Alcee Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. At this time, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott). (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I would ask the gentlelady if she is prepared to close.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Thank you very much. Madam Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I won't take all of that time, Madam Speaker, but I do wish to assert into this debate, it's been said often on the other side, and my distinguished friend from the Rules Committee made the point, that people came here and said that jobs were more important than life. I didn't hear anybody say that, and I don't believe anybody believes that. But what I do believe that most of us understand is that this is not going to become the law and, therefore, what we are doing, in the final analysis, is a waste of time, and we could have been trying to do as we have not done in this session of Congress, address the subject of jobs. Madam Speaker, what we have before us is an extremely flawed bill; and, contrary to their self-professed commitment to an open process, this particular provision being considered is under a closed rule. Furthermore, I would also like to call into question how it's possible for us to consider this bill on the House floor when its sponsor, Mr. Pitts of Pennsylvania, failed to provide a statement citing Congress's constitutional authority to enact it. Mr. Pitts's statement of constitutional authority for the Protect Life Act cites no provision of the Constitution or any amendment to the Constitution. Therefore, I would like to request of him or Members on the other side to share with us the basis for this bill which violates the fundamental right to privacy upheld by the Supreme Court. It restricts women's access to health care and imposes further regulations on health insurance coverage. It's clear that the Protect Life Act lacks both constitutional and moral integrity. Let me insert additionally some feelings that have been expressed in public, and I take the prerogative of using them here on the floor. H.R. 358 comes on top of votes by the Republican-led House to eliminate all Federal funding for title X, the National Family Planning Program, to eliminate funding for all other reproductive health programs offering breast and cervical cancer exams or well-woman and primary health care and family planning to prevent unintended pregnancies and to reduce the need for abortion. They've led measures that eliminate requirements in health care reform covering maternal health care, mammograms, breastfeeding support, and other essential health services. In addition, they've made it impossible for women to speak to their doctors about abortion using Internet-based telemedicine. Now, these are just a few examples. The Republicans are full of fuzzy facts. I start my day almost every day, Madam Speaker, by reading the cartoon, after other parts of the newspaper, ``Get Fuzzy.'' And the cat in that particular cartoon constantly comes up with fuzzy facts. If you put all the fuzzy facts together and all the things that the Republican majority has done, they include Tea Party-led efforts to gut Environmental Protection Agency rules that keep the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the environment in which we live safe. They have done efforts to virtually eliminate child nutrition. And I can't believe that 20 years I'm here, and I hear Republicans talk about cutting out the Head Start program, the one documented program that has benefited American society over and above what was thought. They have done things to eliminate programs to help the unemployed to survive, to slash Medicaid and Medicare, to effectively abrogate any social contract and tear to shreds any social safety net. I have to ask, exactly whose lives are we protecting here? I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute and honor the memory of Emma Bates from Riviera Beach, Florida. Mrs. Bates passed away on October 9, 2011, following a year-long battle with stomach cancer. Previously, she had beaten both breast and colon cancer, attesting to the strength and perseverance that drove Mrs. Bates throughout her life. Mrs. Bates moved from her native Baxley, Georgia to the Glades area in Florida as a child. She graduated from Roosevelt High School in West Palm Beach. After graduation, she enrolled in several business management courses at what is now known as Palm Beach State College and later found an interest in cosmetology. It was not long until she opened her own hair salon, the Intimate Salon of Beauty in Riviera Beach. Mrs. Bates was believed to have been the first licensed African- American beautician in Palm Beach County. She was known by many in the community as an activist who worked tirelessly for what she believed was right and in the best interest of the Riviera Beach community. She served as the chairwoman of the Citizens Task Force and was a campaign manager for multiple candidates, including a successful campaign for City Council in 2007. Mrs. Bates was a woman who was truly loved by her community and worked hard for what she believed in. I am deeply saddened by her passing, which is more than a personal loss, but also a loss for the community that she fought for and inspired. Her selfless efforts will continue to be felt for many years to come. Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my deepest condolences to Mrs. Bates' family and friends during this most difficult time. Her memory will live on and she will be dearly missed.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of Mrs. Frances Reeves Jollivette Chambers, a great educator, historian, and civil rights activist in Miami's African American community. Fran passed away at the age of 89 after a lengthy struggle with Alzheimer's disease. My thoughts and prayers go out to her family and friends at this most difficult time. She is survived by her daughters, Regina Jollivette Frazier and Cleo Leontine Jollivette; son, Cyrus M. Jollivette; her brother, Garth C. Reeves; four grandchildren; and three great- grandchildren. Tragically, Fran lost her first husband, Cyrus M. Jollivette, Sr., to a storm in January 1960. In July 1963, she married James R. Chambers, who passed away in June 2000. Fran was born on November 13, 1921, in Overtown, Miami's historic African American neighborhood. She was the sixth of five surviving children born to the late Henry E.S. Reeves and Rachel Jane Cooper Reeves, who had emigrated from Nassau, Bahamas to Miami in April 1919 and founded The Miami Times, Florida's oldest Black newspaper. Fran graduated from Booker T. Washington High School in 1938 before receiving a Bachelor of Arts degree summa cum laude from Bennett College in 1942 and a Master of Arts degree from New York University in 1959. In addition, she later studied at the University of Miami, University of Florida, Florida Agricultural and Mechanical (A&M) University, Florida Atlantic University, and Barry University, earning more graduate credits than required for her doctorate. Fran was a true educator. For more than 37 years, she taught and guided students at Dunbar Elementary School, Miami Jackson Senior High School, Continuing Opportunities for Purposeful Education (COPE) Center North, and Holmes Elementary School as a teacher, reading specialist, counselor, and principal. During this time, Fran also dedicated her time and energy to numerous causes as a volunteer for the March of Dimes and the American Heart Association, JESCA board chair, a board member of Senior Centers of Dade County, and a member of the American Association of University Women. In the 1970s and 1980s, she was a member of the Florida State Board of Optometry and the League of Women Voters. After retiring from the Dade County Public Schools in July 1979, Fran continued giving back to her community and traveled the world, visiting over 50 countries and six continents. She was a lifelong member of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), a platinum member of The Links, Inc., and a charter member and past president of the MRS Club, a six- decades-old group of friends. Fran was also a member of the Daughters of the King at Incarnation Episcopal Church. Almost 30 years ago, Fran first dreamed of publishing a book that would preserve and share the history of Miami's Black pioneers. Her vision was realized in Linkages and Legacies, a 120-page, hardbound coffee table book chronicling the works, deeds, and experiences of Miami's Black pioneers. Published in March 2010 by The Links, Inc., Greater Miami Chapter, through the non-profit Linkages and Legacies, Inc., this publication was distributed for free as a gift to the community. Furthermore, Fran's concept served as the inspiration for the AT&T African American History Calendar, which was created 17 years ago. These important works would not have been possible without the efforts of individuals like Fran, who have dedicated their lives to serving their communities. Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege and pleasure of knowing Fran and her family personally. The Miami community has lost one of its great pioneers, and she will be dearly missed. Thanks to Fran's many contributions, however, her legacy of education, compassion, and love will live on for generations to come.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize October as National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. This month we stand together with those who have bravely faced this disease, as well as to raise awareness toward finding a cure. I am proud to wear this pink ribbon pin in support of National Breast Cancer Awareness Month and to recognize the importance of early detection in an effort to eradicate this disease, includin encouraging women and men to follow recommended screening guidelines. Furthermore, we must make certain that every woman has access to regular mammography screenings. For more than 20 years, the observance of National Breast Cancer Awareness Month each October has provided a time for us all to reflect on loved ones who have won and lost the battle against breast cancer. Every two minutes, a woman is diagnosed with breast cancer, and every thirteen minutes one woman will die of breast cancer in the United States. In Florida alone, an estimated 15,330 new cases of invasive breast cancer will be diagnosed in women in 2011 and 2,690 of these women will die from this disease. These statistics are some of the many reasons I am a supporter of legislation and action that aids the fight to end breast cancer. I have also signed the National Breast Cancer Coalition's Congressional Declaration of Support for Breast Cancer Deadline 2020. By declaring my support to end breast cancer