[Pages H6419-H6426]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

TRANSPARENCY IN REGULATORY ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS ON THE NATION ACT OF
2011

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on H.R. 2401.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Womack). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 406 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 2401.

{time} 0920

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2401) to require analyses of the cumulative and
incremental impacts of certain rules and actions of the Environmental
Protection Agency, and for other purposes, with Mr. Dold (Acting Chair)
in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday,
September 22, 2011, all time for general debate pursuant to House
Resolution 406 had expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered
read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:

H.R. 2401

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Transparency in Regulatory
Analysis of Impacts on the Nation Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. COMMITTEE FOR THE CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS OF REGULATIONS
THAT IMPACT ENERGY AND MANUFACTURING IN THE
UNITED STATES.

(a) Establishment.--The President shall establish a
committee to be known as the Committee for the Cumulative
Analysis of Regulations that Impact Energy and Manufacturing
in the United States (in this Act referred to as the
``Committee'') to analyze and report on the cumulative and
incremental impacts of certain rules and actions of the
Environmental Protection Agency, in accordance with sections
3 and 4.
(b) Members.--The Committee shall be composed of the
following officials (or their designees):
(1) The Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Chief
Economist.
(2) The Secretary of Commerce, acting through the Chief
Economist and the Under Secretary for International Trade.
(3) The Secretary of Labor, acting through the Commissioner
of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
(4) The Secretary of Energy, acting through the
Administrator of the Energy Information Administration.
(5) The Secretary of the Treasury, acting through the
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environment and Energy of the
Department of the Treasury.
(6) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency.
(7) The Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors.
(8) The Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission.
(9) The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs.
(10) The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration.
(11) The Chairman of the United States International Trade
Commission, acting through the Office of Economics.
(c) Chair.--The Secretary of Commerce shall serve as Chair
of the Committee. In carrying out the functions of the Chair,
the Secretary of Commerce shall consult with the members
serving on the Committee pursuant to paragraphs (5) and (11)
of subsection (b).
(d) Consultation.--In conducting analyses under section 3
and preparing reports under section 4, the Committee shall
consult with, and consider pertinent reports issued by, the
Electric Reliability Organization certified under section
215(c) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824o(c)).
(e) Termination.--The Committee shall terminate 60 days
after submitting its final report pursuant to section 4(c).

SEC. 3. ANALYSES.

(a) Scope.--The Committee shall conduct analyses, for each
of the calendar years 2016, 2020, and 2030, of the following:
(1) The cumulative impact of covered rules that are
promulgated as final regulations on or before January 1,
2012, in combination with covered actions.
(2) The cumulative impact of all covered rules (including
covered rules that have not been promulgated as final
regulations on or before January 1, 2012), in combination
with covered actions.
(3) The incremental impact of each covered rule not
promulgated as a final regulation on or before January 1,
2012, relative to an analytic baseline representing the
results of the analysis conducted under paragraph (1).
(b) Contents.--The Committee shall include in each analysis
conducted under this section the following:
(1) Estimates of the impacts of the covered rules and
covered actions with regard to--
(A) the global economic competitiveness of the United
States, particularly with respect to energy intensive and
trade sensitive industries;
(B) other cumulative costs and cumulative benefits,
including evaluation through a general equilibrium model
approach;
(C) any resulting change in national, State, and regional
electricity prices;
(D) any resulting change in national, State, and regional
fuel prices;
(E) the impact on national, State, and regional employment
during the 5-year period beginning on the date of enactment
of this Act, and also in the long term, including secondary
impacts associated with increased energy prices and facility
closures; and
(F) the reliability and adequacy of bulk power supply in
the United States.
(2) Discussion of key uncertainties and assumptions
associated with each estimate.
(3) A sensitivity analysis.
(4) Discussion, and where feasible an assessment, of the
cumulative impact of the covered rules and covered actions
on--
(A) consumers;
(B) small businesses;
(C) regional economies;
(D) State, local, and tribal governments;
(E) local and industry-specific labor markets; and
(F) agriculture,

[[Page H6420]]

