Congressional Record, Volume 157 Issue 49 (Wednesday, April 6, 2011)

[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 49 (Wednesday, April 6, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H2350-H2392]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

ENERGY TAX PREVENTION ACT OF 2011

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 203 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 910.

{time} 1441

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole

[[Page H2351]]

House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R.
910) to amend the Clean Air Act to prohibit the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating any regulation
concerning, taking action relating to, or taking into consideration the
emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change, and for other
purposes, with Mr. Womack in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, last November, Americans spoke with a very clear voice.
They told us that we needed to get the country working again. They told
us that Big Government was not the solution. They told us to lead or
get out of the way on the economy, and our side got it, particularly
with the cap-and-trade vote in the last Congress.
Well, Mr. Chairman, today the House has a chance again to vote for a
bill that directly responds to the demands of the American people. This
legislation will remove the biggest regulatory threat to the American
economy. This is a threat imposed not by Congress, but entirely by the
Obama Environmental Protection Agency.
We all know that this administration wanted a cap-and-trade system to
regulate greenhouse gases, but Congress said no. So beginning in early
2009, EPA began putting together a house of cards to regulate emissions
of carbon dioxide. The agency began with automobiles, declaring that
their emissions endangered public health and welfare.
That single endangerment finding has since been used by EPA to launch
an unparalleled onslaught. The result, 2 years later, is a series of
regulations that will ultimately affect every citizen, every job
creator, every industry, really every aspect of our economy and way of
life.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is about protecting jobs. EPA regulations
will hit our manufacturing sector hard, with direct limits on factory
emissions, indirect costs from the higher prices to power their
facilities.
It will hit small businesses hard too, because when the electricity
to power your business and the gasoline to fuel your vehicles is more
expensive, your profit is less and you hire fewer new employees. That's
why the NFIB, the Farm Bureau, NAM, Chamber of Commerce, and others,
have endorsed H.R. 910. This is a key vote with many of those different
groups.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is also about energy prices for working
families. Power plants will be forced to comply with strict new
emission caps. You will have to purchase expensive new equipment to
retrofit their facilities. We all know the costs have nowhere to go
except on families' and businesses' monthly utility bills.
And it is about gas prices. The refiners that turn oil into gasoline
will also be caught into the web of costly regs. When it costs more to
make gasoline, it costs more to buy gasoline. And with prices already
at $4 a gallon across much of the country, the last thing that our
families need is government policies designed to make the price at the
pump even higher.
I am from Michigan. I know what a struggling economy, indeed, looks
like. And I think that it is a travesty that this government is
deliberately imposing policies that are going to harm job creators and
working families.
And for what, Mr. Chairman, for what? EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson
herself admits that U.S. regulation of greenhouse gases will not affect
global climate conditions. The only environmental impact may be to ship
our jobs to countries with no environmental protections at all, so, Mr.
Chairman, at the end of the day the EPA climate regime is all economic
pain and no environmental gain.
So let's pass this bill today and get the American economy back on
track.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Since the Clean Air Act was adopted 40 years ago, we have made steady
progress in cleaning our air and protecting the public health and
welfare.
Today, however, the Clean Air Act is under attack and progress is
threatened.
The Upton-Inhofe bill is a direct assault on the Clean Air Act. Its
premise is that climate change is a hoax and carbon pollution does not
endanger health and welfare.
But climate change is real. It is caused by pollution, and it is a
serious threat to our health and welfare. We need to confront these
realities, not put our heads in the sands.
American families count on the Environmental Protection Agency to
keep our air and water clean. But this bill has politicians overruling
the experts at the Environmental Protection Agency, and it exempts our
biggest polluters from regulation.
If Upton-Inhofe is enacted, the Environmental Protection Agency's
ability to control dangerous carbon pollution will be gutted.
That's why health experts like the American Lung Association are
opposed to this legislation. They know it is a polluters' protection
act. It is anti-science, anti-environment, and anti-health.
The Environmental Protection Agency made a scientific determination
that carbon pollution endangers health and the environment. Our
Nation's top scientists at the National Academy of Sciences agree with
this finding and so do scientists around the world.
Yet this legislation repeals that scientific finding. That's
something no Congress has ever done.
We need an energy policy based on science, not science fiction. With
oil at $100 per barrel and rising, the Middle East in turmoil and a
nuclear crisis in Japan, we urgently need clean energy policies. We
need more vehicles that run on electricity, natural gas, and renewable
fuels. We need more wind and solar power, and we need more energy
efficiency.
What we need is to work together to develop energy policies that
reduce our dependence on foreign oil and protect the health of American
families. Instead, we are pursuing a divisive, partisan bill that takes
us in exactly the wrong direction.
This extreme legislation won't pass in the Senate and, if it did, it
would be vetoed by President Obama.
It is a distraction from the imperative of developing new sources of
energy that will break our dependence on foreign oil, protect our
health and preserve our environment.
Americans want clean air to breathe and sensible, science-based
limits on carbon pollution.
I urge all Members to oppose this legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the chairman emeritus
of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Barton).
(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the distinguished chairman.
I rise in strong support of this bill.
I would like to make a few comments. First of all, the bill before us
doesn't change one sentence or one paragraph in the Clean Air Act. It
doesn't change anything.
What it does do is prevent the EPA from using the Clean Air Act to
regulate CO2 as a criteria pollutant under the Clean Air
Act. I was in Congress when we passed the Clean Air Act amendments back
in 1991. I was a cosponsor of the bill. I worked on the bill in
committee, voted for it on the floor. So I am a supporter of a strong
Clean Air Act.
CO2 is not a criteria pollutant under the Clean Air Act.
It was never intended to be. It's only because of a 5-4 Supreme Court
decision that said the EPA had to make a decision whether it should be,
and then a very flawed EPA endangerment finding, when President Obama
became the President, that we have an EPA authority, tenuous as it is,
to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act.

