us to take a long, hard look and i would argue if people could have taken the time and watched the debate when we sent our first submission over to the senate, which was h r. 1, there was an extensive debate that went on for hours and hours and hours on the floor of this house with both sides participating as to what we would and would not submit in the way of cutting certain amounts of spending and there were multiple, multiple votes. this is after the same idea has been vetted in other forums like our committee system. and yet when it was sent to the senate, it was dead on arrival and the only thing they can offer as an alternative to the submission we gave them was $6 billion worth of cuts. which they even voted down they
didn't pass that. they weren't even willing to take their meager little $6 billion versus our $60-plus billion that we proposed to them. and everybody says, where's the give and take? well, why aren't you working together, congress? what's wrong with you people? well, when one side does a whole bunch of work, sends over to the other side, they say they don't like it, they reject it and we wait and we wait and we wait and we wait for them to submit something back so we can discuss it, we've been waiting a long time now and we still haven't got continue back. and we've gone through two short-term c.r.'s to give them the opportunity to go vote on some things in the senate. i know they're slow. i mean, we all know they're slow. but we don't even see the
democrat majority in the senate even trying to take things to the floor for a vote on getting us an idea of where they would stand on cutting spending. now, they love to do press releases out of smoke-filled rooms and come back from white house meetings with the president and tell us oh, we've got this deal which our side certainly didn't agree to and dropping -- and actually doing this so-called democracy inside of the press, instead of doing it by sitting down across the table or passing a bill with that we can look at and exam and -- examine and see if we can't work out that bill and maybe get to conference, to do something under normal course of business here has not been available. senator reid just said dead on arrive. dead on arrival. keep trying, dead on arrival.
and what that requires is for the house members to, first off what they're really looking to do is give up our principles because of threats of this government closing down. i want to make it very clear, i have heard this ever since this debate started, the leadership of the republican and the house of representatives has stated consistently, every time john boehner steps up to the microphone, we do not want to shut down the government. and i will tell you, if people are listening with a tight ear, they will find out that any conversation about shutting down the government has always originated from the other side of the aisle where the democrats tell us, watch out, they're going to shut down the government, watch out, they're going to shut down the government. we're saying, no, we're not. we're trying to get to you
respond to us and let us know what you think is the right thing for us to do to try to do something about this overwhelming debt, this overwhelming deficit, this gigantic leap and the debt that we're going to face in the future. just look at this chart. and you see -- and you've seen it before, i've had it here twice. here's 2010. so 2012's about right there. -- 2011's right about there. look at 2051. look. 300%. plus. right now we're at 100% here. that was during the second world war. this is where we've done ever since the second world war. all of a sudden with the projections that president obama has given us as to what he perceives as the right path for america, bam, that red line goes up and that red block comes there and that's what our children and grandchildren are going to have to deal with. and we honestly believe that
that takes this country and changes the very nature of what makes america great because it wipes out any opportunity that possibly our children and our grandchildren could look forward to when they are overwhelmed with debt. have you ever heard the debate that goes on amongst college parents? among college student when is they graduate from college these days? and they're faced with $100,000 or $200,000 worth of debt to pay for these expensive college educations we've got out there and they borrowed all the money and how they are overwhelmed with debt to the point where they look at their salaries that are being offered them and they say, holy cow, if this is what my revenues are going to be, my income's going to be, i will never pay off this student loan. how many -- i know that i've heard it from hundreds of kids, because i used to teach sunday school at that age. and they came back from college
saying, i can't believe i got this much debt to pay off before i even start making a living. well, that's meager compared to what this congress, if we don't change the way we do business, is going to do to our children. and our grandchildren. college debt's going to look like a walk in the park compared to that kind of accelerated debt that's going to be placed on every human being that calls themselves an american. this is frightening. it's more frightening when you think what this congress really needs to be about and is about over here on our side, and i would hope on the other side, too, is finding jobs for the american people. now, what do the job creators think when they see this? people who run businesses, small businesses or large, they look at the projected future of the economy and they make decisions as to why they hire people for
very simple reasons. you hire someone to advance your business with. you don't hire them because you're a nice guy. you don't hire them because someone gives you an incentive to hire them. you hire them because ultimately they are going to improve your productivity or your bottom line. that's why labor is infused into anything that people do. most people start out with a small business, it's all them and maybe they're fame -- their family. and then when they hire that first employee, they don't hire them just because they like that kid across the street, they hire them because that first employee is going to make their business do better. now, if they're looking at the accumulated debt being put upon them by this government, and they look at what projected debt they have to deal with, what they have to handle, where they think they're revenues are going to be, what solutions are going to be for this debt in the way of tax increases, they have to
say, whoa, until somebody gets a handle on this stuff, we're looking at a world that i'm not sure i want to hire anybody else in. this is not rocket science, this is very simple. you hire to prosper. if you're afraid, prosperity is not going to be a result of the hiring, you don't hire. i would argue, and i think it's an argument that's made by many, many economists and many, many editorial writers, that the fear of the unknown and the known that you think you see by the way the government is proceeding, keeps a lot of people from hiring other folks. i think that's common sense. i think anybody that knows anything about business can realize that. so this looms over everybody. and we're starting with something -- i saw a cartoon up here in washington, many of you may have seen it.