as well as key uncertainties associated with each topic.
(c) Methods.--In conducting analyses under this section,
the Committee shall use the best available methods,
consistent with guidance from the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs and the Office of Management and Budget
Circular A-4.
(d) Data.--In conducting analyses under this section, the
Committee--
(1) shall use the best data that are available to the
public or supplied to the Committee by its members, including
the most recent such data appropriate for this analysis
representing air quality, facility emissions, and installed
controls; and
(2) is not required to create data or to use data that are
not readily accessible.
(e) Covered Rules.--In this section, the term ``covered
rule'' means the following:
(1) The following published rules (including any successor
or substantially similar rule):
(A) ``Federal Implementation Plans To Reduce Interstate
Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone'', published
at 75 Fed. Reg. 45210 (August 2, 2010).
(B) ``National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone'',
published at 75 Fed. Reg. 2938 (January 19, 2010).
(C) ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and
Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters'', published at 76
Fed. Reg. 15608 (March 21, 2011).
(D) ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Area Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and
Institutional Boilers'', published at 76 Fed. Reg. 15554
(March 21, 2011).
(E) ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants from Coal- and Oil-fired Electric Utility Steam
Generating Units and Standards of Performance for Fossil-
Fuel-Fired Electric Utility, Industrial-Commercial-
Institutional, and Small Industrial-Commercial-Institutional
Steam Generating Units'', signed by Administrator Lisa P.
Jackson on March 16, 2011.
(F) ``Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System;
Identification and Listing of Special Wastes; Disposal of
Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities'',
published at 75 Fed. Reg. 35127 (June 21, 2010).
(G) ``Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for
Sulfur Dioxide'', published at 75 Fed. Reg. 35520 (June 22,
2010).
(H) ``Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Nitrogen Dioxide'', published at 75 Fed. Reg. 6474 (February
9, 2010).
(2) The following additional rules or guidelines
promulgated on or after January 1, 2009:
(A) Any rule or guideline promulgated under section 111(b)
or 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7411(b), 7411(d))
to address climate change.
(B) Any rule or guideline promulgated by the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency, a State, a local
government, or a permitting agency under or as the result of
section 169A or 169B of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7491,
7492).
(C) Any rule establishing or modifying a national ambient
air quality standard under section 109 of the Clean Air Act
(42 U.S.C. 7409).
(f) Covered Actions.--In this section, the term ``covered
action'' means any action on or after January 1, 2009, by the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, a
State, a local government, or a permitting agency as a result
of the application of part C of title I (relating to
prevention of significant deterioration of air quality) or
title V (relating to permitting) of the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), if such application occurs with respect
to an air pollutant that is identified as a greenhouse gas in
``Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for
Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act'',
published at 74 Fed. Reg. 66496 (December 15, 2009).

SEC. 4. REPORTS; PUBLIC COMMENT.

(a) Preliminary Report.--Not later than January 31, 2012,
the Committee shall make public and submit to the Committee
on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and
the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a
preliminary report containing the results of the analyses
conducted under section 3.
(b) Public Comment Period.--The Committee shall accept
public comments regarding the preliminary report submitted
under subsection (a) for a period of 90 days after such
submission.
(c) Final Report.--Not later than August 1, 2012, the
Committee shall submit to Congress a final report containing
the analyses conducted under section 3, including any
revisions to such analyses made as a result of public
comments, and a response to such comments.

SEC. 5. REGULATORY DEFERRAL OF CERTAIN RULES.

(a) No Final Action.--The Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency shall not take final action
with respect to the rule listed in subparagraph (E) of
section 3(e)(1) (relating to national emission standards and
standards of performance for certain electric generating
units) until a date (to be determined by the Administrator)
that is at least 6 months after the day on which the
Committee submits the final report under section 4(c).
(b) Rules Finalized Prior to Enactment.--Notwithstanding
the final action taken with respect to the rule listed in
subparagraph (A) of section 3(e)(1) (relating to Federal
implementation plans to reduce interstate transport of fine
particulate matter and ozone) and final action (if any) taken
with respect to the rule listed in subparagraph (E) of
section 3(e)(1) prior to the date of the enactment of this
Act--
(1) such final action shall not be or become, as
applicable, effective until a date (to be determined by the
Administrator) that is at least 6 months after the day on
which the Committee submits the final report under section
4(c); and
(2) the date for compliance with any standard or
requirement in either such finalized rule, and any date for
further regulatory action triggered by either such finalized
rule, shall be delayed by a period equal to the period--
(A) beginning on the date of the publication of the final
action for the respective finalized rule; and
(B) ending on the date on which such final action becomes
effective pursuant to paragraph (1).
(c) Applicability of Clean Air Interstate Rule During
Interim Period.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
shall continue to implement the Clean Air Interstate Rule and
the rule establishing Federal Implementation Plans for the
Clean Air Interstate Rule as promulgated and modified by the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (70 Fed.
Reg. 25162 (May 12, 2005), 71 Fed. Reg. 25288 (April 28,
2006), 71 Fed. Reg. 25328 (April 28, 2006), 72 Fed. Reg.
59190 (Oct. 19, 2007), 72 Fed. Reg. 62338 (Nov. 2, 2007), 74
Fed. Reg. 56721 (Nov. 3, 2009)) until the date on which final
action with respect to the rule listed in subparagraph (A) of
section 3(e)(1) becomes effective pursuant to subsection
(b)(1).

SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) Authorization.--There are authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this Act for fiscal year 2012--
(1) $3,000,000 to the Department of Commerce, of which not
more than $2,000,000 shall be for carrying out section 3; and
(2) $500,000 to the Environmental Protection Agency.
(b) Offset.--Effective October 1, 2011, section 797(a) of
the Energy Policy Act of 2005, as amended by section 2(e) of
the Diesel Reduction Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-364), is
amended--
(1) by striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2013''; and
(2) by inserting ``$46,000,000 for fiscal year 2012 and''
after ``to carry out this subtitle''.