{time} 1450

What this bill does is take us back to the original Clean Air Act and
say we're going to regulate the criteria pollutants. But greenhouse
gases and CO2, which is a greenhouse gas, are not one of
those criteria pollutants.
What are the purported benefits of regulating CO2?
According to numerous

[[Page H2352]]

studies, in terms of the amount of reduction in CO2, by the
year 2100, which is 90 years away, 89 years away, we would see a
reduction of about 3 parts better per billion if we regulated
CO2 from the current 380 to 390 parts per billion. We would
see a reduction in temperature by about 0.006 to 0.015 of a degree
centigrade, and we would see a reduction in sea-level rise by about
0.007 of a centimeter. In other words, if we spend up to $100 billion a
year to regulate CO2, we get no reduction in parts per
billion, we get no reduction in temperature, and we get no reduction in
sea level. But we do get a huge cost to the economy every year.
This bill is a commonsense bill that simply says the Clean Air Act is
the Clean Air Act, and let's use it to regulate sulfur dioxide, and
let's use it to regulate lead and particulate matter and ozone, but
let's not use it to regulate a naturally-occurring compound which is
necessary for life and which helps us all.
Please vote against all the amendments, and please vote for this very
commonsense bill when we get to final passage.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to regulate
carbon dioxide emissions under the Clean Air Act. Reports from the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce and even the Senate Committee on Environment and
Public Works estimate that the cost of these proposed regulations will
be about $78 billion per year. The regulations will affect industries,
farms, hospitals, office buildings, and hotels to name just a few. The
regulations will adversely affect our ability to produce energy and
structural materials.
According to the EPA, the regulations will have this estimated
effect: ``Based on the re-
analysis the results for projected atmospheric CO2 concentrations are
estimated to be reduced by an average of 2.9 ppm (previously 3.0 ppm),
global mean temperature is estimated to be reduced by 0.006 to 0.015
deg. C by 2100 (previously 0.007 to 0.016 deg. C and sea-level rise is
projected to be reduced by approximately 0.06-0.14cm by 2100
(previously 0.06-0.15cm).''--Federal Register 75, page 25,495.
If we add up the yearly costs, then by the year 2100, we will have
spent about $7 trillion to possibly make us cooler by 0.015 degrees
Centigrade. This doesn't seem to be much of a benefit as a result of
such a high cost.
The Clean Air Act was never designed to regulate GHGs. It is time for
us to come to our senses and statutorily forbid the EPA to regulate
greenhouse gases.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
ranking member on the Energy Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce
Committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).
Mr. RUSH. I want to thank the gentleman from California for yielding
this time and recognizing me for this discussion.
Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to H.R. 910, the Upton-Inhofe dirty air
act, because this bill is an extreme and excessive piece of
legislation, and it is simply bad public policy. This bill would ignore
the warnings from the respected scientific community simply because
policymakers do not like what that science is telling us, and it will
place earnings and profits above protecting the American public.
I applaud the Obama administration for making a clear and unequivocal
statement yesterday that the President would veto this bill if it ever
made it to his desk.
Mr. Chairman, every respected and every notable scientific
organization, including the National Academy of Sciences, the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical
Union, the American Meteorological Society, the U.S. Global Change
Research Program, as well as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, are all in agreement that manmade greenhouse gases do
contribute to climate change, and that these impacts can be mitigated
through policy to curb these emissions.
Additionally, Mr. Chairman, many of the Nation's top public health
advocacy groups, including the American Lung Association and the
American Public Health Association, as well as leading civil rights
groups, such as the NAACP and the Environmental Law and Poverty Center,
have all come out strongly against this bill saying that it would leave
our most vulnerable citizens and our most vulnerable communities
unprotected if this bill were to become law.
As this USA Today poster here highlights, Mr. Chairman, there are so
many more benefits in acting to address climate change, as the science
tells us we must do--including energy independence, sustainability,
cleaner air and water, and a healthier, more vibrant, more robust
populace, just to name a few--than the option, which is living with the
status quo and hoping beyond hope that the majority of the world's
scientists are just plain wrong.
Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this bill because the science compels
me to be opposed to this bill. And I urge all of my colleagues, every
one of you all, to vote against this bill.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the
Energy and Power Subcommittee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Whitfield).
Mr. WHITFIELD. I am delighted that we have this opportunity today to
debate this important legislation.
Over the last 2 years, the Environmental Protection Agency has been
the most aggressive agency representing environmental causes in many,
many years. Today, we have an opportunity to try to stop their
unprecedented power grab. Even the longest-serving Member of this
House, the distinguished Democrat from Michigan, Mr. John Dingell, whom
we all respect and admire, said it would be a glorious mess if EPA ever
tried to regulate greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide, one of the things
they are trying to regulate, is necessary for human life.
When we had hearings on this issue, Lisa Jackson, the administrator
of EPA, came to the Congress. And she said, when asked the question,
what kind of impact would their regulations have, she said it would
have negligible impact on solving global warming unless other nations
were willing to act as well.
Now, what this really gets down to is about coal, because coal in
America produces 52 percent of our electricity. In China, coal produces
about 80 percent of their electricity. Electricity is produced at the
lowest rate with coal. And that is necessary if America is going to be
competitive in the global marketplace. That's why today you see China
expanding its coal marketing and coal utilities to produce electricity.
That's why in China you see so many jobs being produced because they
produce at a very low cost.
This legislation will stop EPA from driving up electricity costs in
America. It will make it less likely that we are going to continue to
lose jobs to China if we stop EPA. And I would remind all of you that
when Gina McCarthy, the air quality director of EPA, came to Congress,
she said herself that trying to regulate greenhouse gases in America
just for the enforcing arms of the greenhouse gas bill, which would be
every State in America, would cost the enforcing agencies $24 billion,
not including the additional cost to all of the utility companies,
those people who have boilers, farmers, others, the additional costs
that it would provide for them.
So if we want America to be competitive, to create jobs, to compete
with China, we must stop this out-of-control EPA. And that is precisely
what this legislation is designed to do. We're not changing the Clean
Air Act in any way. Ambient air quality, all of those things, will
still be in force.
So I would urge passage of this legislation.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman.
I rise in opposition to the dirty air act, which overturns the
scientific finding that pollution is harming our people and our planet.
But as long as Republicans are making an ideological decision to
overturn scientific reality, I wonder if the Republicans could offer an
amendment overturning inconvenient geological reality as well. Let's
tell the United States Geological Survey that Congress doesn't believe
that the United States only has 2 percent of the world's oil as well.
What the Republican majority is bringing to the House floor today is
almost as absurd.
Republicans want our only weapon against OPEC to be a bumper sticker
slogan, ``Drill, Baby, Drill.'' Well, I have news for my Republican
friends. We are drilling, baby. U.S. oil production is at its highest
level in nearly a

[[Page H2353]]

decade. Domestic natural gas production is at an all-time high. But we
will never be able to drill our way out of this problem.
What Republicans fail to acknowledge is that a clean energy
revolution is already underway. Take a look at the new electrical
generating capacity we've been installing in the United States in the
last 4 years--the last 4 years. Eighty percent of all new electrical-
generating capacity has been natural gas, 33,000 new megawatts; and
wind, 28,000 new megawatts.

