Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
FISCAL YEAR 2012 INTERIOR
APPROPRIATIONS AND ANY
ANTI-PUBLIC HEALTH AND
ANTI-AMERICAN AMENDMENTS THAT
MAY BE OFFERED.
I THANK YOU AND I YIELD BACK
THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE GENTLEWOMAN FROM
THE *** ISLANDS YIELDS BACK
HER TIME.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA RISE?
I MOVE TO STRIKE
THE LAST WORD.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
GEORGIA, MR. JOHNSON, IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER.
I RISE IN OPPOSITION TO THIS
BILL WHICH GUTS LONG-STANDING
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY.
UNFORTUNATELY THIS IS NOT THE
ONLY THING THAT'S WRONG WITH
AMERICA TODAY.
ONCE AGAIN, SPEAKER BOEHNER AND
THE G.O.P. ARE PUTTING THE
NEEDS OF THE FEW RIGHT-WING
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AHEAD OF
ORDINARY, HARDWORKING, EVERYDAY
AMERICANS, MANY OF WHOM LIT UP
THE PHONE LINES YESTERDAY IN
RECORD NUMBERS TO EXPRESS THEIR
DISGUST WITH REPUBLICAN
INTRANSIGENTS THAT'S HOLDING
OUR NATION AND INTERNATIONAL
MARKETS HOSTAGE.
NOT ONLY DID THEY CALL IN
RECORD NUMBERS, BUT 50 TO 60
PEOPLE CAME TO MY DISTRICT
OFFICE YESTERDAY TO SHOW THEIR
SUPPORT FOR A BALANCED APPROACH
TO SOLVING THIS DEBT CEILING
ISSUE.
I ALSO RECEIVED A PETITION WITH
OVER 1,500 NAMES BIGGING THAT
WE PROTECT SOCIAL SECURITY, BUT
STILL AGAINST THE URGENT PLEAS
OF INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS, WALL STREET
EXECUTIVES, MILLIONS OF
AMERICANS WHO CAN ILL-AFFORD
ANY REDUCTION IN THEIR ABILITY
TO BORROW OR AN INCREASE IN
INTEREST RATES FOR CAR, HOME OR
STUDENT LOANS, REPUBLICANS
CONTINUE TO SHOW CONTEMPT FOR
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BY SAYING
NO TO INCREASING THE DEBT
CEILING.
DO YOU REALIZE HOW MANY OF US
HAVE ADJUSTABLE RATE MORTGAGES
ON OUR PRIMARY RESIDENCE?
CAN YOU IMAGINE WHAT WILL
HAPPEN IF THIS NATION DEFAULTS
ON ITS OBLIGATIONS TO PAY ITS
DEBT?
AND AS A RESULT INTEREST RATES
GO UP?
THAT MEANS YOUR ADJUSTABLE RATE
MORTGAGE, MY ADJUSTABLE RATE
MORTGAGE RATE GOES UP.
COULD I STAND TO PAY $1,000
EXTRA OR $2,000 EXTRA PER MONTH
ON MY MORTGAGE BECAUSE INTEREST
RATES WENT UP BECAUSE WE DIDN'T
DO WHAT WE SHOULD HAD DONE HERE
WHICH IS TO INCREASE THE DEBT
CEILING, SOMETHING WE'VE DONE
21 TIMES, I BELIEVE, OVER THE
LAST SEVERAL -- IN EXCESS -- WE
DID IT 18 TIMES WITH RONALD
REAGAN AS PRESIDENT.
WE CAN'T AFFORD NOT TO DEAL
WITH THIS DEBT CEILING ISSUE.
MR. CHAIRMAN, THE "WASHINGTON
POST" REPORTS THAT HOUSE
REPUBLICANS WATCHED A MOVIE
TOGETHER ABOUT BANK ROBBERS TO
MOTIVATE MEMBERS OF THEIR
CAUCUS TO STAND FIRM IN THEIR
SOLIDARITY AGAINST RAISING THE
DEBT CEILING.
WHAT KIND OF EXAMPLE DOES THIS
SET FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?
WHAT WOULD THEY SAY IF THEY
KNEW THERE WAS A CONCERTED
EFFORT BY REPUBLICANS NOT ONLY
TO PREVENT AN INCREASE IN THE
DEBT CEILING BUT TO IMPEDE
ECONOMIC PROGRESS, CAUSE THE
LOSS OF 700,000 JOBS WITH THE
PASSAGE OF CUT, CAP AND KILL?
WHAT ABOUT OUR VETERANS, OUR
STUDENTS?
WHAT ABOUT OUR CREDIT RATING IN
THIS COUNTRY?
WELL, MR. CHAIRMAN, JUST LIKE
BANK ROBBERS, IT APPEARS THAT
REPUBLICANS SEEK TO THREATEN
SOCIETY AS A WHOLE LEAVING A
TRAIL OF DESTRUCTION IN THEIR
WAKE.
REPUBLICANS HAVE NOW TAKEN
HOSTAGE OF THE U.S. ECONOMY,
THREATENING THE LIVELIHOOD AND
WELL-BEING OF AMERICANS, YOUNG
AND OLD, RICH AND POOR.
THEY COULD SEE THE HANDS OF THE
CLOCK TICKING.
PRECIOUS SECONDS, MINUTES AND
HOURS WASTED.
SPEAKER BOEHNER AND HIS COHORTS
SAY NO TO THE PRESIDENT'S
REQUEST FOR REASONABLE
COMPROMISE.
NO TO THE DESPERATE PLEAS OF
BUSINESSES BEGGING FOR A SENSE
OF CERTAINTY ABOUT THE DEBT
CEILING AND NO TO THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE WHO HAVE SHOUTED AT THE
TOP OF THEIR LUNGS FOR SHARED
SACRIFICE IN THESE BUDGET
NEGOTIATIONS.
WELL, MR. SPEAKER, IF
REPUBLICANS ARE LOOKING FOR
SOME ADDITIONAL INSPIRATION IN
THE DEBT CEILING NEGOTIATIONS,
I'D RECOMMEND THAT THEY WATCH
"SAVING PRIVATE RYAN."
IT'S ABOUT A MAN WHO MAKES THE
ULTIMATE SACRIFICE TO SAVE THE
LIVES OF HIS FELLOW AMERICANS.
HE WAS NOT A SURVIVAL OF THE
FITTEST-TYPE GUY.
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME
HAS EXPIRED.
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS
EXPIRED.
AND WITH THAT, MR.
SPEAKER --
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME
HAS EXPIRED.
I YIELD BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME
HAS EXPIRED.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM NEW YORK RISE?
MR. SPEAKER, I MOVE TO
STRIKE THE LAST WORD.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
NEW YORK IS RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE
MINUTES.
THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER.
MR. SPEAKER, THIS COUNTRY IS IN
THE MIDDLE OF A GREAT CRISIS.
ENTIRELY AN ARTIFICIAL CRISIS
CREATED BY AN ATTEMPT BY ONE
POLITICAL PARTY TO BLACKMAIL
THE ENTIRE COUNTRY INTO
ADOPTING ITS PROGRAM OF
DESTROYING MEDICARE AND SOCIAL
SECURITY AND FOOD STAMPS AND
UNEMPLOYMENT AND ALL THE THINGS
THAT MANY OF OUR PEOPLE DEPEND
ON.
WHY DO I SAY IT'S AN ARTIFICIAL
CRISIS?
BECAUSE THE DEBT CEILING
INCREASE IS SOMETHING WE
NORMALLY DO.