The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to the committee amendment is in order
except those printed in House Report 112-213. Each such amendment may
be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable
for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by
the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and
shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Welch

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed in House Report 112-213.
Mr. WELCH. I seek to offer the amendment of Mr. Rush of Illinois as
his designee.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

In section 2(b)(3), insert ``and the Deputy Secretary of
Labor'' before the period.
In section 2(b)(4), insert ``and the Deputy Secretary of
Energy'' before the period.
At the end of section 2(b), add the following:
(12) The Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality.
(13) The Secretary of the Interior.
(14) The Secretary of Health and Human Services.
(15) The Director of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention.
(16) The Director of the National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences.
Amend section 2(c) to read as follows:
(c) Chair.--The Secretary of Commerce and the Chair of the
Council on Environmental Quality shall serve as co-chairs of
the Committee. In carrying out the functions of the Chair,
the co-chairs shall consult with the members of the
Committee.
In section 2(d), insert ``stakeholders and relevant
experts, including'' after ``reports issued by,''.
In section 3(b)(1), insert after subparagraph (D) the
following (and redesignate accordingly):
(E) any resulting change in the incidences of asthma and
asthma attacks and other pulmonary disease;
(F) any resulting change in the occurrence of birth and
developmental defects;
(G) any resulting change in the occurrence of premature
mortality;
(H) any resulting change in the occurrence of other adverse
health effects;
(I) the effect on clean energy jobs;
(J) the effect on clean energy companies, including
companies that export clean energy technology;
(K) the effect on regional air quality, including any
resulting change in the impairment of visibility, due to
reduced pollution;
(L) the effect on the water quality of lakes and streams;
(M) any resulting change in the number of work days missed;
(N) any resulting change in the number of school days
missed;
(O) any resulting change in the use of emergency medical
services;
In section 3(b)(4), insert after subparagraph (D) the
following (and redesignate accordingly):
(E) vulnerable subpopulations, including the elderly,
pregnant women, and populations with pulmonary disease;

[[Page H6421]]

(F) the environment, including impacts on global climate
change;
(G) development of infants and children;

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 406, the gentleman
from Vermont (Mr. Welch) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont.
Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, this amendment makes needed changes to the
economic analysis mandated by the underlying bill; but fundamentally
this bill, itself, we believe, is an assault on the Clean Air Act, not
really a bill that requires a study.
The legislation began in committee as a bill to require a new study
on the economic impacts of EPA rules to cut air pollution. At that
point, the bill simply required a burdensome and redundant study of EPA
rules and did not affect any of the rules it proposed to examine.
It changed in committee. The Republican members amended it to
indefinitely delay implementation of two very key rules to reduce power
plant pollution, the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and the Mercury and
Air Toxics Rule.
Now Mr. Whitfield has proposed amending the bill to further eliminate
those rules altogether and prevent EPA from being able to clean up
power plants in the future. Mr. Latta has offered an amendment to force
EPA to listen to polluters' accountants rather than scientists when
setting air quality standards. This bill is now a direct attack on the
heart of the Clean Air Act. That act has saved thousands of lives.
The bill still contains a study on the economic impact of EPA rules,
although I'm not sure why it would do that. The Rush amendment, Mr.
Chairman, would make the study required by this legislation a little
less biased and a little more useful.
The bill creates a new government bureaucracy to conduct a
complicated study of EPA rules. It's not necessary. In addition, the
bill ensures that the final study will be unbalanced and inherently
biased. It's one thing to take a hard look at regulations. It's another
thing to cook the outcome of that examination.
The Rush amendment ensures that the committee will look at both the
costs and the benefits of EPA rules.
The bill's supporters originally presented this bill as a means to
gather more facts on key EPA rules. As amended by the Republicans, it's
increasingly clear that the facts really don't matter.