by January 1, 2020, I am proud to commit to continuing to educate myself and my constituents about the issues surrounding breast cancer. Unfortunately, today we see a decline in screening rates. A recent study of 1.5 million women found that of those over the age of forty, with health insurance, less than fifty percent had received the recommended annual screening. The key to ending this disease is early detection, which reduces costs associated with the disease. The costs for early stage treatment are estimated at approximately $22,350 per person, while late stage treatment costs nearly $120,000 per person. Early detection of this life threatening disease is crucial to saving lives and ultimately reduces the burden on patients and our health system. There are 2.5 million breast cancer survivors living in the U.S. today. They are the embodiment of bravery, as well as to the importance of promoting awareness about breast cancer, following recommended guidelines, offering treatment to those affected, and continuing to fund groundbreaking research. Mr. Speaker, I commend those advocates, survivors, and men and women who fight the disease every single day. In honor of National Breast Cancer Awareness Month, I encourage everyone to make a renewed commitment to following recommended screening guidelines and I will continue the effort here in Congress to eradicate breast cancer by supporting breast health awareness, education, research, screening and referrals.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Fairness in the American Tax Code Act of 2011.'' During these difficult economic times, the wealthiest of Americans should be paying their fair share in taxes. Our nation's unemployment rate is over nine percent and yet, we have the lowest tax rates in decades. Why are we giving tax breaks to Wall Street CEOs and Big Oil Executives, instead of helping the millions of Americans who are struggling. Thanks to loopholes in the tax code, M. Speaker, the rich keep getting richer. The top one percent of earners are responsible for 20 percent of the nation's annual income, up from 10 percent in 1981. The wealthiest CEOs are paid 400 times what the average worker earns. Only 30 years ago, it was 20 times as much. Since President Ronald Reagan started lowering tax rates up until President George W. Bush slashed capital gains and income tax rates for the wealthy to their current historic lows, the wealthy have continued to pay less and less in taxes. As I travel throughout my district, into areas where the unemployment rate is over 40 percent, I ask myself where are the jobs and where did all the money go? Americans in the highest tax bracket are supposed to pay 35 percent of their income in taxes. However, since President Bush slashed the capital gains rate to 15 percent, the top 400 wealthiest Americans, for example, pay only 15 percent in taxes on 80 percent of their income. As the law is currently written, any wealthy American paying the full 35 percent needs to get a new accountant. My bill simply asks the wealthiest to pay their fair share. It produces a progressive ``job creation'' surtax for those making more than $350,000. The surtax increases gradually until those with incomes over $10 million are paying the same amount on all their income as the legally required statutory rate. M. Speaker, it is time for the wealthiest of Americans to pay their fair share in taxes. An editorial in the New York Times recently noted: ``Critics also claim that raising the capital gains rate would hamstring investment. But economists studying the historical record have concluded that the effect is small, dwarfed by considerations like profit growth. The truth is that despite the current low tax rates, American businesses-- small and big--are investing very little. Business surveys show that the main reason is that there are very few customers with money to buy their products.'' The wealthiest Americans have rigged the tax system in their favor to the detriment of the middle class. They've changed the rules to their own financial advantage. My bill will make our nation's tax code fairer. Mr. Speaker, investing in America is the only way that we are going to create jobs. The Fairness in the American Tax Code Act of 2011 ensures the investments made for strictly personal gains are investments that will actually create jobs in America. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in supporting this critically important piece of legislation that will help to put our nation's economy back on track.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the city of Delray Beach on the occasion of its centennial celebration. For 100 years, the city of Delray Beach has symbolized the American spirit: looking ahead in times of prosperity; enduring in times of difficulty; and always rising to meet the challenges that have at times weighed on our country's history. From its modest beginnings as an agricultural area in 1894, Delray Beach quickly grew, attracting many visitors in the winter months. On October 9, 1911, with a population of nearly 300, the area of Delray was chartered by the State of Florida as an incorporated town. Industrial plants for the canning of pineapples and tomatoes were built, bringing in new residents and ushering in an era of prosperity. By 1920, Delray's population had reached over 1000 residents. Today, it is estimated that more than 65,000 people call the city of Delray Beach home. The city has seen its share of highs and lows throughout the years. The early 1900s saw Delray prosper, only to experience economic hardships by the Great Depression. By the 1930s, Delray was again flourishing, only to find itself in engulfed in the unrest faced by our nation during the civil rights movement. But Delray Beach, like our country, endured. In the 1980s, prosperity was again seen changed to decay, as many of the small mom-and-pop stores that lit the downtown area were forced to close their doors. But today, even in the face of economic hardships, Delray Beach has united to create a plan for redevelopment and revitalization that has transformed and continues to transform its commercial center. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to honor the history of the city of Delray Beach, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House of Representatives to ensure that Delray Beach, along with the countless other cities and towns across our great nation, experience growth, prosperity, and success in the next 100 years.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, colleague, and fellow Floridian for yielding the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in opposition to the rule for H.R. 2250. In my considered opinion, both these bills are yet another effort by the Republican leadership to demonize the Environmental Protection Agency while doing nothing to create jobs for the millions of Americans who are unemployed. My colleague Mr. Nugent, my friend, cited the letter, the authors of same being Walter Minnick, Robert Aderholt, G.K. Butterfield, and John Shimkus. I signed that letter. I was not the author of same. I do not deny any of its particulars, specifically the fact that there should be flexible approaches to address the diversity of boiler operation, sectors and fuels that could prevent severe job loss. I would remind my friend that the measure that we were speaking of is under a stay and, therefore, the implementation of the provision will continue, I believe, to allow for the needed flexibility. And I think you referred, and I refer again, to the portion of the joint bipartisan letter: ``As EPA turns to developing a final Boiler MACT rule''--mind you, they had not, and this was as of August of last year--``we hope you will carefully consider sustainable approaches that protect the environment and public health while fostering economic recovery and jobs within the bounds of the law.'' That is precisely what I signed on to and stand by, and I don't believe that it is inconsistent with anything that my friend pointed out nor did he suggest that it would be inconsistent. But I did also hear my friend talk about Washington doublespeak, and I distinctly heard him refer to what has now kind of perpetuated itself inside this beltway, and that is the statement that was made earlier by the distinguished Speaker of the House of Representatives that ``at this moment the executive branch has 219 rules in the works that will cost our economy at least $100 million. That means under the current Washington agenda, our economy is poised to take a hit from government of at least $100 million.'' I would ask my colleague to not follow on that pattern; otherwise, you get caught in the Washington Beltway doublespeak. The better proof allows an analysis that was done by The Washington Post, and I'm not a follower necessarily of The Washington Post Fact Checker, but so far I've not heard anyone reference them. They do give people Pinocchios for when something is not the truth. It's either one Pinocchio, two or three. As it turns out, what the Washington Post said following the Speaker's comments that you have used here today, my dear friend, is that Mr. Boehner left the distinct impression that 219 new regulations were hanging like a sword of Damocles over the U.S. economy; but it turns out the number of potential regulations is inflated as well as the potential impact. Overall, his statement contains significant factual errors, and they give it three Pinocchios. I would urge that you not try to earn these Pinocchios that they're talking about, and let's try to get the facts straight. Just last week, we were having this very same discussion about a bill that made it easier for power plants to emit harmful mercury and other toxic pollutants into the air. Today, we're talking about letting industrial boilers and cement kilns do the same thing. Last week, I asked, Why is it that certain ones can follow the standards and that others can't? I still am puzzled by that. I also asked last night how it is if we don't know what the rules are going to look like that we would be smiting down, if there is such a word, the rule. Mr. Speaker, we are judged by what we do and not by what we say. What my friends on the other side of the aisle continue to do is to call up bills that are shortsighted and undermine our ability to maintain the public health and cleanliness of our air and water. Bills like these that destroy regulations protecting the air we breathe and the water we drink have the same consequences regardless of intent. Republicans cannot close their eyes to these effects and plead good intentions. I assure you these effects are severe. Mercury is a powerful neurotoxin that does, in fact, hinder brain development in infants and