SEVEN TIMES DURING PRESIDENT
BUSH'S ADMINISTRATION.
SOME PEOPLE THINK TO RAISE THE
DEBT CEILING IS TO SAY WE ARE
GOING TO BORROW AND SPEND MORE.
NO, WE'RE NOT.
YOU RAISE THE DEBT CEILING IN
ORDER TO PAY FOR BILLS YOU
ALREADY INCURRED BECAUSE OF
DECISIONS MADE TWO AND THREE
YEARS AGO, MOSTLY DURING THE
BUSH ADMINISTRATION.
NOT RAISING THE DEBT CEILING IS
GOING INTO A RESTAURANT, HAVING
AN EXPENSIVE MEAL AND GETTING
THE BILL AND SAY, I HAVE TOO
MUCH MONEY ON MY CREDIT CARD, I
DON'T THINK I'LL PAY THE BILL.
IF THAT'S THE CASE, YOU
SHOULDN'T HAVE GOT THE MEAL.
YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE CUT THOSE
TAXES 10 YEARS AGO AND GOTTEN
INTO THOSE WARS SEVEN AND EIGHT
YEARS AGO AND MADE THE OTHER
DECISIONS THAT PILED UP THE
DEFICIT.
IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A DEBATE,
WHICH WE SHOULD, ON HOW TO
CHANGE OUR POLICIES IN THE
FUTURE, THAT'S FOR THE BUDGET
DEBATE.
WE ARE GOING TO PASS A BUDGET
AT SOME POINT.
WE OUGHT TO DEBATE TAX LEVELS,
EXPENDITURE LEVELS.
BUT INSTEAD, WHAT ARE THEY
DOING?
THEY'RE SAYING, THAT'S A NICE
ECONOMY YOU GOT THERE.
PITY IF SOMETHING HAPPENS TO
IT.
WE ARE GOING TO DESTROY IT BY
NOT RAISING THE DEBT CEILING
AND CAUSING -- AND CAUSING A
COLLAPSE IN CREDIT SO THAT
EVERYBODY'S INTEREST RATES GO
UP AND PEOPLE HAVE TO PAY
$1,000 MORE A MONTH ON THEIR
MORTGAGE OR WHATEVER.
BECAUSE THIS WILL RIPPLE RIGHT
THROUGHOUT OUR ECONOMY.
IT WILL BE A REAL CRISIS FOR
OUR ECONOMY AND IT WILL COST
THE ECONOMY PROBABLY $1
TRILLION IN EXTRA DEFICIT
SPENDING OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS
JUST IN HIGHER INTEREST COSTS.
BUT IF WE DON'T DO EXACTLY WHAT
THEY WANT TO DESTROY MEDICARE
AND SOCIAL SECURITY AND THE
OTHER THINGS THEY NIEFER LIKED
IN THE FIRST -- THEY NEVER
LIKED IN THE FIRST PLACE,
THEY'LL WRECK THE ECONOMY IN
ORDER NOT TO PAY THE BILLS THAT
THEY INCURRED.
THEN, WE HEAR THAT WE HAVE A
DEFICIT CRISIS.
THAT AFTER ALL, THE COUNTRY'S
BROKE.
THE COUNTRY'S BROKE.
WE GOT TO CUT THE BUDGET.
EVEN THE PRESIDENT SAID THE
COUNTRY'S BROKE.
WE HAVE TO CUT THE BUDGET.
THE COUNTRY IS NOT BROKE.
WRONG.
IT'S JUST THAT WE ARE NOT
TAXING THE MILLIONAIRES AND
BILLIONAIRES AND THE BIG
CORPORATIONS THE WAY WE USED
TO.
IN 1950, THE CORPORATIONS PAID
6% OF THE ENTIRE ECONOMY OF THE
G.D.P. IN CORPORATE TAXES.
TODAY IT'S UNDER 1%.
20 YEARS AGO, 20% -- I'M SORRY
-- 30% OF ALL INCOME TAXES CAME
FROM CORPORATIONS.
TODAY IT'S UNDER 6%.
THAT'S WHY THE MIDDLE CLASS
FEELS OVERTAXED BECAUSE THEY
ARE, BECAUSE WE DON'T TAX THE
MILLIONAIRES AND BILLIONAIRES
THE WAY WE USED TO.
WE DON'T TAX THE CORPORATIONS
THE WAY WE USED TO.
THE BIG MULTINATIONALS, I'M
TALKING ABOUT, NOT THE SMALL
ONES.
INSTEAD, WE SHIFT THE TAX
BURDEN TO THE MIDDLE CLASS AND
WE DON'T GET ENOUGH TAX
REVENUE.
THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS IF
YOU LOOK AT THE BUDGET OF 2001
AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE BUDGET
OF 2011, IN 2001 THE BUDGET WAS
$258 BILLION IN SURPLUS.
IT WAS THE LAST CLINTON BUDGET.
HOW HAS IT CHANGED?
HOW HAS IT CHANGED?
WHY IS THIS BUDGET $1.2
TRILLION IN DEFICIT?
NOW IT'S A QUARTER TRILLION IN
BALANCE.
WHAT'S CHANGED?
WELL, ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION
AND POPULATION GROWTH,
NONDEFENSE DISCRETIONARY
SPENDING, EVERYTHING THEY WANT
TO CUT NOW HASN'T CHANGED AT
ALL.
$369 BILLION THEN.
$369 BILLION NOW.
WHAT'S CHANGED?
WELL, DEFENSE SPENDING AND
HOMELAND SECURITY SPENDING HAS
GONE UP 74% BECAUSE OF TWO WARS
AND A LOT OF BLOAT.
74% INCREASE IN DEFENSE
SPENDING.
MANDATORY PROGRAMS, THAT IS TO
SAY, MEDICARE, SOCIAL SECURITY,
VETERANS.
UP 32%.
MOST -- AND THAT'S NOT ONLY
THOSE, IT'S ALSO UNEMPLOYMENT
INSURANCE.
MOSTLY BECAUSE WE'RE IN A
RECESSION AND YOU HAVE TO PAY
MORE -- NOT MORE -- YOU HAVE TO
PAY MORE UNEMPLOYMENT
INSURANCE, FOOD STAMPS AND SO
FORTH.
TOTAL REVENUE IS DOWN 24%.
FROM A BIGGER COUNTRY, WE'RE
GETTING 24% LESS REVENUE TODAY.
BECAUSE IN 2001, THE TAX
WHY?
COLLECTED 20% OF G.D.P. AND
TODAY IT'S 14.5% OF G.D.P.
WHAT SHOULD WE BE DOING?
FIRST OF ALL, RAISE THE DEBT
CEILING TO RECOGNIZE THE DEBT
ALREADY INCURRED AND DO IT
CLEANLY.
SO AS NOT TO THROW THE ECONOMY
INTO A TAILSPIN.
THEN WE SHOULD DEBATE ALL THESE
ISSUES IN THE BUDGET, RAISE
TAXES ON THE MILLIONAIRE THE
BILLIONAIRES, THE CORPORATIONS,
CUT DEFENSE AND NOT TRY TO
TAMPER WITH PEOPLE'S SOCIAL
SECURITY AND MEDICARE AND THE
THANK YOU AND I YIELD BACK.
THINGS THEY DEPEND ON.
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME
HAS EXPIRED.
THE CLERK WILL RAZE.
PAGE 65, LINE 7,
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS AND
MANAGEMENT, $2,498,433,000 TO
REMAIN AVAILABLE UNTIL
SEPTEMBER 30, 2013.