{time} 1500

This is the last 4 years, ladies and gentlemen. Coal is down to
10,000, but rising very quickly. Solar at nearly 2,000 megawatts;
biomass at nearly 1,000 megawatts. In other words, there is a
revolution that is already under way. The only problem is, there is no
long-term policy or certainty that has been put on the books. All we
have are the Republicans fighting as hard as they can to prevent this
revolution from coming to fruition so that we can dramatically reduce
the amount of greenhouse gases that warm our planet, back out the oil
that OPEC wants to send us, and create a new, clean energy revolution
here in America that produces jobs for Americans.
This arbitrary rejection of scientific fact will not cause the gross
domestic product to rise or for unemployment to fall. But here is what
their bill will do: it will lead to higher pollution levels, which will
rise; oil imports, which will rise; temperatures, which will rise; job
creation domestically, which will actually go down.
Vote ``no'' on this assault on science, on public health, and on the
American economic competitiveness that allows a revolution to take off,
which makes it possible for us to solve the problems of employment,
national security, and a dangerously warming planet.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the chairman of the
Environment and the Economy Subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Shimkus).
(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, it is great that we have this chance to be
on the floor today to really address one of the most important job-
creating pieces of legislation we have brought to the floor, and that
is this legislation today.
For the climate change believers, their plan is simple: price carbon
fuels so we drive this new world of peace, security, and green energy.
But they have forgotten one thing: they destroy jobs in doing that.
These are well-known miners who lost their jobs the last time we did
it. Thousands of coal miners in Illinois lost their jobs. Even in the
greenhouse gas debate, it would add 50 cents to a gallon of gas. Does
that create jobs? That destroys jobs. We are trying to price energy,
and all costs go up.
So if you are concerned about the economy and you are concerned about
jobs, this is the perfect bill to support.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague, the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the dirty
air bill.
Once again the House is considering legislation that has little to no
chance of becoming law. Meanwhile, the public wants us to focus on job
creation. But the leadership of this House isn't listening. The only
job they seem interested in is the one they want EPA not to do: protect
the public's health. It is not surprising that many of our Nation's
biggest polluters have asked for this bill. It lets them keep
polluting.
But what is surprising is with this bill we are rejecting scientific
consensus. Even George W. Bush's EPA agreed that carbon pollution
threatens the public's health.
Mr. Chair, H.R. 910 will increase the pollution that triggers asthma
attacks, respiratory illness, and premature deaths. It will hobble
America's efforts to compete in the global energy marketplace.
Earlier this year, the President stood on this House floor and talked
about winning the future, about tapping into America's genius for
innovation, and he used clean energy as a central example because it
will help our economy grow. It will help America compete globally and
protect the health and quality of life for all Americans.
Let's not obstruct the EPA from doing its job of protecting the
public's health. Let's not stick our heads in the sand about the
dangers of climate change. Let's not turn away from meeting this
challenge, rather, use it to build dominance in the global industry of
clean energy.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this terrible bill.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Gardner).
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 910, the
Energy Tax Prevention Act. Without this bill, the EPA is going to
outsource jobs and business with greenhouse gas regulations, not to
mention placing huge financial burdens on consumers who will see energy
prices skyrocket as a result of compliance costs to utilities,
refineries and more.
However, what I want to talk about today is how it relates to rural
America and agriculture, particularly in Colorado. The EPA has time and
time again said agriculture is exempt. If agriculture is exempt, then
why did the Rural Electric Association in my district write to me and
say it will cost farmers and ranchers in my State an additional $1,700
a year to irrigate their land, if the carbon bill were to pass this
Congress last year and be signed into law by the President; $1,700 a
year, that carbon legislation would have cost farmers and ranchers in
my State. By 2030, it would have cost them an additional $7,000 a year
for one meter to run their irrigation. That's costing agriculture.
That's costing jobs.
Instead of becoming the Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA is
becoming the ``Everyone Pays a Lot Agency.''
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, that information is incorrect. I would like
to see a letter that pertains to this EPA action. I think it might have
been a letter related to a different piece of legislation.
I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Eshoo).
Ms. ESHOO. I thank the very distinguished ranking member of the House
Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in very, very strong opposition to this bill,
H.R. 910.
I can't help but think as I listen to what is being said on the other
side that they are sitting in a car looking in the rearview mirror, and
they think they see the future. There is a reason why people on this
side of the aisle are opposed to this bill and call it the dirty air
bill, because that's exactly what it is. And so instead of helping to
create jobs for the American people, which is their top priority, their
very, very top priority, what is the gift of the new majority, dirty
air. That's why the American Lung Association is vehemently opposed to
this bill. The American Public Health Association is vehemently opposed
to this bill. Former senior military officers, environmental
organizations, and scientists all strongly oppose the bill.
Now, guess who is for it. Guess who is for it, America. Big Oil
because it will increase the demand for oil and do nothing to reduce
what consumers spend on gasoline. This bill would put an end to future
cost savings because both the EPA and States would be prohibited from
updating the standards that they have already set.
One would think that during this time of rising gas prices and the
turmoil in the Middle East, that we would be voting on legislation to
decrease our dependence on foreign oil, voting to drive innovation in
clean energy industries, and voting to ensure future security and
energy independence and leave the next generation of Americans with a
healthy world. Instead, we are voting on a bill to gut the Clean Air
Act. I think this is all heavy evidence for Members of the House to
oppose the dirty air act.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the former chairman of
the Natural Resources Committee and the current ranking member on the
Transportation Committee, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr.
Rahall).
Mr. RAHALL. I thank the chairman for yielding the time to me, and I
appreciate his and his committee's work on this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I don't think anybody in this body is for dirty air or
dirty

[[Page H2354]]

water or any of the adjectives that have been used to describe the
supporters of this legislation. Certainly the Clean Water Act and Clean
Air Act and other worthy pieces of legislation that Congress has passed
over the decades have worthy goals and have achieved tremendous
progress for this country. And there is not a person in this country, I
dare say, that would want to renege on a lot of the positive
initiatives that have been achieved under these pieces of legislation.

