2662, the growing American Innovation not act, or linking act. This bill would bring long overdue legislative reform to the clean air ask new Source Review Program. The new Source Review Program protects airquality when factories and power plants are modified in newly built. Gain act provides muchneeded clarity to factor in power plant owners as well as to state permitting officials about when permits are needed. The new Source Review Program was originally designed to support pollution control projects and upgrades. It had the opposite effect. In its current form the program is complex, costly, timeconsuming. The program directly slows Economic Growth and slows job creation, Technical Innovation as well as the ability to modernize our american industry and infrastructure. The association spent a letter to the committee outlining the extreme burden that new source review places on its members. The association explained a Member Company sought a permit to combust alternative fuels. The
Of the bill. The clerk h. R. 4533, a bill to better the Health Care System as the lexington v. A. Health care system and to make certain other designations. The speaker pro tempore the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. Members will record their votes by electronic device. This is a 15minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc. , in cooperation with the United States house of representatives. Any use of the closedcaptioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u. S. House of representatives. ] the speaker pro tempore on this vote, the yeas are 40 , the nays are 0. 0 recording present. 2 3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. The Unfinished Business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from washington from reichert, to suspend the rules a
And Group Retirement products. Thats why were your retirement company. Additional support has been provided by and by the corporation for public broadcasting, and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. Thank you. From the tisch wnet studios at Lincoln Center in new york, hari sreenivasan. Sreenivasan good evening and thank you for joining us. With President Trumps first formal address to congress two days away, an analysis of the draft republican congressional plan to replace the Affordable Care act, also known as obamacare, finds it would significantly reduce the number verage and cost the states billions of dollars more than theyre already spending. A 36page analysis of the plan was shown at the National Governors Association Conference this weekend, and obtained by the Washington Post and the news site vox. The analysis by Research Firm Avalere Health and the Consulting Firm mckinsey and company says the plan would today, a white house spokeswoman said one goal
And so basically, my opinion ill conclude that we dont need tar sands because of the Carbon Pollution that comes from it. We have our own sources of oil. Were using less oil because our cars are more efficient. The pipeline isnt going to help lower gas prices or enhance our Global Security or fight Climate Change. For all these reasons i oppose the bill and request that the committee grant an open rule allowing amendments to be offered, at a minimum. Thank you. Thank you very much. I appreciate your consciousness, not only being here and taking time to be a witness today, but also it is good to see be. I hope youre going to have a good new year. You too. Mr. Kramer welcome. Previously when youve been with us youve been on the resources committee. I dont know if you still are, but you are also a member now of the energy and commerce committee. I am. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I am the prime sponsor of the bill. That was what i was going to say. Were delighted that youre here. The gentlema
Issue. I commend the epa for working on this rule. Do you have a conference that this final rule is protective of health and the environment, are there gaps in the protections under this rule that would need to be filled by legislation . I believe the rule is very strong and very protective. And in terms of any gaps we dont believe there are any gaps. We believe all the risks are put in place. All the rigorous technical information. What about beneficial reuse . Will this rule restrict beneficial reuse in anyway to stigmatize coal ash . We dont believe it will. The real clarity is not subject to the rule. But still i expect were going to hear from the second panel that legislation is needed to remove epas authority to regulate cole ash under subtitle c in the future. What factors might lead epa to some day regulate coal ash under subtitle c. To be clear we had proposed an approach under d and c. We made a decision under d the seat proposal is no longer on the table. Like any other rule