I support the Rush amendment, but I remain staunchly opposed to final
passage of the bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I rise in opposition to this amendment for a number of
reasons. First of all, the TRAIN Act, the underlying bill that we're
talking about here, applies to 14 regulations of EPA. It does not delay
in any way any of those regulations, except for two, and that's
referred to as the Utility MACT and the Cross-State Air Transport Rule.
And even on those two acts, it only delays the Cross-State Transport
Rule by 3 years, and it delays the Utility MACT by 1 year.
The whole purpose of the TRAIN Act is simply to look more closely at
the cumulative impact on jobs, on electricity prices, on American
competitiveness in the global marketplace. EPA has done a very thorough
job on most of these regulations in calculating benefits, but they had
not looked closely in all of them on cost. Under the TRAIN Act, we're
simply asking this independent government agency to look at all costs
and all benefits.
Another reason that I would speak in opposition to this amendment,
one of the things that it requires this independent body to do is to
examine the effect on green energy companies. Now, there's nothing in
the TRAIN Act that's selecting one industry to give some favorable
treatment to, and that's particularly what this amendment does.
I might add, on green energy, the green energy industry has received
increases of 153 percent of subsidies. Subsidies have increased 153
percent for green energy. So I don't think that they should be
receiving some special benefit from this Rush amendment; and that's why
I would oppose it, and I would ask all Members to oppose it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WELCH. How much time do I have?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Vermont has 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. WELCH. Thank you.
I want to talk a little bit about the Clean Air Act, Mr. Chair. We
have power plants that are coal-burning and emit toxins into the air.
That's not in dispute. But the attack on any kind of regulation says
that if there's any expense associated with providing health and safety
to the people downwind of the polluting emitting power plants, they're
on their own. They've got to breathe that air, and it's their problem.
Now, I live in Vermont; and the coal-burning plants, the air all
comes and falls in Vermont. The Clean Air Act has had tremendous
success in actually cleaning up some of these power plants.
Now, of course there's some expense associated with burning clean;
but there's also, as you know, Mr. Chair, an enormous cost associated
with burning dirty. It may be cheaper for the power plant owner, and it
might even be cheaper for the electricity users of that power plant;
but the costs associated with the health, the safety, the environmental
impacts are simply off-loaded by the polluter on to the innocent
members of society who are downwind of the mercury-spewing polluting
plants.
So, sure, we can have some debate about what should be the proper
expense. But should we really have a debate that it is illegitimate for
the Federal Government to take actions, regulatory and legislative,
that protect the health and safety of innocent people?
The law of physics has air-carrying pollutants going in the direction
that nature sends it, and that means everybody downwind gets affected.
It's really astonishing that in the legitimate effort to ask legitimate
questions about whether a regulation is serving a useful purpose,
whether the regulation achieves the intended goal, whether there's a
way to achieve that goal at less expense, those are all fair questions.
But to abolish the regulations altogether, to suggest that everybody
who will be affected by mercury pollution has no remedy and cannot look
to the Federal Government to provide them with some protection for
their health, for the health of their children, that's extreme, and
it's unacceptable, and it's expensive.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. May I ask how much time I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky has 3 minutes.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, I would say first to the distinguished gentleman
that while we're delaying this Cross-State Air Transport Rule, we have
in effect today the CAIR Act, which has been in effect since 2005. The
EPA itself has said that this act that is currently controlling the
cross-wind interstate movements will reduce sulfur dioxide and
NO<inf>X</inf> emissions by 57 and 63 percent respectively. That
regulation is still going to be in effect.
I would also remind everyone that EPA, when they implemented the CAIR
Act, pointed out that it would have $100 billion in health benefits
each year, preventing 17,000 premature deaths, 22,000 nonfatal heart
attacks, 12,300 hospital admissions, 1.7 million lost workdays, 500,000
lost school days, and it goes on to all of the benefits.