{time} 1510

No singular government agency, however, is sufficiently positioned to
tackle the complex solution required to address carbon emissions. The
answer has to be multipronged. It must involve innovation and
investment in addition to reductions. It must be crafted taking into
account the realities of the effect that emission reductions will have
on the economic recovery this country is currently experiencing and on
jobs, especially in the heartland of America. These are not matters
that the EPA is required to consider or equipped to address.
To simply allow the EPA to move ahead on its own in crafting a
national strategy on climate change is a recipe for disaster. It
assures a lopsided solution to a broad and cumbersome challenge. And,
what may be worse, it does not provide for the kind of transparency and
the kind of public input that is needed for a viable, long-term
solution.
It is one of the eternal truths of our form of government, Mr.
Chairman, that the public has to be involved, it has to be informed,
and the public must be engaged. This legislation is crystal clear in
its message that the EPA has gotten ahead of public opinion and that
the Congress now has a responsibility to pull it back.
I support this legislation, and I urge its passage today.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, we should oppose this dirty air act because
it would suggest that we are a nation in a deep and dangerous sleep,
dozing in the face of disastrous pollution, slumbering while our
children are riddled with asthma. It's time for America to wake up, get
up out of our comfortable beds of denial, and get to work building a
new, clean economy.
It's time to wake up, America. The Chinese are not sleeping while
they build five times more wind turbines than us. The Germans are not
sleeping building more solar panels. The Indians are not sleeping who
are restricting carbon pollution. It is time to wake up. Nobody in
human history has ever won a race while asleep. And that's why it's
time for a national awakening by rejecting this bill. It's a time to
put engineers to work on clean energy. It's a time to help
businesspeople to grow businesses. It's a time to help students learn
new technology.
It is an irony, but it's true: You can only dream while you're
asleep, but you can only realize a dream when you're awake.
We should believe in American exceptionalism. We are exceptional in
innovation, exceptional in entrepreneurship, exceptional in pioneering
technology. And if we do these things, the sun we see on the horizon
will be a sunrise, not a sunset. It will be a sign of an awakening
nation. We'll do this because we will know and America can know the
profound satisfaction of building a clean energy economy and producing
children free of asthma rather than increasing it like this dirty air
act.
Vote ``no'' against this small-minded exercise in pessimism. Vote
``no'' and embrace the optimism that is inherent in our national
character.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from
Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), a member of the committee.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the legislation
and thank our chairman, the gentleman from Michigan, for bringing it
forth and bringing forth a bill that will limit the EPA's regulatory
overreach. It is important that we do. This is an issue that has been
going on since 2007, when the Supreme Court gave the EPA permission to
regulate greenhouse gases. At that point, I introduced a bill that
would have stopped the EPA. Unfortunately, Congress didn't act and the
EPA has now issued a final rule, and there will be more rules and
regulations on the way if Congress does not step in and take action to
stop this.
I am grateful that we are stepping forward and making certain that
this authority returns to Congress. I urge my colleagues to vote for
H.R. 910 and reassert Congress's authority over this issue, as it
should be, and take it away from unelected bureaucrats.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a
distinguished member of our committee, the gentlewoman from the Virgin
Islands (Mrs. Christensen).
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. I thank the ranking member for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, as the representative of a district that has one of the
highest greenhouse gas emission levels per square mile in the United
States and the Caribbean, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 910,
appropriately known as the Dirty Air Act.
As a physician and as a person who has been trained to make decisions
on sound science, I have to reject this legislation that is based
wrongly on the premise that there is no science that supports the
court's decision that greenhouse gases are injurious to the public
health. That premise is wrong. Once again, our Republican colleagues
deny sound science in their attempt to achieve misguided and, in this
case, harmful political ends. Leading scientific academies,
associations, and think tanks have all clearly documented a clear
connection between these gases and poorer health. They make just as
clear a connection of these gases to the acceleration of climate
change, which adds another dimension of health challenges, some of
which we are already facing today.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle tend to attribute the
findings to the EPA administrator, but it is not she who has determined
that these harm the public health. It was the scientific community,
respected experts in the field.
Mr. Chairman, the reduction of greenhouse gases is particularly
important to the poor and racial and ethnic minorities, as it has been
shown that polluting industries are more often located in or near our
communities.
In committee, and I suppose today, you will hear a lot of talk about
CO2, but that is not the only greenhouse gas that we're
concerned about. This harmful group of gases also includes methane,
nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur
hexafluoride.
The Virgin Islands have seen dramatic increases in asthma and cancers
as the presence of these gases has increased. There is no way I can
support this bill. No one should support it. We have a responsibility
to protect the health of the American public. I urge my colleagues to
reject H.R. 910 and to vote ``no'' to dirty air.

National Association for the

Advancement of Colored People,

March 23, 2011.
Members,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Re: NAACP Opposes H.R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act of
2011
Dear Representative: On behalf of the NAACP, our nation's
oldest, largest and most widely recognized grassroots-based
civil rights organization, I am writing in opposition to H.R.
910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011. If enacted as
written, H.R. 910 would block the ability of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reduce greenhouse
gases under the authority of the Clean Air Act.
For more than 40 years, the EPA has used the authority
granted to it by the Clean Air Act to protect our health and
our environment. EPA actions to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions are therefore appropriate, and should in fact be
supported. If successful the reduction of greenhouse gases
will help slow global warming, improve Americans' health and
create new jobs.
The reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is especially
important to racial and ethnic minorities, as we are
disproportionately affected by the negative consequences of
global warming socially, economically, and through our health
and well-being. One need look no further than Hurricane
Katrina and its tragic aftermath to see that African
Americans and other communities of color are
disproportionately affected by severe weather and other
negative consequences of global warming. More recently, we
can look to the extreme weather patterns experienced

[[Page H2355]]

by much of the United States this past winter, with
unseasonable snow, ice and temperatures well below freezing
in Atlanta, GA, and points south.
Rather than focus on legislative initiatives which would
hinder our nation's progress in addressing the dangers of
climate change and the resulting social, health and economic
consequences, the NAACP urges the U.S. Congress to work
toward the enactment of comprehensive climate protection and
clean energy legislation that reduces global warming
pollution. As such, the NAACP looks forward to working with
you to ensure that effective actions are taken. In that vein,
I hope that you will feel free to contact me should you have
any questions or comments on the NAACP position.
Sincerely,