MR. CHAIRMAN.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE
DOES THE GENTLEMAN FROM
LOUISIANA RISE?
MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE AN
AMENDMENT AT THE DESK.
THE CLERK WILL
REPORT THE AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY
MR. FLEMING OF LOUISIANA, PAGE
65, LINE 19, AFTER THE DOLLAR
$48,206,000.
AMOUNT, INSERT REDUCED BY
PAGE 158, LINE 25, AFTER THE
DOLLAR AMOUNT, INSERT INCREASED
BY $48,206,000.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
A LITTLE OVER A
YEAR AGO, THE G.A.O. REPORTED
ALARMING FINDINGS AT THE E.P.A.
-- IN THE ENERGY STAR PROGRAM,
A PROGRAM DESIGNED TO SAVE
CONSUMERS MONEY ON THEIR ENERGY
BILLS.
I HAVE CONCERNS THAT THEY'RE
LEVERAGING HARD-EARNED TAX
DOLLARS AND THE TRUST OF THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE FOR A PROGRAM
THAT LACKS OVERSIGHT.
IT COULD STILL BE SUBJECT TO
FRAUD AND ABUSE AND WOULD BE
BETTER ADMINISTERED BY THE
PRIVATE SECTOR.
HERE'S A REPORT HERE IN MY
HAND.
MARCH, 2010, THE REPORT
INDICATES THAT THE G.A.O.
RELEASED A REPORT DOCUMENTING
THAT THE PROGRAM WAS MAINLY A
SELF-CERTIFICATION PROGRAM
ACCOUNTABILITY.
WITHOUT MUCH OVERSIGHT OR
IN FACT, ACCORDING TO THE
REPORT, G.A.O. REPORTED --
CREATED SEVERAL FICTITIOUS
COMPANIES WITHOUT ANY RELEVANT
PRODUCTS ON THE MARKET THAT
EASILY BECAME ENERGY STAR
MANUFACTURING PARTNERS.
THIS NEW STATUS GRANTED THESE
GROUPS UNLIMITED ACCESS TO
ENERGY STAR LOGOS AND
PROMOTIONAL RESOURCES AND
G.A.O. WAS ALSO ABLE TO OBTAIN
CERTIFICATION FOR 15 BOGUS
PRODUCTS, INCLUDING A
GAS-POWERED ALARM CLOCK AND A
ROOM CLEANER WHICH IS
INCREDULOUSLY A FEATHER DUSTER
TAPED TO A SPACE HEATER.
PRIOR TO APPROVING THESE ITEMS,
E.P.A. FAILED TO REVIEW ANY
ADDITIONAL MATERIALS INCLUDING
WEBSITES AND SELF-INCRIMINATING
PICTURES.
MY AMENDMENT WILL SIMPLY REDUCE
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS AND
MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT WITHIN
E.P.A. BY $48,206,000 WITH THE
INTENT OF REMOVING THE E.P.A.'S
PORTION OF FUNDING FOR THE
ENERGY STAR PROGRAM.
THE SAVINGS FROM MY AMENDMENT
WOULD BE ADDED TO THE SPEND
REGULAR DUCKS ACCOUNT.
-- SPENDING REDUCTION ACCOUNT.
THE ENERGY STAR PROGRAM ENABLES
COMPANIES AND MANUFACTURERS TO
VOLUNTARILY LABEL QUALIFYING
E.P.A. HOUSEHOLD PROMPTS SUCH
AS REFRIGERATOR, AIR
CONDITIONERS, LIGHT BULBS, ETC.
IT ALSO GRANTS ENERGY EFFICIENT
LABELING FOR HOME IMPROVEMENTS
AN BUSINESSES.
ENERGY STAR LABELING ENCOURAGES
CONSUMERS TO PURCHASE SUCH
PRODUCTS AND MAKE IMPROVEMENTS
TO BE MORE ENERGY EFFICIENT,
REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
AND SAVE MONEY ON ENERGY BILLS.
ALL VERY GOOD VALUE-ORIENTED
VALUES AND CONCEPTS.
IT IS MY BELIEF WE SHOULD NOT
BE PAYING ANYTHING FOR THE
ENERGY STAR PROGRAM.
IT WOULD BE BETTER SERVED AS A
PRIVATE ENTITY, SAVING THE
TAXPAYER MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
EACH YEAR.
THERE ARE SEVERAL GOOD EXAMPLES
OF WELL-RESPECTED, WELL-RUN,
INDEPENDENT PRIVATE SECTOR
INITIATIVES, INCLUDING THE
LEADERSHIP IN ENERGY AND
ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN, A GREEN
BUILDING CERTIFICATION SYSTEM,
CONSUMERS UNION, AN EXPERT,
INDEPENDENT, NONPROFIT
ORGANIZATION WHICH PUBLISHES
THE WIDELY ACCLAIMED "CONSUMER
REPORTS" AND UNDERWRITERS
LABORATORIES, U.L., A GLOBAL
INDEPENDENT SAFETY SIGHT THAT
OFFERS EXPERTISE IN FIVE AREAS,
INCLUDING PRODUCT SAFETY AND
ENVIRONMENT.
OF NONGOVERNMENT, NONTAXPAYER
THESE ARE JUST A FEW EXAMPLES
FUNDED ENTITIES THAT UNDERSTAND
THAT IF YOU DON'T DO A GOOD
JOB, THEY WILL LOSE
CREDIBILITY.
NOT AS MUCH AS CAN BE SAID FOR
THE ENERGY STAR PROGRAM.
AMERICANS RELY HEAVILY ON THIS
PROGRAM AND LOOK TO PURCHASE
HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTS WITH THE
ENERGY STAR LABEL.
COMPANIES USE THEE
E.P.A.-APPROVED LOGO TO MARKET
PRODUCTS.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND
SEVERAL STATES OFFER TAX
CREDITS TO THOSE WHO PURCHASE
ENERGY STAR PRODUCTS AND
FEDERAL AGENCIES REQUIRE TO USE
CERTAIN ENERGY STARLING
APPROVED PROJECTS.
THE ENERGY STAR PROGRAM
CONTINUES TO RECEIVE MILLIONS
OF DOLLARS INCLUDING
APPROXIMATELY $300 MILLION
THROUGH THE AMERICAN RECOVERY
AND INVESTMENT ACT, THE
STIMULUS BILL, AND TCHRS 48
MILLION IN THE UNDER-- AND $48
MILLION IN THE UNDERLYING
IT'S TIME FOR THE FEDERAL
LEGISLATION.
GOVERNMENT TO ALLOW THE PRIVATE
SECTOR TO TAKE OVER AND STOP
FUNDING PROGRAMS RIDDLED WITH
LOOPHOLES THAT INVESTIGATORS
NEED TO POINT OUT BEFORE THE
E.P.A. INSTITUTES SYSTEMATIC
CHANGES.
IN SUMMARY, MR. CHAIRMAN, WE
COULD WELL AFFORD TO SAVE $48
MILLION AND WE HAVE PLENTY OF
GOOD MODELS WHERE PRIVATE
ENTITIES HAVE BEEN DOING A MUCH
BETTER JOB FOR A MUCH LONGER
TIME.
SO I ASK OTHERS TO SUPPORT THIS
AMENDMENT.
S THAT GOOD, NOT ONLY ENERGY
SAVINGS, BUT MONEY SAVING IDEA
AND LET'S TURN IT OVER TO
PRIVATE SECTOR.
THEY DO A MUCH BETTER JOB.
WITH THAT, I YIELD BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK HIS TIME.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA RISE?