{time} 0930

Simply because a court invalidated the CAIR Act because EPA was
looking at a regional program rather than at a State-by-State program
does not mean that this is not an effective regulation that's in
existence today. Even many environmental groups actually supported EPA
in opposing the effort to invalidate the CAIR Act. EPA made strong
arguments that the CAIR Act was adequate.
So all we're doing is trying to delay this cross-State rule. As I
said, even respected independent analyses have indicated that these two
rules--the Utility MACT and the Cross-State Air Transport Rule--will
have a net effect of a loss of 1.4 million jobs and will increase
electric utility bills by 23 percent.

[[Page H6422]]

Now, at a time when our economy is so weak and when we're trying to
create jobs, we simply wanted to look at it more closely and give EPA a
little bit more time. That's all that we're trying to do with our act,
and that's why we're very much opposed to the Rush amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. McNerney

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in House Report 112-213.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 6, line 22, strike ``; and'' and insert a semicolon.
Page 6, line 24, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
Page 6, after line 24, insert the following new
subparagraph:
(G) the effect on clean energy jobs and clean energy
companies, including companies that export clean energy
technology.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 406, the gentleman
from California (Mr. McNerney) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer a simple and
straightforward amendment to H.R. 2401.
My amendment will help make sure that the reports required by H.R.
2401 are fair--not skewed to support the majority's favorite talking
points. It's critical that the reports look at the beneficial
consequences of environmental protection, including the fact that good
environmental policies create jobs in the clean energy sector.
I reject the argument that the majority is making here today.
Contrary to what we've heard members of the majority say over and over
during today's debate, policies that protect our environment also
create jobs. They create good family-wage jobs.
Before I came to Congress, I spent my career as a clean energy
engineer. I helped design windmills that overlooked my congressional
district in California, and I've seen hundreds of jobs created in the
clean energy sector; but to my great distress, I also watched many of
those jobs get shipped overseas to places like Germany because our
country did not have the right policies in place to support that
industry.
I am committed to creating jobs and seeing more goods produced right
here in America, a goal I am confident that every Member of this
Chamber shares. The clean energy industry is poised to lead the way but
only if we make the right decisions. Policies that promote a clean,
healthy environment create new incentives for investments in clean
energy, creating thousands of jobs, supporting new industries,
promoting exports, and benefiting public health.
My amendment simply ensures that we include the job-creating effects
of environmental policies on the clean energy sector in the reports
provided by this bill. I am confident that a fair, unbiased assessment
of environmental rules will show that they also create good, family-
wage, clean energy jobs. I hope the majority will accept this
amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WHITFIELD. While I have great respect for the gentleman from
California, I would remind everyone that, in his 2008 convention
speech, Barack Obama promised to create 5 million green energy jobs,
and those jobs have not been created.
I would also point out that renewable energy subsidies increased by
186 percent over the last 3 years: from $5.1 billion to $14.7 billion.
The wind industry, for example, received a tenfold increase: from $476
million to $4.986 billion. Solar subsidies increased by more than a
factor of 6: from $179 million to $1.134 billion.
Then we noted that, over at the Department of Energy, there are loan
guarantee programs. As this article in The New York Times stated, they
gave an example of one company that had received $300 million to create
green technology jobs. They ended up creating 150 jobs at a cost of $2
million per job. Now, coal, nuclear, and natural gas still provide
about 95, 96 percent of the electricity produced in America; but the
reason we oppose this amendment is that it also gives special treatment
to green energy. As illustrated by the increase in renewable subsidies
available to them, I think it's quite obvious that government programs
favor green energy right now.
Our position is, with the three basics--coal, nuclear, and natural
gas--providing the base load to create the industrial growth of this
country by providing low-cost electricity, we do not need this
amendment to instruct this independent body to look at specifically the
impact on green energy exporting companies. So, for that reason, I
would oppose the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I don't dispute the facts of my good
friend from Kentucky. Basically what I'm asking is that we make sure
that these jobs are counted, that they're not ignored or looked over,
which is what I'm afraid will happen.
At this point, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my colleague from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I want to emphasize what my friend from California just said. What
the amendment does is to make sure that you add to the analysis the
impact on clean energy jobs and clean energy companies. Why wouldn't
you want to make sure explicitly that that is a part of the analysis?
I invite you to come to Portland, Oregon, where it is, I think, the
wind energy capital. It's making a lot of difference in our community
and across America. Wind energy, for instance, is the fastest growing
in terms of installed capacity, and costs are going down. It is an area
that makes a difference to the economy. What my colleague from
California is urging is to make sure that it's a part of the study.
It is unfortunate that we're to this point this morning anyway. We
started this odyssey in 1990 with the Clean Air Act. After 8 years of
study at EPA, the conclusion was this is a real problem, and the
Clinton administration and the EPA started the rulemaking process. The
Bush administration drug its feet until 2005 with an inadequate
response that was thrown out by the courts. Finally now, after 21
years, we're starting to move forward with something that wouldn't take
effect until 2015. In the meantime, there would be many jobs that would
be available in construction and in clean technology.
At least, at least, at least I hope you're not successful in
stretching this out even further to delay the action; but at a minimum,
you would think that you would want to have a full picture. Look at the
people, like in my community, who are producing product and making it
available for export.
Support this amendment.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 45 seconds
remaining.
Mr. McNERNEY. I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 0940

Mr. WHITFIELD. Does the gentleman from California have the right to
close?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky has the right to close.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Does the gentleman from California have anything else
to say on the amendment?
Mr. McNERNEY. Thank you.
Basically I just want to emphasize I have actually experienced job
creation in the green energy sector. I have seen hundreds if not
thousands of jobs created. I want to make sure we count those jobs. I
don't want this to be a whitewash or anything like that. It's important
that this analysis be open

[[Page H6423]]

and that it be fair and balanced, and that's all that we are asking on
this side.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I would say to the gentleman, we all recognize the
importance of green energy, but there isn't one of these regulations
that we are looking to for an analysis that has any negative impact on
green energy. In fact, every one of these regulations will help green
energy.
And, as I said, the government's philosophy right now is to do
everything possible for green energy, more subsidies, a study going on
all of the time on the impact on the jobs. For that reason, we do not
feel that this amendment is necessary and would ask the Members to
oppose the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Moore

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in House Report 112-213.
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chair, I offer an amendment that is at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 7, after line 10, insert the following new
subparagraphs (and redesignate accordingly):
(E) low-income communities;
(F) public health;