it was the gigantic elephant's bebehind sitting on a scale. and it had written across the back of it, national debt. and then on the very top of the backside of that elephant was a band-aid about the size of -- wrap around my little finger, it had an arrow that said, spending cuts. the reality is what the republicans have proposed in terms of spending cuts as they relate to the gigantic mess that we're in is just that tiny little band-aid and yet, and yet this very meager proposal of changing the way we spend money has been rejected out of hand by the harry reid democrats over in the senate and by our colleagues in the house and it is on every submission that we've made, on every attempt we've made to
negotiate, on every time we have said, senator, how about y'all getting together and come up with an alternative? and it's just no, you're dead on arrival, we'll talk at the white house behind closed doors, we'll talk in smoke-filled rooms, whatever. smoked-filled rooms probably dates me a little bit but there's still some smokers around here. ok, now, where are we tonight? i think where we are tonight, i am optimistic about what -- where we are tonight and the world may be sitting out there pessimistic, but i'm optimistic. because first and foremost, i honestly believe that we're going to do everything at least in our power to try to get us to come up with a solution for this small spending cut bill of $60-plus-billion that we've put forward that as compared to that
elephant's behind is nothing. and we're going to get it done before we have to shut -- before this -- we've run out of time and before we run out of appropriations and the government starts to wind down. but i'm more optimistic than that because i'm very optimistic at the fact that paul ryan and the budget committee of this house have put forward a proposal that is like, you ought to have the hallelujah chore us in the background when they introduced it saying hallelujah. because it was finally a budget that wasn't the same old budget, how can we jack every spending level up and how can we figure a way to raise some taxes to make that work? no, it's a budget that says, this budget is going to be about prosperity and preserving the america we love for our generations to come. if that's not something as we come up on this deadline, we should make us nervous and it
does make me nervous but the big picture is our budget committee has put a revolutionary budget out for discussion and that budget is worth joy on behalf of the american people. because what it does is it says to the people around us that there are some good ideas we ought to try. i'm joined with many of my colleagues here today and i want to give them all an opportunity to say -- but so let me finish up at least this short part of talking here. today where we are is a very simple place. we have to make sure our troops get paid, with miniscule cuts or -- and then continue this debate so we can try to get a resolution next week with, or are we going to reject out of hand as now harry reid is making
public statements to say and the president in atlanta supposedly said he would veto this proposal, reject out of hand to say, we want our troops to suffer, we don't care whether they're getting shot at. we don't care. we're ready to let them get shot at and do without pay. and men and women who have been risking their lives for over 10 years so that we can stand in this chamber and talk, we ought to be ashamed of ourselves to even considering not doing something, all of us ought to be wanting to do something to make sure that those folks get their paychecks, their spouse and children back home don't suffer while they suffer the ponlt of being killed or maim -- the possibility of being killed or maimed on our behalf. and that's what this vote, this day and tomorrow, is all about. the deadline is friday night at midnight. we're asking our senators to reconsider rejecting out of hand
what we are sending over and consider it in light of that mama back home with a child on her hip telling the creditors, we have no money to pay you and i'm sorry, my husband can't talk to you, he's over in afghanistan in the mountains trying to stay alive. or he's flying missions into libya trying to stay alive. so, i think we really need to know, that's where we are in time and the other is stuff we're going to be talking about. i don't know who would like to -- whoever would like to step up , grab the microphone and let's talk. my friend from virginia, step up, tell us what you got to say. >> thank you, representative carter. i thank you and representative gohmert for your leadership in putting forth a bill to make sure we address this issue of military pay for our men and women in uniform.