I RISE TO CLAIM TIME IN
OPPOSITION TO THE AMENDMENT.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS
AMENDMENT WOULD ELIMINATE THE
ENERGY STAR PROGRAM.
EVEN THOUGH A GREAT MANY
AMERICAN CONSUMERS RELY ON IT
TO CHOOSE APPLIANCES THAT MEET
FEDERAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY
STANDARDS.
SUCH AS WINDOW, REFRIGERATORS,
DISH WASHERS, CLOTHES WASHERS.
THE PROGRAM HAS IMPROVED SINCE
AN INSPECTOR GENRE PORT
HIGHLIGHTED FLAWS WITH THE
PROGRAM.
IN RESPONSE TO THE I.G.'S
REPORT, ENERGY STAR MOVE AID
WAY FROM ALLOWING MANUFACTURERS
TO SELF-CERTIFY THAT THEY
COMPLY WITH EFFICIENCY
STANDARDS AND NOW THEY REQUIRE
THIRD-PARTY CERTIFIERS.
I'M SURE THERE'S ROOM LEFT FOR
FURTHER IMPROVEMENT IN THE
PROGRAM, AS THE GENTLEMAN FROM
LOUISIANA HAS STATED, MANY,
MANY CONSUMERS HAVE COME TO
RELY ON THIS PROGRAM IN THEIR
EVERYDAY PURCHASES.
THEY WOULD BE STUNNED TO THINK
THAT THIS PROGRAM IS NOW BEING
TARGETED.
AMERICANS WITH THE HELP OF
ENERGY STAR SAVE NEARLY $18
BILLION ON THEIR UTILITY BILLS
LAST YEAR ALONE AND ENOUGH
ENERGY TO AVOID GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS EQUIVALENT TO THOSE
FROM 33 MILLION CARS.
ISN'T THAT A GOOD THING?
THIS IS A VOLUNTARY PROGRAM
THAT WORKS.
WE'VE HEARD SO MUCH RAILING
COMING PARTICULARLY FROM THE
OTHER SIDE ABOUT E.P.A.'S
REGULATIONS AND NOW THE
MAJORITY WANTS TO ATTACK A
VOLUNTARY, PRO-CONSUMER
PROGRAM.
THE UNDERLYING BILL ALREADY
CONTAINS A VERY SUBSTANTIAL CUT
TO THE ENERGY STAR PROGRAM,
NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT
IT HAS SAVED HUNDREDS OF
MILLION, IF NOT BILLIONS --
HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS, IF NOT
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND ALLOWED
CONSUMERS TO BE MUCH BETTER
INFORMED AS TO WHAT THEIR
APPLIANCES MAY COST THEM IN
TERMS OF ENERGY REQUIREMENTS.
BUT THE ENERGY STAR PROGRAM HAS
BEEN FUNDED IN THIS BILL AT THE
2008 LEVEL.
FOUR YEARS AGO.
SINCE THEN THE POPULATION HAS
EXPANDED, THE NUMBER OF
APPLIANCES AND THINGS THAT --
PARTICULARLY COMPUTERS -- THAT
USE A GREAT DEAL OF ELECTRICITY
HAS EXPANDED, ALMOST
GEOMETRICALLY.
PEOPLE'S BILLS ARE GOING UP.
THEY WANT TO KNOW WHAT ARE THE
MOST ENERGY EFFICIENT PRODUCTS?
SO THEY RELY UPON THE ENERGY
STAR PROGRAM.
AGAIN, A VOLUNTARY PROGRAM.
ONE THAT HAS BEEN IMPROVED
SINCE THE I.G. REPORT.
THEY HAD THIRD PARTY
CERTIFICATION NOW AS TO WHAT
THEY ARE SAYING SO THAT WE
SHOULD HAVE SOME CONFIDENCE NOW
IN WHAT THE -- IN THE ENERGY
STAR IMPRIMATUR, IF YOU WILL,
ON APPLIANCES.
THIS DOESN'T SEEM THAT THIS IS
THE KIND OF THING THAT WE
SHOULD BE CUTTING.
S THAT PRO-CONSUMER, VOLUNTARY
EFFORT THAT WORKS.
SO I STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS
AMENDMENT.
I'D BE HAPPY TO YIELD.
I DON'T DISAGREE
WITH THE --
I DON'T DISADEPEE
WITH THE GENTLEMAN'S COMMENTS.
MY POINT IS THIS COULD BE
BETTER DONE IN THE PRIVATE
SECTOR A FEE PAID DIRECTLY TO
WHATEVER PRIVATE EPTITY OUT
THERE THAT WOULD BE NONPROFIT
FOR THIS.
WHY SHOULD THE TAXPAYERS HAVE
TO SUBSIDIZE IT?
THAT'S THE ISSUE HERE.
I WOULD SAY TO THE
GENTLEMAN, RECLAIMING MY TIME,
WE HAVE THINGS LIKE THE BETTER
BUSINESS BUREAU, WHICH FRANKLY,
DON'T HAVE THAT KIND OF
CERTIFICATION, WHICH ALMOST
ANYBODY CAN GET DESIGNATIONS,
SOMETIMES IT'S HELPFUL, OTHER
TIMES IT'S LESS SO.
I THINK THE AMERICAN CONSUMER
WANTS SOME LEVEL OF CREDIBILITY
IN THE ORGANIZATION THAT IS
CERTIFYING THAT AN APPLIANCE IS
ENERGY EFFICIENT, THAT THE
ENERGY STAR DESIGNATION MEANS
SOMETHING.
AND IF THIS WAS SELF-POLICING,
DONE COMPLETELY IN THE PRIVATE
SECTOR, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE HAD
AN INSPECTOR GENRE PORT.
YOU WOULDN'T HAVE HAD THIS
CORRECTIVE MECHANISM THAT SAYS,
YOU'VE GOT TO FIX THIS.
YOU CAN'T RELY ON
SELF-CERTIFICATION WHICH IS
SECTOR.
WHAT YOU HAVE UNDER THE PRIVATE
THEY SAID, YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE A
THIRD PARTY CERTIFICATION.
WOULDN'T HAVE HAD THAT.
THERE ARE PLENTY
OF PRIVATE SECTOR OVERSIGHT
ORGANIZATIONS.
U.L., NO APPLIANCE IS -- EVER
GOES TO MARKET NOW WITHOUT A
U.L. STAMP.
AGAIN THAT'S DONE THROUGH A
PRIVATE ENTITY.
SO AGAIN, IT'S A GREAT PROGRAM.
DON'T GET ME WRONG.
I JUST DON'T SEE WHERE
TAXPAYERS SHOULD BE FUNDING
THAT.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
VIRGINIA'S TIME HAS EXPIRED.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA RISE?
MR. CHAIRMAN, I RISE TO TALK
TO THIS AMENDMENT.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
I APPRECIATE THE GENTLEMAN'S
DESIRE TO REDUCE SPENDING.
HOWEVER I MUST OPPOSE THIS
AMENDMENT.
AS THE MINORITY POINTED OUT, TO
MEET THE 2012 302-B ALLOCATION,
WE CUT THE ENERGY STAR PROGRAM
BY $27.5 MILLION.
FUNDING FOR THE ENERGY STAR
PROGRAM DOWN TO $38.2 MILLION,
BELOW THE 2006 LEVEL.
AND WE BELIEVE
THAT SIGNIFICANT CUTS TOOK
PLACE IN THIS PROGRAM, AS THEY
SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN, AND
WITH THAT, WE RELUCTANTLY
OPPOSE THE AMENDMENT AND WOULD
ASK FOR A NO VOTE ON THE
AMENDMENT.
