On the recordMarch 3, 2016
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time to speak on the rule. Our process for a bill to get to the floor is it has to go through the Rules Committee. This was a very, very important bill. It was interesting in the debate, listening to the sides, because there is an argument by constituents of having clean bills: one bill, one issue, simply understood, vote on it, instead of this horse trading that sometimes gets proposed: you give me this for my giving you that. I can tell you one thing, I know in my district they really don't like this. They want us to be accountable for a bill. I also get frustrated with how easy it is to throw away jobs: I only have blank kilns in my State. Those are good-paying jobs for families, and they are important to the fabric of those communities. Just to say, ``Look, I have only got two. I don't really worry about them. Let's trade them off'' is really troublesome, and I am sorry we fall into that type of debate. This is really part of a bigger debate in that the courts have already done this with the Clean Power Plan, the climate change bill. The debate is, ``Okay. EPA, you can do the regulation. Do the regulation.'' What the EPA likes to do is do the regulation; and they play this game: ``We know it is not legal, so we will impose the regulation. We know it is not legal. We are going to force industry to comply,'' and then when the courts say it is not legal, they have already gone too far, and the jobs have been lost. That is factual.…