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 406, the gentlewoman
from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.
Ms. MOORE. I do thank you, Mr. Chair.
My amendment would simply ensure the low-income communities and the
public health generally of all Americans are considered in the bill's
section on studies about the impact of this regulation.
I offer this amendment, Mr. Chair, in hopes that we might have an
honest debate, a debate that is inclusive of those most affected by the
very policies that my colleagues are attempting to tie up and, in two
cases, outright prevent.
Let me be frank with you, Mr. Chair. I was born in 1951, and I grew
up gasping for breath most of my life. I grew up in an industrial city,
a manufacturing city in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and I had my first asthma
attack shoveling coal into a furnace and then gasping for breath
because of the smog that was generated from manufacturing. Thank God
for the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments.
We have seen tremendous health benefits over the years, thanks to the
work of the Environmental Protection Agency, and not only the
bureaucracy, but the courts that have made sure the deadlines are
enforced and not simply thrown to the curb. According to a recent EPA
study, we have substantial and hard scientific proof that protecting
our Nation's air quality from hazardous pollutants is a very
substantial benefit.
In 2010, the reductions in fine particle and ozone pollution from the
1990 Clean Air Act amendments prevented more than 160,000 cases of
premature mortality, 130,000 heart attacks, 13 million lost workdays,
and 1.7 million asthma attacks.
We do know that the Clean Air Act regulations by the EPA especially
helped low-income communities who are often impacted by environmental
injustices and other vulnerable populations.
A recent 2-year-old study by the University of Massachusetts and the
University of Southern Carolina analyzed 300 different metropolitan
areas and ranked them based on how pollution affects low-income and
minority communities.
This study cited that air pollution is unevenly distributed within
States as well as between them. A growing body of research has
demonstrated that people of color and low-income communities often face
the greatest environmental hazards. And the area that I represent in
the metro Milwaukee area came in in the top 10 cities in both cases.
I just would like to add my own personal experience to the body of
this research.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I claim time in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I would like to remind everyone once again that the
TRAIN Act is applied to 14 regulations coming out of EPA, and it's
seldom that Congress intervenes in these regulations. But there are so
many of these, and the cost of jobs and the cost of buying the
equipment and the lack of achievability of many of them to meet the
criteria is the reason we want to do this study. I would remind
everyone we do not delay in any way any of these regulations except two
of them.
I would say to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin that I agree with her.
Many of the communities that would most suffer high energy prices and
unemployment as a result of the EPA regulations are those communities
that rely on affordable, reliable, coal-fired energy to light their
homes and run their businesses. These communities are the least able to
afford increased unemployment, increased energy prices, and the illness
that results from unemployment and being unable to afford fuel.
And I might say that when EPA does their analysis, they never look at
the effect of the health of the children of the people working in the
coal mines and the utility plants who lose their jobs, and there is an
impact on it.
But I think this is a good amendment that would help the analysis,
and I would like to tell the lady from Wisconsin we would be happy to
accept this amendment.
Ms. MOORE. I'm sorry. You would be happy to accept it, you say?
Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. MOORE. Well, I do thank the gentleman for accepting this
amendment.
I do repeat that the two parts that this bill had formally included
prior to your accepting my amendment would have made it impossible for
a State that wanted clear air--they would find themselves hopeless
because it would basically eviscerate their ability to prevent
pollution from crossing the border. So I do appreciate the gentleman
accepting my amendment.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I would just like to remind the gentlelady that the
CAIR Act is still in effect. As I read earlier, all the benefits are
there that the EPA said would be there, and it's significantly reduced
NO<inf>X</inf> emissions, SO<inf>X</inf> emissions. We're not doing
anything to change that existing law.
Thank you for making the amendment. As I said, we feel like it will
really help on this study.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Wisconsin
will be postponed.

{time} 0950

amendment no. 4 offered by mrs. capps

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in House Report 112-213.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 7, after line 15, insert the following new paragraph:
(5) Estimates of the impacts of delaying the covered rules
and covered actions on the incidence of birth and
developmental defects and infant mortality.

[[Page H6424]]

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 406, the gentlewoman
from California (Mrs. Capps) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
You know, it's clear that the goal of the TRAIN Act is not simply to
study EPA standards. The goal of the majority is to block the efforts
of EPA to cut mercury and other toxic pollution from dirty power
plants. That's dangerous and it's misguided.
The research is clear, unless EPA enforces these standards, there
will be more premature deaths, more heart and asthma attacks, more
hospital and emergency room visits.
Up until recently, I thought I was safe from this pollution. I don't
live next door to a power plant; I live near the coast of the Pacific
Ocean. But I learned that you don't need to live near a dirty power
plant to be exposed to its harmful effects. I received test results
this summer showing that I have an unsafe level of mercury in my body.
And I'm not alone. Tens of millions of American women of child-bearing
age, and their children, are at risk from mercury and other toxins that
are released into our air each and every year. Every year, hundreds of
thousands of babies are exposed to mercury.
Mercury exposure can cause learning disabilities, developmental
delays, and other developmental problems. We owe it to our children to
clean up toxic mercury pollution, and that's why I'm offering this
amendment.
The amendment would simply require that this committee designate the
analysis of the true costs of including health effects in blocking
EPA's lifesaving clean air safeguards. These costs are clear to mothers
and grandmothers across the Nation--brain damage, developmental
problems, infant deaths. Support my amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WHITFIELD. All of us certainly are concerned about impacts on
children. One of the problems that we have with this amendment is that
when you try to determine specifically what causes a birth defect, for
example, there are lots of different reasons. Folic acid is a B
vitamin. Taking folic acid supplements before getting pregnant and in
early pregnancy lowers the risk of having a baby with serious birth
defects. Drinking alcohol increases the likelihood of serious birth
defects. Smoking. Women who are obese when they get pregnant are at
higher risk of having a baby with serious birth defects. Poor control
of diabetes in pregnant women increases the chance of having a birth
defect. So there's lots of different reasons, and it's difficult to set
out a causal reason.
I would say to the gentlelady from California who we know is
genuinely concerned about these health issues and has distinguished her
career by raising them frequently, the EPA did extensive analysis of
the health benefits of all of these rules with the exception of
greenhouse gas. They didn't do any study on anything there. So we have
a lot of information about the health benefits.
As far as the mercury issue, I would say to the gentlelady that the
Utility MACT, EPA itself said that this would reduce mercury by such a
small amount that it would represent only 0.004 percent of the total
claimed benefits of the rule, and the remaining 99.996 percent would be
due to particulate matter reduction.