I'D BE HAPPY TO YIELD.
WE AGREE WITH THE
GENTLEMAN'S POSITION ON THIS
AND OPPOSE THE AMENDMENT AS
WELL.
DOES THE GENTLEMAN
FROM CALIFORNIA YIELD BACK?
I YIELD BACK THE
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE QUESTION SON THE
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM LOUISIANA, MR.
FLEMING.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR,
THE NOES HAVE IT.
THE AMENDMENT IS NOT AGREED TO.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM KANSAS RISE?
MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE AN
AMENDMENT AT THE DESK, NUMBER
39.
THE CLERK WILL
DESIGNATE THE AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 39
PRINTED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD, OFFERED BY MR. POMPEO
OF KANSAS.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN.
LET ME SAY THANK YOU TO THE
COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN FOR RUNNING
A GREAT PIECE OF LEGISLATION.
I THINK THIS BILL WILL GO A
LONG WAY TOWARD CREATING A
PRO-GROWTH ECONOMY.
WE'VE DONE A GREAT DEAL OF WORK
TO REDUCE SPENDING ON THIS BILL
AND I STAND HERE THIS AFTERNOON
HOPING TO HELP OUT EVEN JUST A
LITTLE BIT MORE.
THE AMENDMENT I OFFER, I
OFFERED DURING H.R. 1, IT
PASSED, IT PASSED WITH VOTES
FROM BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE.
THE SENATE FAILED TO ACT ON IT,
SO I'M HERE AGAIN TO OFFER THIS
AMENDMENT ONE MORE TIME AND I
HOPE IT WILL PASS AGAIN WITH
BIPARTISAN SUPPORT AND WE WILL
ONCE AGAIN MOVE TOWARD A
SMALLER, MORE HUMBLE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT THAT DOES ONLY THOSE
THINGS IT'S INTENDED TO DO THE
AMENDMENT I OFFER TODAY SEEKS
TO REDUCE BY $6.2 MILLION THE
AMOUNT OF MONEY AVAILABLE FOR
THE E.P.A.'S GREENHOUSE GAS
REGISTRY PROGRAM.
IF I HAD MY DRUTHERS, I'D
PROBABLY PREFER TO SEE THE
PROGRAM GO AWAY BUT I OFFER A
MORE MODEST AMENDMENT TODAY.
THIS REDUCES SPENDING FOR
2009.
PROGRAM BACK TO THE LEVELS FROM
THIS IS VERY CONSISTENT WITH
THE LEGISLATION THAT WE'RE
ACTING ON, THE BIGGER BILL,
WHICH TAKES US BACK TO 2009.
THIS IS A PROGRAM THAT
CURRENTLY STANDS WITHOUT THIS
AMENDMENT 95% HIGHER THAN THE
FUNDING FOR THE GREENHOUSE GAS
REGISTRY.
IN 2009, I THINK WE CAN ALL
AGREE, WE WEREN'T SPENDING TOO
LITTLE MONEY IN 2009 REGULATING
GREENHOUSE GASES IN AMERICA.
WE KNOW THAT THE E.P.A. SAYS
THAT THIS REGISTRY IS JUST
ABOUT DATA COLLECTION, WE JUST
WOULD LIKE A LITTLE MORE
INFORMATION BUT THOSE OF US IN
KANSAS TRYING TO OPERATE
BUSINESSES AND MAKE A GO OF IT
KNOW THAT THERE'S AN AGENDA FAR
BEYOND THAT.
THIS IS AN AGENDA THAT IS JOB
KILLING.
THIS IS AN AGENDA THAT WILL
DESTROY JOBS NOT ONLY IN KANSAS
BUT WILL DRIVE UP THE COST OF
ENERGY FOR EVERYONE AMERICAN.
SO I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TODAY
TO SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT.
IF WE SIMPLY RESTORE FUNDING
BACK TO THE 2009 LEVEL WE WILL
ROLL BACK -- I HOPE AGAIN WITH
BIPARTISAN SUPPORT -- IT WILL
CREATE JOBS AND KEEP E.P.A.
DOING WHAT THEY OUGHT TO BE
DOING.
WITH THAT I YIELD BACK THE
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
KANSAS YIELDS BACK HIS TIME.
WHO SEEKS RECOGNITION?
THE GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA RISE?
I RISE TO CLAIM TIME
IN OPPOSITION TO THE AMENDMENT,
MR. CHAIRMAN.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES IN
OPPOSITION.
I DO RISE IN
OPPOSITION TO THIS AMENDMENT
BECAUSE IT ATTEMPTS TO STRIP
HALF OF THE REMAINING FUNDING
FOR E.P.A.'S GREENHOUSE GAS
REGISTRY PROGRAM.
THIS AMENDMENT IS PART OF AN
EFFORT TO IGNORE WHAT THE
SCIENTISTS TELL US IS THE MOST
SERIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM
OF OUR TIME, CLIMATE CHANGE.
REPUBLICANS HAVE ALREADY PASSED
A BILL TO REPEAL A SCIENTIFIC
FINDING THAT GREENHOUSE GASES
POSE A DANGER TO HOME HEALTH.
THE UNDERLYING BILL WE'RE
CONSIDERING SAYS THAT NO
STATIONARY SOURCE NO MATTER HOW
LARGE OR HOW LEATHER TO HUMAN
HEALTH SHOULD EVER HAVE TO
REDUCE ITS CARBON POLLUTION.
BUT THIS AMENDMENT GOES EVEN
FURTHER.
IT SAYS THAT WE SHOULD NOT EVEN
BOTHER HOW MUCH POLLUTION IS
BEING PUT INTO THE AIR.
I GUESS YOU COULD CALL IT THE
IGNORANCE IS BLISS AMENDMENT.
WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING IS THE
OPPOSITE OF WHAT THE GENTLEMAN
IS TRYING TO DO.
THE BILL ALREADY MAKES A 30%
CUT TO THE REGISTRY PROGRAM IN
ORDER TO CRIPPLE THE EFFORTS OF
E.P.A. WITH REGARD TO
GREENHOUSE GASES.
THE GREENHOUSE GAS REPORTING
PROGRAM SIMPLY REQUIRES THE --
NO.
I'LL MAKE ALL OF MY POINTS AND
THEN YOU CAN MORE EFFICIENTLY
ADDRESS THEM IF WE HAVE TIME.
THE GREENHOUSE GAS REPORTING
PROGRAM SIMPLY REQUIRES THE
LARGEST SOURCES OF CARBON
POLLUTION, POWER PLANTS,
REFINERIES AND THE VERY LARGEST
FACTORIES TO TELL E.P.A. AND
THE PUBLIC HOW MUCH THEY
POLLUTE.
IF WE'RE EVER GOING TO DEAL
RESPONSIBLY WITH THIS POLLUTION
, IT'S COSTING US BILLIONS IN
HEALTH CARE AND SHORTENING
THOUSANDS OF LIVES, WE NEED TO
KNOW WHERE IT IS COMING FROM
AND HAVE SOME IDEA OF HOW MUCH
IS BEING EMITTED.
THIS AMENDMENT IS YET ONE MORE
EXAMPLE OF PUTTING -- THE
PROFITS OF INDUSTRY AND
PARTICULARLY THOSE INDUSTRIES
WHO POLLUTE THE AIR AND
EVENTUALLY CLOG THE WATER, WHO
POISON MUCH OF OUR ENVIRONMENT,
TO PUT THEIR PROFITS AHEAD OF
THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE
PUBLIC'S HEALTH.