children. Other toxic metals getting a pass under these bills are arsenic, chromium and lead, which are known to cause cancer and birth defects. Despite these facts, my friends on the other side cling to their anti-regulatory dogma with fanatical fervor. I had a friend last night say to me that some people have a conscience and brain and that others just think about dollar signs. I feel that my colleagues who have brains--I believe they have consciences--seem to place the dollar signs ahead of many of the practical matters that would benefit society. This anti-government rhetoric has gone so far as to lead my colleagues on the other side astray of the protocols laid out by Majority Leader Cantor. In the third protocol laid out in his Legislative Protocols for the 112th Congress, Leader Cantor writes: ``Any bill or joint resolution authorizing discretionary appropriations shall specify the actual amount of funds being authorized. Authorizations shall not utilize terms such as `such sums as may be necessary' or similar language that fails to specify the actual amount of funding being authorized.'' Yet neither of these bills specifies how much money is authorized for the implementation of the bill, leaving the cost a mystery. Furthermore, ambiguous language in these bills will create legal uncertainty and ensure litigation. Since these bills don't specify how much they cost, neither bill contains an offset for the cost. These bills also defy Leader Cantor's fourth protocol that we know around here as CutGo. There will be a real cost for the EPA to take on another lengthy rule creation process, but my friends on the other side have chosen to ignore this contradiction. Mr. Speaker, these bills are not just bureaucratic infighting. They will have real and measurable effects. According to EPA's analysis, H.R. 2250 would result in a significant number of premature deaths, in a significant number of additional heart attacks, and in considerable numbers--more than 100,000--of additional asthma attacks that otherwise could have been avoided. Likewise, H.R. 2681 would cause tens of thousands of adverse health effects, including the premature deaths that are suspected and the heart attacks and additional asthma attacks that otherwise could have been avoided. The reason I didn't use EPA's numbers is I don't think EPA or anybody else has the prerogative to make a decision about how many people are going to die at a certain time. That said, it does not mean, however, that one person is not going to die, and it does not mean that one person is not going to have asthma. My position is one death that could be avoided is too many, and one asthma attack, if you've been around children who have them, is too many if they could be avoided. In light of these estimates, these bills appear to be nothing more than another attempt to purge any government intervention related to keeping our air clean and environment safe. Consider that these regulations the Republicans say are destroying jobs have not even gone into effect. The Boiler MACT rules dealing with industrial boilers, as I, along with my colleagues, wrote to EPA, are currently in an administrative state while the EPA reviews industry- provided data. That's why we sent the letter during that period of time--to ask them to please consider the diversity, as I continue to do, of boilermakers in this country. We don't even know what those rules are going to look like; yet the Republican gut reaction is to oppose them. Or consider that the cement rules have been finalized for a year already. Most cement plants are already in compliance, and those plants that aren't are working with the EPA to get in compliance. Mr. Speaker, based on what I've seen by the Republican-led Congress, it is clear to me that they have no intention of using their power to create jobs. I heard my colleague, my friend, say that the President's administration is not about the business with the so-called, he said, American Jobs Act. I don't know whether it would create a single job or not. We wouldn't know it until it passed, and it isn't going to be passed here in the House of Representatives because the agenda that you've laid out is an agenda that's going to attack the EPA as if they are some horror show here in this country and not an agenda, as you heard in the one minutes this morning and as you've heard from the Democratic leadership repeatedly, to bring up the Jobs Act, to put it on the floor, to let it be debated under an open rule, and to do what's necessary for us to create jobs. The history of the Clean Air Act shows that its benefits--longer lives, healthier kids, greater workforce productivity, and ecosystem protections--outweigh the costs by more than 30 to 1. I continue to remind my friends that the Clean Air Act was implemented under the Richard Nixon administration, and it has been in existence for 40 years. This country has experienced ups and downs during that period of time insofar as its economy is concerned, and said regulations haven't caused all of the economy to collapse. Otherwise, during the period when Speaker Gingrich and President Clinton and those of us who were here balanced the budget, we wouldn't have been able to do it if the Clean Air Act were all that bad as you all are pointing out in your continuous attack against the EPA. In the time since the act was passed, air pollution has been reduced by