And I would also remind the gentlelady that the Department of Energy
and other groups have indicated that 99 percent of mercury deposits in
the U.S. do not come from utility companies, but they originate from
nature and foreign industrial sources in which the wind brings them to
the U.S.
We believe that there's adequate information on health benefits.
Furthermore, the TRAIN Act does ask the independent body to look at
benefits--it can be health, whatever--and cost. For that reason, we
would oppose the gentlelady's amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, power plants
are the biggest industrial source of mercury pollution in the United
States, and I believe that the remarks of the chairman of the Energy
Committee underscore the very reason that we should have the studies of
the health effects included in the study that is requested by the TRAIN
Act.
I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my colleague from Oregon (Mr.
Blumenauer), a champion of livable cities, to speak on this topic.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentlelady's courtesy, and I
appreciate your offering this amendment. My friends on the other side
of the aisle can't have it both ways. There has been a lot of study.
For heaven's sake, EPA has already estimated cost of compliance, less
than $1 billion, and the savings to Americans from lives saved, health
care costs avoided and days of work and school not missed between $120
billion and $280 billion. This is a part of the study effort that has
been going on for 20 years.
We had hoped that on the 25th anniversary of the Clean Air Act in
2015 we would probably have full compliance. Yet we are quibbling here
about things that EPA has been unable to monetize like a birth defect--
but for Heaven's sake, it's serious--in addition to the hundreds of
billions that they can monetize.
It is, I think, unfortunate that if this approach is approved, it
will enable the Chinese to get ahead of us again. Remember, I put in
the Record last night the front page of the Chinese Daily where they
are moving ahead to reduce emissions. They are willing to incur the
costs because of the health benefits, but it's not enough for my
friends on the other side of the aisle to go ahead after 25 years.
I thank the gentlelady.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Does the gentlelady from California have any time
left?
Mrs. CAPPS. May I ask how much time is left?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky has 2\1/2\ minutes. The
gentlewoman from California has 1 minute.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I don't have any other speakers, so I reserve the
balance of my time to close.
Mrs. CAPPS. I am happy to yield my 1 minute to my colleague from
Florida, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a mother of three young children.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the
amendment offered by my friend and colleague, Congresswoman Lois Capps,
and in opposition to the underlying bill--the majority's latest assault
on clean air and public health. I'd like to thank Congresswoman Capps
and all of my colleagues who've spoken in opposition to this bill,
which puts the health of all Americans--especially our children--at
great risk.
This amendment simply requires recognition of the very real health
consequences of air pollution. For example, curbing mercury pollution
will protect children and mothers from toxins that damage a developing
brain.
With this amendment, the required report must assess the effect on
birth and developmental defects and infant mortality rates caused by
the delay in better clean air standards. What's wrong with that? Who
could be opposed to that?
For such a small additional effort, this assessment would provide
crucial information affecting the health of all American families.
As a mother of three young children, whose health is among my
absolute greatest concerns, I urge my colleagues who are parents and
grandparents to take a moment and consider the impacts of this bad
bill.
Delaying EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards will have serious
consequences on their children and grandchildren. Remember that we are
their first line of defense in this world.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this good amendment and
opposing the underlying bill.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I would remind everyone just once again that we're
talking about 14 regulations. We're not delaying 12 of them in any way.
We're asking for further analysis of two of them. For that reason, I
would oppose the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

[[Page H6425]]

The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Kinzinger of Illinois

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5
printed in House Report 112-213.
Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of section 3(e)(2), add the following:
(D) Any rule addressing fuels under title II of the Clean
Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7521 et seq.) as described in the Unified
Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions under
Regulatory Identification Number 2060-AQ86, or any
substantially similar rule, including any rule under section
211(v) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(v)).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 406, the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.