WE ALL KNOW THAT POLLUTION IS
DANGEROUS TO OUR HEALTH.
THE SCIENTISTS TELL US THAT.
CERTAINLY THE REPUTABLE
SCIENTISTS.
LET'S ALLOW E.P.A. TO FULFILL
ITS CORE RESPONSIBILITY WHICH
IS TO COLLECT THIS INFORMATION
AND INFORM THE PUBLIC.
I KNOW OUR FRIENDS ON THE OTHER
SIDE HATE REGULATIONS BECAUSE
THEY BELIEVE THAT THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DOESN'T UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT
OF THOSE REGULATIONS ON
BUSINESSES AND ON THE ECONOMY
AND ON JOBS AND SO ON.
E.P.A.'S JOB IS TO PROTECT THE
PUBLIC HEALTH, AND IN DOING SO
AND ENCOURAGING CLEANER SOURCES
OF ENERGY WE WILL NOT ONLY
PROTECT THE PUBLIC'S HEALTH BUT
WE WILL GROW THIS ECONOMY, GROW
IS IN A MORE COMPETITIVE AND
HEALTHY WAY AND -- IN A FAR
MORE SUSTAINABLE MANNER.
I OPPOSE THIS AMENDMENT
VIGOROUSLY, AND AT THIS POINT I
WOULD YIELD SOME TIME TO THE
GENTLEMAN WHO OFFERED THE
AMENDMENT.
THANK YOU.
I'LL BE VERY BRIEF.
I CERTAINLY CARE DEEPLY ABOUT
CLEAN AIR.
SO DO ALL THE BUSINESSES IN
KANSAS.
SO DO AGRICULTURE.
WE KNOW HOW TO DO IT AND WE'RE
DOING IT.
IS BLISS AMENDMENT.
YOU SAID THIS WAS THE IGNORANCE
I'D PREFER TO CALL IT JOBS ARE
A GOOD THING AMENDMENT.
AND WHEN THINGS GET
MISCHARACTERIZED -- I'M NOT
SUGGESTING WE ABOLISH THIS.
THERE IS STILL $6.2 MILLION
AVAILABLE FOR THE GREENHOUSE
GAS REGISTRY.
MANY ON YOUR SIDE VOTED FOR IT
BEFORE WHEN I OFFERED IT
BEFORE.
I THANK YOU FOR YIELDING THE
TIME.
I WAS HAPPY TO
YIELD.
I'LL RECLAIMING MY TIME.
IT JUST SEEMS TO ME THAT MORE
INFORMATION, ACCURATE
INFORMATION SHOULD NOT BE A
THREAT.
ISN'T IT APPROPRIATE TO LET THE
PUBLIC KNOW -- IN FACT, TO LET
LAWMAKERS KNOW WHO MIGHT NEED
TO RESPOND HOW LETHAL IS THE
POLLUTION, HOW SUBSTANTIAL IS
THE POLLUTION, WHAT'S THE
COMPOSITION OF THE POLLUTION
COMING FROM THE VERY LARGEST
POLLUTERS?
PEOPLE?
WHAT ARE WE DOING TO OUR
WHAT ARE WE DOING TO OUR
ENVIRONMENT?
WHAT ARE THE SOURCES OF THE
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT WE'RE
SPENDING IN HEALTH CARE, TWICE
AS MUCH AS ANY COUNTRY SPENDS
ON A PER CAPITA BASIS?
ALL WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE IS
TO HAVE A REGISTRY, INFORMATION
THAT OUGHT NOT BE THREATENING.
DEFEATED.
THIS AMENDMENT SHOULD BE
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME
HAS EXPIRED.
THE QUESTION IS ON THE
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY -- FOR
WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN
FROM WASHINGTON RISE?
I MOVE TO STRIKE THE
REQUISITE NUMBER OF WORDS.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
A FEW YEARS AGO THE
SUPREME COURT SAID THAT E.P.A.,
UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT, HAD TO
COME UP WITH AND LOOK AT THE
CONSEQUENCES OF GREENHOUSE
GASES.
AND TO CREATE THIS REGISTRY
WHICH IS A SCIENTIFIC DOCUMENT
THAT ALLOWS US TO KNOW JUST
EXACTLY WHAT THE VARIOUS
SOURCES OF THESE GREENHOUSE
GASES ARE.
NOW WE HEAR A LOT ABOUT CLIMATE
CHANGE.
I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THERE
IS ANOTHER MORE IMMEDIATE
PROBLEM.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM KANSAS MAY
NOT BE AWARE OF THIS BECAUSE IT
AFFECTS OUR OCEANS.
KANSAS IS IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR
COUNTRY.
THE OCEANS ARE NOW A SINK FOR
CARBON DIOXIDE.
AS WE GET MORE AND MORE CO-2 IN
THE OCEAN IT CREATES ACIDITY,
THE SO-CALLED P.H. FACTOR,
WHICH AT NORMAL RANGE IS AT 8.1
AND WHEN IT GOES DOWN -- WE
HAVE PLACES IN HOOD CANAL IN MY
AREA THAT'S DOWN TO 7.3.
AT THAT LEVEL IT STARTS TO TAKE
APART CORAL.
IT STARTS TO TAKE APART OYSTER
SHELLS.
AND IT STARTS TO TAKE AWAY THE
FOOD FOR SALMON.
THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT
CONDITION, SO THE MORE WE CAN
LEARN ABOUT OUR GREENHOUSE
GASES AND WHAT THEIR EFFECT IS
NOT ONLY ON OUR CLIMATE BUT
ALSO ON THE OCEAN AND WE ARE
POISONING THE OCEAN.
AGAIN, THERE'S THIS NOT LET'S
TAKE TIME TO WORK ON THIS ISSUE
BECAUSE SOMEHOW IT'S GOING TO
CUT AWAY JOBS.
IT MAY END CIVILIZATION.
THINK ABOUT THAT.
YOUR GRANDCHILDREN, MY
GRANDCHILDREN, YOUR CHILDREN,
MAYBE YOU'RE YOUNGER, I WORRY
ABOUT THEM.
I WORRY ABOUT WHAT'S GOING TO
HAPPEN IF WE DON'T DEAL WITH
THIS CLIMATE CHANGE ISSUE, AND
WE SHOULD TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY.
THE BEST SCIENTISTS IN THE
WORLD SAY THIS IS SOMETHING
THAT NEEDS TO BE DEALT WITH.
SO, AGAIN, I THINK THIS IDEA OF
TAKING OUT THE MONEY FOR THE
GREENHOUSE GAS REGISTRY SO THAT
WE'LL HAVE A SCIENTIFIC
UNDERPINNING TO KNOW WHETHER --
WHAT THESE PROBLEMS ARE AND HOW
MUCH VARIOUS SOURCES PRODUCE IS
JUST -- IS THE IGNORANCE IS
BLISS AMENDMENT.
LET'S DEFEAT THIS AMENDMENT AND
LET THE E.P.A. DO THEIR JOB.
I YIELD BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
TIME.
WASHINGTON YIELDS BACK HIS
THE QUESTION'S ON THE AMENDMENT
OFFERED BY THE GENTLEMAN FROM
KANSAS, MR. POMPEO.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR,
THE NOES HAVE IT.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM KANSAS RISE?
MR. CHAIRMAN, I
REQUEST A RECORDED VOTE.
PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 6
OF RULE 18, FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
ON THE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM KANSAS, MR.
POMPEO, WILL BE POSTPONED.
THE CLERK WILL READ.