more than 60 percent while the gross domestic product of the United States grew by more than 200 percent. Furthermore, an EPA economic analysis found no indication that any cement plant would close due to the cement rules. At most, the analysis at this point indicated that 10 underutilized plants would go idle temporarily while waiting for economic conditions to improve. However, if we can get the economy back on track and restore the demand for cement, then those plants will not have to go idle. We need to focus on creating customers and restoring demand. I heard that from my colleague saying that's what he hears from businesspersons, I hear that same thing, that they need demand and that they need customers. We need to make it easier for them to do that and not easier for the suppliers to pollute. You know what's a great way to create more demand for concrete? Invest in infrastructure projects that use concrete for roads and bridges, the very same proposals called for in the President's Jobs Act. If Republicans are so concerned with the concrete plants shutting down, you should work toward helping these businesses sell more concrete. Making it easier for them to pollute does not provide underutilized plants with new customers. In the midst of an economy still suffering the effects of the greatest recession in a generation, the only answer my friends on the other side seem to have is to dismantle any government regulation intended to protect our Nation's public health and environment. This, Mr. Speaker, is economic extremism. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I guess it's my prerogative to assist in correcting a couple of measures. I kind of wish my good friend--and he is and he's going to be a real asset to our institution as an institutionalist, and I'm referring to my friend, Mr. Woodall from Georgia. He and I enjoy quite a tete-a-tete in the Rules Committee. It's just that when he puts forward his proposition, I wish he had that same fervor with all of the closed rules we have had in the House up to this time. One-half of all of the rules we've promulgated until today have been under closed rules. This one is a modified open rule. And, yes, you're correct, Members can come down and they can go forward if yesterday they knew today that they had to meet by the close of business the amendment process.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Absolutely.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Nugent and I are from Florida. The largest supplier of energy-- electricity, specifically--in Florida is a company known to him and me as Florida Power and Light. Mr. Nugent probably does not remember that I ran for the Public Service Commission in the State of Florida to deal with regulatory matters and to address the ongoing concerns. And much of what we talked about at that time, in addition to two lawsuits that I had filed in my community, was about coal-fired electric generating plants. Florida Power and Light, being an extremely responsible energy producer, has taken upon itself to eliminate much of their coal-fired activity. And in spite of all these regulations and their alleged uncertainty and everything having to do with it, they now are using gas-fired facilities and working on trying to reduce emissions, period, and have no problems. The largest electricity producer in this country is Exelon, which has no power. They come from Mr. Shimkus', the gentleman that just spoke, territory in Illinois. That's where they're based, and they have no concerns with complying with these regulatory matters. Now, one thing I heard about cement being imported, the reason for that is the low demand. And if my Governor and some of these other Governors would get off the dime and go about the business, and if this Congress was to go about the business of implementing the infrastructure provisions that are offered in the Jobs Act of the President, then we would use more cement, and we wouldn't have to get any from anywhere as we have not in the past when the economy has that kind of demand. For people who believe in the Republican anti-government, ``the EPA is the evildoer of the world'' doctrine found in many of these bills-- and I might add we will see more of this according to the majority leader--we are going to demonize EPA, those 17,000 employees. I found it ironic that someone commented a minute ago that they have enough staff in order to be able to do it, while at the same time every time we look to cut some agency, we are cutting EPA, and many people in the Republican Party have used as their mantra the elimination of the EPA. So I don't know that they could offer any kind of regulation on the Clean Air Act or anything else. But I offer to them these suggestions: If you don't like regulation, don't drive on roads; don't fly; don't go to national parks; don't worry about listeria in cantaloupe and lettuce; don't worry about mercury, chrome, cadmium, and other toxins that pollute the air and cause our children to have asthma. Just don't do that. Don't have any regulations. Just go about your business. And we would then find ourselves in mass confusion with people with premature deaths that are unnecessary. We can do this. We can have a conscience and a brain and we can make money in this country. We've done it in the past; we will do it in the future. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and on the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Reclaiming my time, I can't agree that this one is done right, but it's a modified open rule. It's not an open rule, and you know that as well as do I. But more important, I want to refer to my good friend from Florida as well when he said that CutGo is not applicable in this particular situation. I disagree. And I think what needs to be understood by my colleague, Mr. Nugent, is we don't make these rules here in the House. The protocols have been established early on, and we don't say what CBO needs to do. I think all of us are in agreement that CBO is a nonpartisan requirement, a group that estimates for us what would be the net cost of legislation. In this particular measure that we are considering, H.R. 2681, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 2681 would have a net cost of a million dollars over the next 5 years. The cost of this legislation falls within budget function 300, natural resources and environment. Now then, I repeat the protocols enunciated and promulgated by the majority leader, Mr. Cantor: any bill or joint resolution which authorizes the appropriation of funds for any new agency, office, program activity, or benefit shall also include language offsetting the full value of such authorization through a reduction in the authorization of current ongoing spending. Now, that just is not happening here. And CutGo, although applicable, is being waived, I guess. At this time, I'm very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon, my good friend and classmate, Mr. Blumenauer.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would just remind my friend that when plants like he referenced are closed, it doesn't mean that the demand is not still there. And what happens is it means that new plants are being built. And guess what happens when you build new plants? You use steel, you use cement, and you have jobs. So I'm not certain that analogy that he put forward holds in that case. I would tell my friend from Florida to know that I have no further speakers at this time and I am prepared to close.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2401 is a toxic bill that attempts to dismantle any government regulation to protect our Nation's public health and environment. To set the stage for my brief remarks, let me cite to the American public Executive Order 12866, which says: ``Each agency shall assess both the costs and the benefits of the intended regulation, and recognizing that some costs and benefits are difficult to quantify, propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its cause.'' Now, we've been operating under that particular provision for a substantial period of time. And quite frankly, Congress' decisions with reference to the Clean Air Act, signed by President Richard Nixon in 1970, came about as a result of continuing arguments from industry that cleaning up air pollution was too expensive or not feasible. This bill forbids the Environmental Protection Agency from finalizing both the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule and, importantly, the Cross-State Air Pollution rule requiring coal-fired power plants without modern pollution controls to install controls, to reduce emissions of mercury and other toxic air pollutants, fine particulates, and the pollutants that cause smog and acid rain. In the Rules Committee, I spoke about being in Lavigny in Poland and watching the pollution that was destroying the Black Forest in another country, in Germany. We've had that take place in our States, where one State is offering emissions that come down on another State's population, and therefore the Cross-State Air Pollution rule said that coal-fired plants should install modern pollution controls. And guess what? Sixty percent of them, including one of the largest producers of electricity in this country--Exelon in Illinois--do favor these same rules that are being sought to be delayed. And they favor them for the reason that, among other things, it has produced jobs and it has cured the problems that have been pointed out by the American Lung Association and countless other organizations that favor the Clean Air Act and are opposed to delaying further two particularly important measures that would allow for pollution to continue to be cleaned up. Port Everglades in Florida, right outside my constituency, for all of the years that I have lived there--and that nears 50--this coal-powered plant has been producing emissions. Over the course of time, they have reduced those emissions. And Florida Power & Light recently indicated that they're going to do everything that they can to meet the emissions standards rather than sit up and try and oppose them because they recognize, one, that they do have all of the juice--if you can call electricity that. And in the final analysis, those of us that benefit from it are going to wind up paying more. But to pay more to make sure that children don't have asthma and to make sure that people don't have lung pollution and to make sure that lakes don't go dead from mercury or that fish don't have in them more mercury than they rightly should for food consumption, then I'm willing to pay more; and I believe most Americans are as well in order that we will have clean air. I ask for support of my amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.