we shouldn't even be here tonight. we should be having before us a spending decision that doesn't call into question whether or not we can pay our men and women in uniform. that's absolutely reprehensible. it's clear that this spending discussion needs to be focused and needs to be focused on making sure that we're getting our troops paid. bottom line, period. you know, i had the opportunity a couple of weeks ago to travel to afghanistan and i had the privilege there to visit with a young man who's a lieutenant colonel in the air force. i had met his family ermier in a little town, i was there for a pancake breakfast one morning there at a middle school and i had a chance to see his family there and i talked to his wife and i met his children and they told me that their father was deployed down range and i asked where he was and they gave me the information, i said, well, listen, i'm going to be going there soon. i want to make sure i have a chance to visit him. i was able to go down range and visit this fine lieutenant colonel that's doing great job for this nation there under very trying conditions there in afghanistan, had a chance to
thank him for his service and had a chance to also, when i got back, to call his wife and to thank her and her family for their sacrifice and for them staying back home here in anxiety as their father and husband served down range. folks, i cannot imagine being in a situation to look that lieutenant colonel in the eye and say, thank you for your service, thank you for your sacrifice but we don't think enough about what you're doing i think -- doing to have the back bone to stand and make sure you get paid. how, when you look at their family, that mother at home, those children whose father and husband are down range being deployed and to look them in the eye and say, thanks ifor -- thanks for your sacrifice but by the way, we're not going to be to be able to make a
decision up to to make sure you get a paycheck that supports your family in years to come. i cannot imagine how we're letting ourselves get to that point. there's a lack of fortitude to make sure we get this done and get it done now. just as representative carter said, the time is now. this needs to get done. we have a deadline of friday, this congress needs to act and get this done. as you pointed out, we have a spending problem here. it is clear that spending is absolutely out of control. mr. carter: would the gentleman yield for a moment? the gentlelady wishes to present something from the rules committee. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose -- for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i send to the desk a privilege red port from the committee on rules for filing under the rules. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: resolution to
accompany report 206, making appropriations for the department of defense for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2011 and for other purposes and waiving a requirement of clause 6a of rule 13 with respect to consideration of certain amendments reported from the committee on rules. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house kallen car and ordered printed. mr. carter: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. wittman, i yield back to you. thank you for the interruption. ms. wittman: thank you, mr. carter. it's an honor to have ms. foxx here to report that from the rules committee. as we've said, there's a spending problem we need to address, we're on an unsustainable path, this has to be done, the decision has to be done on time. the american people expect leadership from this congress. as the speaker said, we can't continue to negotiate with ourselves.
we have to have folks on the other side of the aisle that are willing and able to say, yes, we're going to get these things done. there's at least a counterproposal, instead of saying no, no, no. there has to be more to this than no. our goal is to cut spending and reduce the size of government. it's not to shut it down. i know you hear out there, people want to shut it down. that's the last thing we want to do. we want to make sure our military get paid. that's the bottom line. we have to get this done as soon as possible. my question is, is congress in washington, d.c. so out of touch that we don't get it? that we don't get what the american people sent us here to do, what they want us to accomplish. do they expect from us that we're going to forego a budget and not ensure that our military families get paid? i think that's not the case. they want to make sure we act and i want to make sure we act and get things done. i think we ought to bypass the
72-hour review rule and get this done out of respect for our member and -- men and women in uniform. again, i want to thank my keegs, mr. carter and mr. gohmert for their leadership in bringing this bill forward to ensure our military get their pay. i'm a proud co-sponsor of that act because i think it's the responsible way to go about getting things done. i was eager to join 80 of my colleagues to sign a letter to senate majority leader harry reid to let him know this needs to get done, we need to pay our men and women in uniform. in my district, what we call america's first district, we have a proud tradition of military there, a number of people that served this country and are now retired or in active duty. we have a great military presence there. i got a call the other day from a mother in stafford county and she said, my husband is an active duty military officer and if i understand the news correctly if this budget isn't passed by april 8, 2011, the military will be expected to
work and will not be paid until the budget has been passed. my family will struggle and i'm concerned about how i'm going to pay my mortgage and feed my family. if the military is asked to work without pay, you will be causing severe stress on our families. and as a spouse who has endured my husband's deployment in iraq four times, i know the thought of not getting paid would be making me sick. i also know that i would not be able to talk to my husband about this concern because i wouldn't want him to worry. please work hard and pass the budget. i'm counting on you. folks, there's so many people out there that are counting on us, counting on congress to stand up and do what is needed to be done to make sure that our military families get paid to make sure we adopt a budget, to make sure we get this country on the right track to reduce spending. the time has come for us to get that done.