PAGE 66, LINE 1,
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL,
$41,099,000 TO REMAIN AVAILABLE
UNTIL SEPTEMBER 30, 2013.
BUILDING OF OFFICE --
FOR WHAT PURPOSE
DOES THE GENTLEWOMAN FROM
CALIFORNIA RISE?
MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE AN
AMENDMENT AT THE DESK.
THE CLERK WILL
DESIGNATE THE AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 23
PRINTED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD OFFERED BY MS.
RICHARDSON OF CALIFORNIA.
THE GENTLEWOMAN FROM
CALIFORNIA IS RECOGNIZED FOR
FIVE MINUTES.
THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN, FOR ALLOWING ME TO
SPEAK ON THE RICHARDSON
AMENDMENT.
THIS AMENDMENT ADDS AN
ADDITIONAL $5 MILLION TO THE
DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION ACT,
ALSO KNOWN AS VERA GRANTS, BY
CUTTING $10 MILLION FROM THE
E.P.A. BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
ACCOUNT.
THE RICHARDSON AMENDMENT IS
ABOUT CREATING JOBS, SAVING
LIVES AND IMPROVING OUR
NATION'S AIR QUALITY.
MR. CHAIRMAN, IN THE LAST
CONGRESS I INTRODUCED
LEGISLATION THAT EXTENDED DEARA
FOR FIVE YEARS.
THE DEARA LEGISLATION RECEIVED
LARGE BIPARTISAN SUPPORT AND
WAS LATER SIGNED INTO LAW BY
PRESIDENT OBAMA.
WHEN YOU CONSIDER DERA, IT IS
SUPPORTED BY A COALITION OF 500
LEADING TRANSPORTATION,
ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH
ORGANIZATIONS.
I REPRESENT A REGION THAT'S
HOME TO THE LARGEST PORT
COMPLEX IN THE NATION AND
CONSISTS OF SOME OF THE BUSIEST
FREEWAYS AND RAILWAYS IN OUR
COUNTRY.
HOWEVER, THE AREA ALSO SUFFERS
FROM POOR AIR QUALITY WHICH HAS
LED TO MUCH HIGHER RATES OF
ASTHMA AND CANCER THAN ANY
OTHER AREA IN THE NATION.
DERA IMPROVES OUR AIR QUALITY
BY REDUCING THE CO-2 EMISSIONS
BY UP TO 35,600 TONS PER YEAR.
IT HAS BEEN ESTIMATED THAT
NEARLY 2,000 LIVES WILL BE
SAVED OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS
THROUGH DERA AND ITS INCREASED
IN SUPPORT ON OUR AIR QUALITY.
UNFORTUNATELY, THE BILL BEFORE
US TODAY REDUCES THE FUNDING
FOR DERA GRANTS BY $19.9
MILLION WHICH IS WELL BELOW THE
FISCAL YEAR 2011 LEVEL.
THE E.P.A. ESTIMATES THAT DERA
PROGRAM AVERAGES MORE THAN $13
IN HEALTH AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS
FOR EVERY $1 WE AUTHORIZE IN
FUNDING.
THE E.P.A. ALSO ESTIMATES THAT
DERA SAVES MORE THAN 3.2
MILLION GALLONS OF FUEL
ANNUALLY WHICH MEANS THAT
TRUCKERS AND OTHER DIESEL
OPERATORS WILL SPEND $8 MILLION
LESS ON FUEL.
MR. SPEAKER, THAT'S LESS
DEPENDENCY ON FOREIGN OIL.
IN THESE TIGHT ECONOMIC TIMES,
IT MAKES SENSE THAT WE INVEST
IN PROGRAMS THAT WORK AND ARE
COST-EFFECTIVE.
THE C.B.O. SCORE ON THE
RICHARDSON AMENDMENT SHOWS IT
WILL DECREASE THE BUDGET
AUTHORITY BY $5 MILLION WITHOUT
CREATING ANY NEW BUDGET
OUTLAYS.
SIMPLY PUT, THE RICHARDSON
AMENDMENT SAVES MONEY.
SINCE DERA FUNDING BEGAN IN
2007, MORE THAN 3,000 PROJECTS
NATIONWIDE HAVE BENEFITED FROM
THIS PROGRAM.
IN FACT, THERE HAVE BEEN NINE
PROJECTS IN THE LOS ANGELES
COUNTY AREA WHERE I RESIDE
ALONE.
MR. CHAIRMAN, DERA PROJECTS
HAVE CREATED JOBS AND IMPROVED
AIR QUALITY IN MY DISTRICT AND
ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
IT SAVES LIVES AND CREATES JOBS
WHICH IS CERTAINLY WHAT WE NEED
AND SHOULD BE TALKING ABOUT
MORE IN THESE DARK HOURS.
I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT
THE RICHARDSON AMENDMENT AND I
RESERVE THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE GENTLEWOMAN FROM
CALIFORNIA MAY NOT RESERVE THE
BALANCE OF HER TIME.
BACK?
DOES THE GENTLEWOMAN YIELD
YES.
THE GENTLEWOMAN
YIELDS BACK HER TIME.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN RISE?
TO RISE IN OPPOSITION.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
I CAN'T SUPPORT THE OFFSET.
THE DERA PROGRAM, AS THE
GENTLEMAN IS AWARE OF, WAS SET
TO BE -- IT WAS NOT IN THE
ADMINISTRATION'S MARK.
AND THIS
UNDERLYING BILL, WE PROVIDE FOR
$10 MILLION FOR THE DERA
PROGRAM.
AS SHE WELL KNOWS, THROUGHOUT
THE COUNTRY THIS IS A WAY TO
REMOVE OLD DIESEL ENGINES THAT
POLLUTE AND THIS IS SOMETHING
THAT ACTUALLY WORKS.
THIS IS NOT A PROGRAM, IT'S NOT
A STUDY, IT'S NOT SOME ACADEMIC
EXERCISE.
IT'S ACTUALLY SOMETHING THAT
CLEANS UP THE AIR, IT'S
SOMETHING THAT I'M VERY MUCH
SUPPORTIVE OF.
RIGHT NOW E.P.A.'S BUILDINGS
AND FACILITIES ACCOUNTS ARE CUT
BY NEARLY A THIRD.
WE HAVE CUT BACK THESE ACCOUNTS
SUBSTANTIALLY, AND SO WE JUST
CAN'T SUPPORT THE OFFSET.
WILL THE
GENTLEMAN YIELD?
I'D BE HAPPY TO
YIELD.
I THANK THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA FOR
WHICH WE BOTH SERVE, AND IT'S
MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE FUNDS
WOULD BE TAKEN FROM -- DO WITH
WHAT WE'RE TAKING IS OUTLAID AS
REQUIRED.
SO I DON'T BELIEVE THIS WOULD
BE A HURT TO THAT ACCOUNT.
RECLAIMING MY
TIME.
THE PROGRAM HAS ALREADY TAKEN A
SUBSTANTIAL HIT.
A $20 MILLION HIT, AS A MATTER
OF FACT.
ALMOST EVERY OTHER PROGRAM IN
OUR BILL HAS TAKEN SUBSTANTIAL
HITS.
WE'RE SERIOUS ABOUT REDUCING
SPENDING.
IF WE -- IF WE HAD THE
ADDITIONAL MONEY I'M SURE THE
CHAIRMAN WOULD HAVE ADDED MORE
MONEY IN THE DERA ACCOUNT IN
THE FIRST PLACE IF WE HAD THE
EXTRA MONEY TO DO SO BECAUSE I
THINK THERE IS -- IT'S AN
EXTREMELY SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM.