Hilary O. Shelton,

Director, NAACP Washington Bureau &
Senior Vice President, Advocacy and Policy.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North
Dakota (Mr. Berg).
(Mr. BERG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BERG. Mr. Chairman, this bill is a starting point to lowering
energy costs. This bill encourages private sector investment and will
grow jobs.
North Dakota is a leader in energy development. However, overreaching
EPA regulations threaten not only energy producers but consumers as
well.
The EPA's efforts to impose a cap-and-trade tax threaten to increase
the price of energy for American families. These higher energy costs
will also impact small business, threatening them and preventing them
from growing the economy and creating jobs.
Our economy is suffering, and heaping more taxes on American families
and imposing new regulations that will hurt job creation is not what
our country needs to get back on track.
I firmly support the Energy Tax Prevention Act.
Mr. WAXMAN. For the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield
to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R.
910.
On April 2, 2007, the Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA held that
greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, are ``air pollutants''
under the Clean Air Act. As a result, the EPA was legally obligated to
determine whether greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles could be
reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. If the EPA
made a positive finding, then it would also have to issue regulations
to reduce such emissions.
On December 7, 2009, the EPA issued its endangerment finding. The
finding was based on a 200-page synthesis of major scientific
assessments authored by not only the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, but also by the U.S. Global Change Research Program, the U.S.
Navy, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the National Research
Council, NOAA, NASA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the CDC, the
U.S. Geological Survey, the National Snow and Ice Data Center, and
others. The EPA's scientific basis for the finding was extensively
reviewed by, among others, a group of leading scientists from federal
agencies.
In order to limit the number of industrial sources that would be
subject to regulation, the EPA issued its ``Tailoring Rule'' last May
which raised the Clean Air Act statutory thresholds to require
greenhouse gas permitting only for the largest industrial sources of
greenhouse gas emissions from 100/250 tons to 100,000 tons per year.
In response to these actions, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred
Upton introduced the Energy Tax Prevention Act to strip the EPA of its
authority to regulate carbon under the Clean Air Act.
My two largest concerns with the bill is that it overturns both the
Supreme Court's finding that the EPA has the authority to regulate
greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act and the EPA's scientific
determination that greenhouse gases endanger human health and the
environment.
By doing this, the Energy Tax Prevention Act could also: prohibit EPA
from enforcing existing greenhouse gas reporting requirements; prevent
EPA from taking impacts on climate change into consideration when
approving alternatives to ozone depleting substances under Title VI of
the Clean Air Act and the Montreal Protocol; create legal uncertainty
about the status of the recent motor vehicle standards adopted by EPA;
and call into question EPA's authority to implement voluntary programs
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
I must emphasize that I am opposed to the EPA moving forward with
regulations on large utilities and refineries in our country, because I
believe that the Congress should be the decision maker on carbon
control issues. However, we cannot discount the Supreme Court decision,
say climate change is not an issue and move on with it, which is the
approach the Energy Tax Prevention Act takes. Instead, we should pass a
bill that would delay the EPA from moving forward with these
regulations so that the Congress has time to address this issue with
input from Members that represent diverse constituencies nationwide.
So I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to provide
leadership on this front. Let's address carbon so that we don't have to
worry about what the EPA is doing and whether they will be sued by
outside groups to further regulate these industries or move up already
announced dates for rulemaking. This Congress has the power to be 100%
in control of giving our manufacturing base the regulatory certainty it
needs. Cap and Trade legislation will not pass this Congress, but I
believe a solution can be found for controlling carbon emissions by
using nuclear and natural gas to generate electricity.
As such, I encourage my colleagues to vote against this bill and
instead, let us pass into law a bipartisan, comprehensive carbon
control program that regulates emissions with the least disruption to
our economy.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation, which
makes a mockery of science, public health, international cooperation,
the environment, the Supreme Court, and Congress.
The problems with this bill start with its title, the ``Energy Tax
Prevention Act.'' The bill has nothing to do with taxes. I had an
amendment to actually prevent the EPA from imposing an energy tax that
the Rules Committee would not allow.

{time} 1520

During the rules debate, my colleague Mr. Sessions from Texas
indicated the committee did not because my amendment was ``not
germane'', because the bill doesn't have anything to do with taxes.
Welcome to another journey down the legislative rabbit hole. Last
week, the majority pretended that you didn't have to have both Chambers
of Congress to enact a law. This week, we have purposely misleading
bill titles.
The rule, by the way, did waive a point of order on germaneness for a
provision added in committee, but the Rules Committee refused to make
in order an amendment that would actually prevent energy taxes. That's
because there is no threat that the EPA will impose taxes. Instead, the
agency's measured and reasonable approach to update the Clean Air Act
to deal with carbon pollution will reduce health and economic costs.
The tax moniker is not the only falsehood being floated about the
EPA. Supporters have also claimed this bill will prevent rising gas
prices. The Pulitzer Prize-winning PolitiFact has rated this claim
false.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle understand that. They're
taking a page from Frank Luntz' approach to environmental policymaking.
They don't want to have a fact-based debate about the EPA's authority
to limit carbon pollution. Instead, they're working to perfect the use
of poll-tested, wildly inaccurate language to attack sound science and
to undermine confidence in laws that keep us safe.
I hope my colleagues will join me in rejecting this unfortunate piece
of legislation and the tactic that is being used to advance it.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
chairman of the House Ag Committee, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Lucas).
Mr. LUCAS. I rise in support of H.R. 910.
Mr. Chairman, for more than 2 years, we have watched Obama's
Environmental Protection Agency try to expand its authority over
American agriculture. Most telling of the EPA's irrational regulatory
approach is how it has concluded that the breath we exhale and the gas
that livestock expels are dangerous pollutants and should be regulated
under the Clean Air Act.
During a recent Agriculture Committee hearing, the EPA Administrator
said agriculture is currently exempt from the proposed regulations
because the EPA has targeted only the largest greenhouse gas emitters.
This doesn't provide any certainty to our farmers and ranchers,
especially since, in a recent interview, Lisa Jackson was

[[Page H2356]]