our military members out there do a fantastic job for this country. it's unconscionable to think about them worrying about not getting paid or for folks down range to be thinking about what's happening here in washington rather than being able to focus on their mission down range. we need to get this done. our military families serve this nation with honor, with distinction, and without question, and they are there performing flawlessly and they don't have to, i think, be expected to have that uncertainty about what's going to happen here in the future. so i want to make sure that this bill gets done and that we take away any worry from a military -- from military families or folks serving down range. the military families need to worry about the everyday necessities of life, not about getting paid and to make sure they can meet those necessities and our men and women down range need to be focusing on the mission they have -- mission they have at hand. just as mr. carter said, our military and their families have been to war for almost 10
years. some of them on their fifth, sixth, and seventh deployment. you know, we need to keep in mind the sacrifice that those families make and know that great job that they're doing, the hard work they put forward, it's time for us to show the same resolve here and get this budget done and make sure that we, without question, assure that our military families are paid, that our men and women that serve down range get the respect that they deserve from this body here in congress. so mr. carter, i thank you for your leadership, mr. gohmert, i thank him for his leadership for making sure this is first and foremost in our minds about ensuring that our military gets paid. with that, i yield back. mr. carter: i thank you very much for those comments. i want to point out, i have here the ensuring pay for our military act of 2011. mr. gohmert is the co-sponsor of this, along with jack kingston. i was worried about louie, he was here a minute ago, he left,
i'm going to recognize mrs. noem to discuss with me, i yield her whatever time she needs, then we'll get mr. gohmert for a minute. mrs. noem: i appreciate that, i thank the gentleman for yielding to me. i'm one of the new members of congress that has first come here today, this is the first opportunity i've had to give a special order and i cannot think of a better reason to be here tonight than to make sure our military men and women have the opportunity to receive pay for their hard work and service to our country. i think it's important that we focus on all of the important things this congress is doing and the important thing this is republican conference and the house is doing because we recognize that from the very beginning, we took every action possible to ensure that our military could get paid. we started with our first bill that addressed the spending problems that this country has. h.r. 1, we brought it to the house floor, we changed the way that this house does business by having an open process on the house floor. hundreds of amendments were offered. and that bill ensured that
paying our military was a priority from us. it got the job done. it did the work that the previous congress did not do. the previous congress did not choose to make that a priority. they did not choose to wrap up the business of fiscal year 2011. they left that for us to do. and then they left us in a big hole as far as the debt this country is accumulating. we came in as the adults at the table. when our president talks about having adult conversations, addressing the spending in this country and addressing the budget resolution we need to come to, the only ones doing that from the beginning have been the republicans in the house. we came with h.r. 1, with real spending cuts that would put us on a much better path that funded our military because we wanted to take care of them. we recognized that their families were at home while their spouses and family members were at war and they were trying to make ends meet while that was going on. i feel that the democrats are holding our troops hostage, that they truly are, because
they choose to do that so they can spend more money. they choose to hold them hostage and their pay hostage because they want to help this country accumulate more debt. it's unacceptable. we've voted to fully fund their pay, to fund our troops through fiscal year 2011, through h.r. 1, and we're still dedicated to that and still pursuing that because it's a high priority for us. i'll tell you that the department of defense is allowed to continue operations. without appropriations because of its authority to protect the national security. but i'll also tell you that military personnel are scheduled to receive their paychecks on april 15. now if this government truly does shut down if it truly does shut down tomorrow night, they will only receive one week's pay instead of the two they are owed. and that is not right. when you look at people who are at war overseas, standingen on that wall so we can sleep safely in our beds at night and we're telling them we're not going to pay them for doing that, that's truly a travesty
and a travesty we should not arow to happen. if this shutdown was to can't and to continue on and on and they would not be paid, we cannot do that to their families. people talk about the debt that this country accumulates and they recognize the fact that it is a big deficit. they it continues to accumulate. the way i talk about it back home in south carolina is that months -- in south dakota, is that months ago, i talked about the fact that our country borrows 40 cents out of every dollar it spends. just in the few short months since i was talking about that in october or november, we borrow 42 cents out of every dollar. i used to tell my son you owe $42,000, you're responsible for that, that's the amount of our federal debt you're responsible for. just in a few short months, least responsible for $46,000. that poi is 8 years old and he owes that kind of money because of the irresponsibility of this government and the
irresponsibility of the previous congress an the congresses before that that didn't get the spending under control. that's what we're trying to address today and that's why we're making sure we're addressing the spending cuts, we're being much more responsible in what we're proposing and making sure that our military gets funded. i think it's absolutely discouraging to see that we're even having to pursue the priority of funding our military during these times and that it is being held hostage literally through the discussions that have gone on. it doesn't seem reasonable or fair to ask our military men and women to have to worry about the types of situations that they would be put in. many of them live paycheck to paycheck. just like a lot of families are in this recession in america right now. how do they make their car payments? how do they make their housing payments? when they're out there serving their country, we're putting their ability to pay their bills in jeopardy. and we're accumulate manager and more debt in this country
that will only lead to higher inflation, only going to devalue the dollar. i was talking about what that really means. when you audiocassette about what does it mean when the dollar is devalued? what that means is maybe that loaf of bread the military wife needs to go buy next week will someday instead of costing her $2 will cost her $4 or maybe someday $6. so not only are you faced with high inflation, you're going to be faced with a dollar that's not worth as much as it used to be because people many washington, d.c. couldn't have some discipline in their spending habits, couldn't make the tough decisions, on top of all of that, then we're going to keep your spouse's pay. on top of that, we're not going to pay him even though he's risking his life for our country. it absolutely is wrong and needs to top. mortgages don't stop, car payments don't stop, how do we payments don't stop, how do we expect the men and women to