SOMETHING I CERTAINLY SUPPORT.
I UNDERSTAND THE GENTLELADY'S
CONVICTION BUT WE DON'T HAVE
THE MONEY TO TAKE CARE OF THIS
OFFSET SO I HAVE TO OPPOSE THE
AMENDMENT.
DOES THE GENTLEMAN
YIELD BACK?
I YIELD BACK.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE
DOES THE GENTLEMAN FROM
VIRGINIA RISE IN
I RISE TO STRIKE THE
LAST WORD.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
I AGREE WITH THE
DISTINGUISHED MEMBER FROM
CALIFORNIA.
I KNOW MY COLLEAGUE, SHE'S MORE
THAN A COLLEAGUE A GOOD FRIEND,
IS VERY PASSIONATE ABOUT THIS
PROGRAM.
IT HAS A SWEET ACRONYM, DEARA.
BUT AS I SAID DURING H.R. 1
DEBATE, THE DIESEL EMISSIONS
PROGRAM IS A GOOD PROGRAM.
THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE.
RIGHT NOW, WITH REGARD TO THIS
AMENDMENT, THE ISSUE IS WHETHER
OR NOT WE SHOULD BE RAIDING
OTHER E.P.A. ACCOUNTS TO GIVE
THIS DIESEL PROGRAM EVEN MORE
FUNDING THAN IT ACTUALLY HAS
ALREADY GOTTEN IN THIS BILL.
CHAIRMAN SIMPSON FUNDED THE
DIESEL PROGRAM AT $30 MILLION
EVEN THOUGH PRESIDENT OBAMA
REQUESTED NOTHING FOR IT.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD ADD A MERE
$5 MILLION BUT IT WOULD TAKE
$10 MILLION FROM E.P.A.'S
BUILDINGS TO PAY FOR IT.
MAYBE POLITICALLY ATTRACTIVE TO
TAKE FROM A BUILDING'S ACCOUNT
UNTIL YOU KNOW WHAT IT FUNDS.
THE FOLLOWING FACILITIES WOULD
HAVE TO GIVE UP FUNDING TO ADD
THIS $5 MILLION TO THE DIESEL
PROGRAM.
THE ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN,
NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL
EMISSIONS LAB.
THE ANDREW BRADENBACK
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENT FOR
THE CINCINNATI, OHIO, THE
REGION 9 OFFICE IN SAN
FRANCISCO, THE RESEARCH
TRIANGLE PARK MAIN LARAER TO IN
-- LABORATORY IN NORTH
CAROLINA.
IN THAT REGARD, THE PROJECT
NEEDS TO BE FUNDED SO WE CAN
SAVE FUTURE LEASE COSTS THAT
WOULD BE IN JEOPARDY IF WE TAKE
THIS MONEY AWAY FROM THE
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK LAB.
THENARY GANS ET RESEARCH LAB
WOULD BE CUT.
THE AIR AND RADIATION LAB IN
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA.
ALL OF THESE FACILITIES HAVE
REQUESTS IN THIS FISCAL YEAR
2012 BUDGET FOR NEEDED
FACILITIES IMPROVEMENTS.
TO CUT THOSE IN ORDER TO
INCREASE A PROGRAM THAT WAS
ALREADY PLUSED UP $30 MILLION
ABOVE THE REQUEST DOESN'T SEEM
TO ME TO BE THE RIGHT THING TO
DO.
IN ADDITION, WE HAVE AN
AMENDMENT FILED FROM ANOTHER
MEMBER AND I SEE HER HERE, SO I
SUSPECT IT'S GOING TO COME UP
RIGHT NOW TO TAKE AWAY THE $30
MILLION THAT'S ALREADY IN THE
BILL.
I WOULD HOPE MY GOOD FRIEND
WOULD STICK AROUND TO STRIKE
THE LAST WORD AND ADDRESS THIS
AMENDMENT THAT WOULD ZERO OUT
THE DIESEL PROGRAM.
I DON'T WANT TO ZERO IT OUT BUT
NEITHER DO I WANT TO ZERO OUT
MONEY FOR SIX IMPORTANT E.P.A.
FACILITIES.
SO I HOPE THE SUPPORTERS OF THE
DIESEL PROGRAM WILL STICK
AROUND, WILL DEFEND IT, AGAINST
ITS ELIMINATION, WHICH IS AN
AMENDMENT THAT'S COMING UP VERY
SOON.
BUT RIGHT NOW, IT SEEMS TO ME
THAT THE WISEST THING TO DO IS
TO TRY TO PROTECT THE $30
MILLION THAT'S ALREADY IN THE
PROGRAM WHICH IS $30 MILLION
MORE THAN THE PRESIDENT
REQUESTED.
CHAIRMAN.
I YIELD BACK MY TIME, MR.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE -- THE
QUESTION IS ON THE AMENDMENT
OFFERED BY THE GENTLELADY FROM
CALIFORNIA.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR,
THE NOES HAVE IT AND THE
AMENDMENT IS NOT AGREED TO.
I ASK FOR A
RECORDED VOTE.
A RECORDED VOTE IS
REQUESTED.
PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 6 OF RULE
18, FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ON THE
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY -- OFFERED
BY THE GENTLELADY FROM
CALIFORNIA WILL BE POSTPONED.
PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 6 OF RULE
18, PROCEEDINGS WILL NOW RESUME
ON THOSE AMENDMENTS ON WHICH
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS WERE
POSTPONED IN THE FOLLOWING
ORDER.
THE FIRST AMENDMENT BY MR.
DICKS OF WASHINGTON, THE SECOND
AMENDMENT BY MR. DICKS OF
WASHINGTON, THE AMENDMENTS EN
BLOC BY MR. LATOURETTE OF OHIO,
AMENDMENT NUMBER 39 BY MR.
POMPEO OF KANSAS, AND AMENDMENT
NUMBER 23 BY MS. RICHARDSON OF
CALIFORNIA.
THE CHAIR WILL REDUCE TO FIVE
MINUTES THE TIME FOR ANY
ELECTRONIC VOTES IN THIS SERIES
AFTER THE FIRST 15-MINUTE VOTE.
S THAT 15-MINUTE VOTE.
THE UNFINISHED BUSINESS IS THE
REQUEST FOR A RECORDED VOTE ON
THE FIRST AMENDMENT OFFERED BY
THE GENTLEMAN FROM WASHINGTON,
MR. DICKS, ON WHICH FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS WERE POSTPONED AND
ON WHICH THE NOES PREVAILED BY
VOICE VOTE.
THE CLERK WILL REDESIGNATE THE
AMENDMENT.
FIRST AMENDMENT,
OFFERED BY MR. DICKS OF
WASHINGTON.
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
RISEN, A RECORDED VOTE IS
ORDERED.
MEMBERS WILL RECORD THEIR VOTES
BY ELECTRONIC DEVICE.
THIS IS A 15-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.]
ON THIS VOTE, THE
YEAS ARE 174, THE NAYS ARE 237,
AND THE AMENDMENT IS NOT AGREED
TO.
THE UNFINISHED BUSINESS IS THE
REQUEST FOR A RECORDED VOTE ON
THE SECOND AMENDMENT OFFERED BY
THE GENTLEMAN FROM WASHINGTON,
MR. DICKS, ON WHICH FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS WERE POSTPONED AND
ON WHICH THE NOES PREVAILED BY
VOICE VOTE.
THE CLERK WILL REDESIGNATE THE
AMENDMENT.
SECOND AMENDMENT
OFFERED BY MR. DICKS OF
WASHINGTON.