quoted as saying that the EPA will begin looking at regulating
greenhouse gases from farms as soon as 2013, which counters her own
remarks at that hearing.
Additionally, a mythical exemption doesn't insulate farmers, ranchers
and rural businesses from the higher energy and operating costs they'll
face from other industries hit by these regulations. Whether it's the
fuel in the tractor, the fertilizer for the crops or the delivery of
food to the grocery store, this backdoor energy tax will increase the
cost of doing business in rural America.
I urge my colleagues to join me in passing H.R. 910, the Energy Tax
Prevention Act, and protect agriculture from EPA's overreach. This bill
will prevent the EPA from running wild across America's farms and from
subjecting our producers to more burdensome regulations that threaten
to put them out of business. Rural America has never stopped being a
good place to live; so it's our job to make sure it's a good place to
make a living, too.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I thank my friend from California for his
leadership.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 910.
My friend Mr. Blumenauer made the point that there is a deliberate
misleading title to this bill somehow cynically allowing voters to
believe that this is about taxes. I had an amendment before the Rules
Committee that, unfortunately, was not accepted. How about we be
intellectually honest about this? Let's rename the bill the Koch
Brothers Appreciation Act of 2011. At least then we could clear the air
and be honest; but then again, that's what this bill is all about, not
clearing the air but ensuring that it stays polluted.
Today, sadly, the other party will attempt to pass a bill that denies
decades of science in order to protect the profits of a few favored
corporations. Next, we may hear claims that the Earth is, indeed, flat.
When Congress passed the Clean Air Act in 1970, it directed the EPA
to protect the public health and welfare from pollution that would
alter weather and climate. In the last 40 years, hundreds of peer-
reviewed scientific papers have found that global warming is caused by
humans, is becoming worse, and poses a dire threat to our public
health, national security and economic vitality.
This bill makes Congress the final arbiter of science. That is a
perilous path, Mr. Chairman, to go down, and it repudiates 100 years of
bipartisan efforts to craft public health legislation according to
science. Not since the Scopes trial has a division of government waged
such an outlandish assault on science. With H.R. 910, Republicans,
sadly, have aligned themselves with that school board in Tennessee and
with the Pope who excommunicated Galileo.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the chairman for yielding me the time and for
his leadership on this issue.
I rise in strong support of this legislation.
Despite President Obama stating that he would prefer Congress to take
the lead in determining how to handle greenhouse gases, what do you
know? The Environmental Protection Agency has begun their own plan to
regulate greenhouse gases.
American voters spoke in November, and they clearly rejected the cap-
and-trade agenda that was offered in this Congress last year and that
was not taken up in the United States Senate. Now we, ourselves, are
faced with the need to act. So unless Congress acts to stop the EPA,
this administration and the Environmental Protection Agency will enact
their own cap-and-trade-like agenda.
Without action, the EPA will add more regulatory red tape onto
American businesses and manufacturers, hampering the ability of
companies to operate competitively in the United States. These
businesses could be forced to move those jobs overseas, to locations
with fewer regulatory burdens, or they could simply pass these
increased costs on to American consumers. Either choice is not good for
jobs in America. Without action, these regulations will be paid by
anyone who turns on a light switch or who plugs in an appliance.
We must stop the EPA from continuing their spree of overregulating
our economy. During this economic slow-down, we should be adopting
policies that seek to rebuild our economy and create more jobs. We
should be producing more energy, an all-of-the-above energy plan that I
know the Energy and Commerce Committee is working on, to increase the
domestic production of oil and natural gas and coal and safe nuclear
power and to encourage new productions from new sources of energy.
Let's make America energy independent. Let's not raise the cost of
energy and ship jobs overseas, which will cost millions of American
jobs. We should be doing just the opposite. This legislation starts us
on that path, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining on each side?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 10 minutes remaining.
The gentleman from Michigan has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. WAXMAN. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to a cosponsor of the bill,
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Boren).
Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of Chairman Upton's
bill, H.R. 910, a bill to prevent the EPA from regulating greenhouse
gases. By passing this bill, Congress will rein in the EPA and save
thousands of American jobs.
This is a very sensitive issue to me. Georgia-Pacific, a subsidiary
of Koch Industries, is the largest employer in my hometown of Muskogee,
Oklahoma, employing almost 1,000 Oklahomans. I am proud of the work
Koch Industries brings to my district and of its record of
environmental stewardship. I want to make sure that Georgia-Pacific
employees keep their jobs and that Koch can continue to invest in
Oklahoma.
Every Member of Congress understands the delicate balance between
creating jobs and preserving the environment, but I ask my colleagues
to see that the answer to America's economic and environmental
challenges is not a more powerful EPA. Let's pass the Upton bill and
put an end to this job-killing idea.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.

{time} 1530

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), the former chairman of the House Ag Committee
and now ranking member of that committee.
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 910.
We recently held a hearing in the Agriculture Committee with folks
from the EPA and from people in agriculture, and the message that we
heard was pretty clear from agriculture that they believe the EPA needs
to be reined in, not only as regards this bill, but other measures that
are being considered within the EPA as well. What this bill will do is
hit a pause button on the EPA's current efforts to regulate greenhouse
gases, and that's exactly what people in agriculture think we need.
I have traveled the country, all over the country, talking to
agriculture producers both in my district and other places, and they
are concerned about what they see coming out of this agency, the
regulations that they are seeing. And what really concerns them is that
the agency does not seem to understand agriculture and, frankly,
doesn't seem to want to understand agriculture.
These proposed regulations we're seeing from EPA could potentially
get in the way of what agriculture producers are already doing when it
comes to conservation of our natural resources. American farmers and
ranchers rely on these resources to provide the world's food supply and
are committed to preserving them for the next generation.
The EPA claims to be operating in an open and transparent manner, but
the agency is sending mixed messages. At the recent hearing that I
mentioned earlier, we were told that agriculture is currently exempt
from proposed regulations, yet press reports have quoted

[[Page H2357]]

the administrator since as saying the EPA will begin looking at
regulating greenhouse gases from farms as soon as 2013.
If Congress doesn't do something about the regulations being imposed
on our farmers, ranchers and rural communities, the economic effects
are going to affect everybody in America. We are being asked to feed
more and more people not only in this country, but around the world.
This kind of legislation, the effect is going to be to make it harder
to do that and also to raise the cost on all of the consumers in this
country at a time when that's the last thing that we need.
I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 910.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
Mr. HOLT. I thank my colleague from California.
For 40 years, the Clean Air Act has been successful in reducing
emissions in the atmosphere, pollution that kills people. Thousands of
people are alive today because of the Clean Air Act. None of them know
who they are. It might be people in this Chamber, some of us. And the
success of the Clean Air Act is due in large part to being enacted and
strengthened based on the best science available to find effective ways
to remove the worst pollutants from our air. The legislation before us
today--appropriately nicknamed the ``dirty air act''--would gut the
Clean Air Act and prevent EPA scientists from doing their jobs.
The Clean Air Act was written wisely to allow the safeguards to grow
with the scientific understanding of the dangers proposed by various
chemicals in the air and with the technological means for controlling
those pollutants. Carbon pollution, a couple of years ago, was
determined by EPA scientists to endanger the health and welfare of the
American people. EPA scientists should be allowed to continue their
work. Air pollution is costly in lives and in dollars.
The Clean Air Act is successful. The legislation must be protected.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 910, the
Energy Tax Prevention Act, which would prohibit the EPA from using the
Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases.
Congress has already said no to a cap-and-trade tax, yet the EPA is
intent on taking matters into their own hands, which will result in a
bleeding of jobs. If the EPA is allowed to continue to pick winners and
losers in this country, we will be seeing higher prices at the gas
pump, higher utility bills, and job loss.
We should be making it easier, not harder, for small businesses to
expand and hire. However, the EPA's assault on fossil fuels will result
in higher domestic energy costs and push American jobs overseas.
At home in West Virginia, the EPA is making it much more expensive to
turn on our lights and drive to work; that's not the way to get our
economy back on track.
This legislation is of particular importance to my constituents in
West Virginia. The EPA's regulations will disproportionately affect our
State's economy. West Virginia powers the Nation. Our energy providers
provide thousands of good-paying jobs, and coal alone provides over
half of our Nation's electricity and over 95 percent of the power in my
State.
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 910 to stop
the EPA's regulatory overreach and job-killing strategies.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
I want to clarify some statements that have been made that are
absolutely inaccurate.
There may be Members who are unhappy about EPA regulations as they
hear from their constituents, but that is not what is involved in this
bill today.
This bill would stop EPA from regulating as it relates to carbon
emissions; and EPA has undertaken this because of a scientific finding
that carbon emissions are causing a danger to public health and the
environment.
EPA, under the Clean Air Act, has a wide range of possible
regulations, but EPA has decided that they would restrict their
regulations only to large new sources or expansion of existing sources
of pollution of 100,000 tons per year, and that is all.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself another 30 seconds.
So we heard these claims that they are going to come in and regulate
in areas where they're not seeking to regulate, nor have they in fact
done it. A new source, emitting 100,000 tons of pollution, is
equivalent to burning a train car load of coal per day.
We hear concern from people from the coal-burning States, but they're
not threatened unless there are new sources of that magnitude. The oil
companies are not going to be regulated unless they are going to build
a new source of that magnitude. Maybe they are fearful about other
regulations, but that is no reason to support this bill.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the chairman of the
Energy and Power Subcommittee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Whitfield).
Mr. WHITFIELD. On this tailoring rule that was adopted by EPA saying
that they would regulate only those emitters of 100,000 tons or more
per year, that is in direct violation of the language of the Clean Air
Act, which says they have to regulate anything 150 to 250 tons per
year.
Lawsuits have already been filed against the EPA of violating the
Clean Air Act, and there is a strong sense that the tailoring act would
be ruled illegal. And if it is, as Gina McCarthy said, they would have
to regulate everything in society, including small farms, small
businesses, everyone. They do not have the manpower to do it; and as
she stated, it would cost the enforcing agencies alone $24 billion, and
that's not including the money that industries and others would have to
spend to comply with the new regulations. So the statement that they
will not be impacted is certainly not settled.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
I want to refute the statements that have just been made.
There is a court doctrine allowing EPA to design regulations that are
tailored according to administrative necessity, and they need not go
beyond that.
The complaint on the other side is that there is a wide-ranging
regulation, but there is not. And there will be an amendment offered by
Representatives Kind and Owens to restrict the regulations by law to
what the EPA is implementing.