{time} 1000

Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. I want to thank my colleague from Texas
(Mr. Gonzalez) for coauthoring this amendment with me to H.R. 2401, the
TRAIN Act. It's an important bipartisan amendment that hits directly on
what Americans, particularly my constituents in Illinois, are facing
every day, the high cost of gasoline.
Later this year, it's expected that the EPA will promulgate rules on
gasoline refiners mandating that they offer sulfur levels and vapor
pressure by 70 percent. This would be even further below the already
low levels mandated in 2004.
In 2004, the EPA's tier 2 rules lowered sulfur and gasoline by 90
percent. The impacts of these new rules could force refineries in the
U.S. to slash their gasoline production by up to 14 percent, leaving
the United States even more dependent on foreign sources of oil.
Our amendment would require the EPA just to study the economic costs
of these new fuel requirements. Before delivering what could be a
devastating blow to the customer and to our economy, the EPA should
first provide data to show lowering the sulfur content will actually
achieve cost-effective, real emissions reductions in air quality and
health and welfare benefits.
Americans are fed up with the volatility in the gasoline markets.
While we may not be able to control the price of oil on the global
market, we can control the cost of regulations on our fuel. Every
dollar that's taken out of the taxpayer pocket due to new regulation is
a dollar that's not going to refuel the American economy.
We need commonsense regulations, and we need to know the impacts of
regulations on families and businesses before they go into effect.
This amendment is a commonsense approach to ensure Americans are
getting the cause-worthy benefits that we need out of regulations. I
urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
At this time it is my honor to yield 2 minutes to my distinguished
colleague from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez), coauthor of the amendment.
Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I extend my thanks to my
colleague from Illinois for joining me in cosponsoring what I believe
is a very important amendment.
We offered this amendment because we have concerns with EPA's intent
to proceed with a tier 3 rulemaking which would establish new fuel
specification standards without justifying it with the sufficient data
that has already been called to be conducted under a study in a
previous bill.
In 2007, Congress included a provision in the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007 that directed EPA to study and implement fuel
changes to negate any detrimental air quality impact resulting from the
renewable fuel standard. EPA has not conducted this required study.
I am concerned that EPA may be moving too quickly with tier 3
regulations. EPA should complete the study first and provide for
adequate comment and feedback from stakeholders before proceeding with
the proposed rule. Any proposed changes to gasoline sulfur content and
vapor pressure should be backed by sound data. These reductions must be
justified because they have real costs. I have concerns about the
effects these new regulations could have on refiners. These costs could
result in decreased gasoline supplies and possible refinery closures,
both of which could undermine our Nation's energy security.
Our amendment simply adds any proposed tier 3 rulemaking to the list
of regulations where EPA must conduct additional analyses, as outlined
in TRAIN. This additional study will ensure that all of the costs and
impacts are known before EPA proceeds with its proposal.
I hope my colleagues in the House can support this straightforward
amendment. It simply calls on an agency to simply do that which it was
directed to do years ago before proceeding and not to basically proceed
before you have the vital information on which to base some very
important regulations.
Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. RUSH. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. RUSH. Thank you.
Even if this amendment passes to improve the study of EPA rules, that
will not address the underlying problems with this bill. Proponents of
this bill imply that it simply requires EPA to study the cumulative
impact of EPA rules. That is false. What began as a bill to study EPA
rules has morphed into a bill to actually block the EPA rules. In fact,
the bill blocks and indefinitely delays two of the most important air
pollution rules in decades.
First, the bill blocks EPA from finalizing a proposed rule to cut
toxic air pollution from power plants, which are the most egregious and
the largest source of toxic mercury pollution in our Nation. Mercury is
dangerous in small amounts, and mercury can damage the developing
brains of infants and children.
The proposed rule would prevent more than 90 percent of the mercury
in coal from being emitted into the air. The rule also would reduce
fine particle emissions by more than a quarter, producing tremendous
widespread health benefits.
For each year this bill delays the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards
rule, it will allow up to an additional 17,000 premature deaths,
120,000 cases of asthma, and 850,000 days when people miss work due to
illness.
But that's not all. The bill also blocks the EPA from implementing
the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule to require 27 States to reduce power
plant emissions that pollute the air in downwind States.
Each year of delay in implementing this rule will produce up to an
additional 35,000 premature deaths, 400,000 cases of asthma, and 1.8
million days when people will miss work or school due to illness.
The benefits of these rules far exceed the costs. For the Cross-State
Air Pollution Rule alone, the pollution reductions will yield annual
health benefits that outweigh the rule's costs by up to 350 to 1.
The bill still creates a new government bureaucracy to produce a
study of EPA rules, but this study is just a Trojan horse to disguise
the true intent of this legislation: to block and delay two important
EPA rules to protect public health from air pollution.
The bill that emerged from committee already is a horrible, terrible
bill. But it promises to get even worse, significantly worse, as my
Republican colleagues amend this horrible and horrendous bill before
us.
Mr. Whitfield himself has offered amendments that completely nullify
the two power plant rules and force EPA to start all the way back to
the beginning, to start from scratch--but with new limits on what the
agency can do to reduce pollution. According to the EPA administrator,
these changes could prevent the EPA from ever reissuing these same
rules, deny them far into the future from ever reissuing these same
rules.

[[Page H6426]]

Mr. Latta has offered an amendment that strikes at the heart of the
Clean Air Act by requiring the EPA to prioritize cost over public
health when setting national air quality standards. These standards
form the foundation of why we have been able to clean up air pollution,
and Mr. Latta wants to throw it out the window.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. RUSH. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, can I inquire as to how much
time I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 1 minute.
Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. I yield the balance of my time to my good
friend from Texas (Mr. Green).
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I thank my colleague from Illinois for
yielding to me.
The EPA is currently developing a tier 3 rulemaking that would
further reduce sulfur levels in gasoline to an average of 10 parts per
million, a 70 percent change from today's already low standards, while
reducing the gasoline volatility.

{time} 1010

The EPA is expected to issue a proposed rule by the end of this year.
The problem we have is that in the Energy Independence and Security Act
of 2007, section 209 required the EPA to conduct a study 18 months
after the enactment to determine whether the renewable fuels required
by the section would adversely impact air quality and not later than 3
years after that enactment. The problem is EPA has not finished that
study we require them to conduct even before these new regulations. Now
they're moving forward with a rule with a half-baked study, and that's
why I support this amendment to the TRAIN Act, Mr. Chairman. This is
not a delay amendment. This is just to make sure we don't get the cart
in front of the horse, and we need to have that study finished before
the EPA moves forward with that sulfur criteria.
That's why I support my colleague from Illinois' and my colleague
from Texas' amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois
will be postponed.
The Committee will rise informally.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kinzinger of Illinois) assumed the
chair.

____________________