{time} 1540

And I hope the gentleman that spoke just now will vote for that
amendment. But whether it passes or not, EPA can tailor its regulation,
and they ought not complain about a regulation that's not being
proposed. They don't want even the minimal one that EPA is
implementing.
If we don't legislate and we don't regulate, we are ignoring the
problem and we're going to make it much, much worse and costlier to
correct later on.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Hampshire (Mr. Bass).
Mr. BASS of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this
legislation.
For me, this debate is not about whether or not climate change is
occurring, nor is it about preventing the congressionally directed
policies that Congress should have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
and allow us to have a low-carbon producing economy.
I, for one, think that climate change is real and a problem that
needs to be addressed with practical solutions that have attainable
goals to reduce emissions and provide certainty in our economy. I also
believe that the Clean Air Act has truly benefited our Nation and
should never be weakened--rather, strengthened.
However, agencies should not be able to regulate what has not been
legislated. Doing so does not solve problems. It creates even more
uncertainty as it opens up the agency's rules to countless legal
challenges.
And I am committed to finding a workable solution to achieve clean
air, help address global warming, and preserve the economic
competitiveness of

[[Page H2358]]

the United States in the global marketplace. With my friend,
Congressman Matheson of Utah, we offered an amendment during markup
that is now in the bill that states that there is established
scientific concern over warming of the climate system and Congress
should fulfill its role in developing policies to control greenhouse
gas emissions.
I rise in support of this legislation, but I also support a
meaningful solution to the carbon crisis.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased at this time to yield 3
minutes to the Democratic whip in the House, the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Briefly, in response to the gentleman's assertion, of
course the court has said EPA does, in fact, have this authority. This
is not a new authority they're making up. Rather than invest in new
energy technologies, address carbon pollution, and create clean energy
jobs, our friends on the other side are choosing instead to deny the
problem and take away America's tools for responding to it.
This bill would overturn auto emission standards that are making our
cars and trucks cheaper to drive and breaking our independence on
foreign oil. This bill would not do a single thing to bring down the
price of gas, but it would keep America from saving 1.8 billion barrels
of oil over the lifetime of our new cars. We would not have gotten
there, frankly, if some of the proponents of this bill who opposed
getting to those standards had prevailed. And it would do so at a time
when the turmoil in the Middle East should serve as an energy
independence wake-up call.
I'm for using all of our energy that we can do so in a healthy, safe
way. This bill, however, would significantly weaken the Clean Air Act
over its 40-year span.
The benefits of the act: longer lives, healthier kids, greater
workforce productivity, and protected ecosystems have outweighed the
costs by more than 30-1. That's a pretty good return, ladies and
gentlemen. Last year, according to the EPA, just one part of the Clean
Air Act prevented someone 160,000 premature deaths, 130,000 heart
attacks, and 100,000 hospital visits. That is a pretty good return on
our investment.
And according to the American Medical Association, ``If physicians
want evidence of climate change, they may well find it in their own
offices. Patients are presenting with illnesses that once happened only
in warmer areas. Chronic conditions are becoming aggravated by more
frequent and extended heat waves. Allergy and asthma seasons are
getting longer.''
The gentleman from New Hampshire said he doesn't doubt global
warming. I agree with that conclusion. It is a shame this bill doesn't
take that perspective. The Republican response is to make pollution
easier, frankly.
Finally, this bill overturns scientific findings that carbon
pollution endangers the environment and human health, which has been
confirmed by all of the world's leading scientists.
A partisan majority can pass whatever bill it wants. I understand
that. But it cannot legislate the facts out of existence, facts that as
recently as a few years ago were accepted in both parties. What
changed? The science or the politics?
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, which
recklessly endangers our air, our health, our climate, and our energy
independence.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy), a member of the committee.
Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Okay. Here we go.
When we discussed the cap-and-trade bill, it worked sort of like the
Seinfeld show. George Costanza comes to Jerry and says, ``You know what
we should do with this show, what it should be about?'' Jerry says,
``What?'' George says, ``It's about nothing.''
Here's how cap-and-trade works: Factory A has something coming out of
its smokestack; Factory B doesn't. So Factory B sells their ``nothing''
to Factory A. Factory A adds that cost to the cost of their products.
Sooner or later, they raise costs of electricity, raise costs of their
products. They can't make it in America any more.
America figured this out long ago, and they said we're going to see
energy prices go up, we're going to see jobs and income go down. We
don't want it to work this way. We want clean air, clean land, and
clean water. But the way these things are working is not what's going
to make it happen.
So the American people say don't export our jobs, don't export our
factories, don't export our manufacturing and then end up importing
emissions from other countries. It's a global problem. It's something
we have to deal with. But having the EPA do this without working
through Congress isn't the way to make this happen.
Let's come up with a real solution here but not continue on down this
road of exporting our jobs to other countries.
Mr. WAXMAN. I continue to reserve my time.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, if I might just enter in a brief colloquy
with my friend, the gentleman from California.
Each of us has about the same amount of time left. I have allocated
my time; I presume you have as well. My remaining speakers are meeting
someplace, and I'm prepared to close and yield back if you are, unless
somebody comes to the floor awfully fast.
Is it the same for you?
Mr. WAXMAN. I find myself in the same position. I am prepared to
close and yield back my time, unless one of our Members shows up
unexpectedly.
Mr. UPTON. Fine.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I have before me a letter
from the United States Environmental Protection Agency. We asked them
very specific questions, and one was whether this would establish a
back-door cap-and-trade program. They said, one, EPA has not adopted a
cap-and-trade program to address greenhouse gas emissions; two, EPA is
not considering or evaluating a cap-and-trade program to address these
emissions under existing Clean Air Act authority; and they further went
on to say they do not anticipate that they will do a cap-and-trade
program. None of the five programs that they have adopted or are
considering adopting to limit harmful pollutions are cap-and-trade
programs.
So when we hear Members get up and say, oh, they're about to adopt a
cap-and-trade program because Jerry Seinfeld's show might lead you to
that conclusion, it is not, according to Lisa Jackson, the head of EPA,
their intent.
EPA, under the law, is required to look at the science. Once they
determined that carbon is a pollutant that causes harm to public health
and the environment, they must regulate. They could, under their
powers, fashion the regulation in a modest way, which is exactly what
they've done. The regulations that they are implementing can be met
through greater efficiency in these new sources that would emit such
large amounts of carbon. That is a reasonable thing to do because it is
beneficial for the industries to be more efficient.
We have found over the years, under the Clean Air Act, when sources
of pollution, industries, reduce their pollution, they become more
efficient and more competitive. That's what will happen as a result of
the regulations that are being implemented. Let us not tie EPA's hands
and say they cannot deal with this subject.
For those who deny the science, I disagree with you. But if you're
wrong, it will take a long time before any strategy will come into
effect to reduce these emissions. Buy at least an insurance policy to
reduce these dangerous pollutants so that we can avoid some of the
terrible consequences of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change,
which are already evident in this country and around the world.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. Vote ``no.''
I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 1550

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, we followed regular order on this bill. We had plenty
of hearings. We issued a discussion draft. We had markups in both full
and the subcommittee. We sought bipartisan support. In fact, we
received it. Mr. Peterson, who spoke earlier, the former chairman of
the House Ag Committee, Mr. Rahall, the former chairman of the Natural
Resources Committee, are both original cosponsors.
We have different rules than the other body, the Senate. They are
debating this same issue today in fact.

[[Page H2359]]

They have been debating it now for a couple of weeks. And it's
interesting to me that a number of the amendments on the amendment tree
in the Senate by different Democratic sponsors--in fact, I would
confess that the EPA has run amok because they, too, though they might
not be fully supportive of this legislation, they too are supporting a
2-year time-out to the EPA, to tell them to stop. They're not ready for
this.
I supported, I voted for the Clean Air Act back in 1990. And I think
most of my colleagues then, it was a strong majority that supported
that. It allows the EPA to regulate 188 different contaminants. They do
that. This bill does not weaken that work by the EPA.
There was an issue then that the Senate included in their version of
the bill something that did regulate greenhouse gases. And when it went
to conference with the House, John Dingell was then chairman of the
conference committee, the House did not accept the Senate language. The
Senate receded to the House, as the lingo goes, and in fact the Clean
Air Act then ended up without regulating greenhouse gases.
We had a huge debate in the last Congress on cap-and-trade. Speaker
Pelosi had an 86-vote margin here in the House. Cap-and-trade, yes, it
did pass in the House. It passed by seven votes. So you switch four
votes, it goes the other way. But despite that passage in June of 2009,
the Senate did not take that legislation up. Didn't go through
subcommittee, full committee, never got to the Senate floor, and it
died with the conclusion of the 110th Congress.
What we are saying is that the Congress, elected leaders here, should
decide what is regulated. We know from the testimony that we had in
committee we may lose as many as 1.5 million jobs. We heard from the
refineries. They know that it's going to increase costs because they're
going to have additional regulation. They're going to pass those costs
on. And, in fact, it will raise the price of gasoline by 20 cents to 50
cents over the next number of years. That's not what we want to see in
this country.
And what's going to happen? What's going to happen to those jobs?
They're going to leave this country, and they're not going to come
back. And they're going to go to other places like, let's face it,
India and China, where neither country has nearly the environmental
laws that we have today. We are going to continue to enforce, to see
the Clean Air Act enforced. This does not weaken that act. We just say
we're not ready to regulate greenhouse gases, not when we have an
unemployment rate where it is today--Michigan much higher than the
national average--knowing that it's going to cost a lot of jobs.
So I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation. It tells
the EPA, no, you are not going to do this. We will see what happens
with the Senate, as they debate this issue the rest of the day and
perhaps into tomorrow. But I would urge all of my colleagues to support
H.R. 910, particularly now as we get into the amendments.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 910, the Energy
Tax Prevention Act.
In 2009, the Administration announced their ``National Program'' to
regulate fuel economy. But if you read beyond the press releases
touting the ``National Program'' you'd find that it wasn't one program
at all. In reality, the so-called ``National Program'' is made up of
three different fuel economy programs, administered by three different
agencies--NHTSA, EPA, and the California Air Resources Board--under
three different sets of rules, pursuant to three different laws.
Why on earth do we need three different agencies regulating the same
thing? The truth is, we don't. H.R. 910 would end the regulatory
duplication, and the millions in taxpayer dollars wasted on such
redundancy by EPA.
Mr. Chair, as the old Beatles song goes, ``one and one and one is
three.'' The CAFE program plus an EPA program plus a California program
adds up to three different programs. That's what we have now, but we
must do better for consumers, who will ultimately have to bear the cost
of all this unnecessary regulation. H.R. 910 returns the regulation of
fuel economy back to one standard, with rules written by Congress, not
unelected bureaucrats. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this important
legislation.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 910, the
Energy Tax Prevention Act or ``Dirty Air Act'' which will end the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) ability to regulate harmful
carbon pollution.
I will vote against this bill for many reasons, but one that is
particularly concerning to me is related to my strong support for
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education. I
believe that STEM education is critically important to our recovering
economy and to our future competitiveness and innovation. I support
programs, such as the Cyber Foundations Competition, to encourage more
students to pursue careers in science and technology and I believe that
many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle share this goal. But
how can we ask our students to pursue careers in science and then
ignore scientists when their findings are not politically convenient?
This bill sets science aside and sends a dangerous message to our
students pursuing studies in STEM fields.
In addition to an attack on science, this bill will stop and reverse
the public health, environmental, and economic protections that have
been achieved since the passage of the Clean Air Act 40 years ago. In
2010 alone, the Clean Air Act contributed to the prevention of 160,000
premature deaths, 130,000 heart attacks, and more than 100,000 hospital
visits. This bill will also prevent the EPA from setting pollution
standards for cars and trucks, increasing carbon emissions in our
communities, and continuing our nation's addiction to foreign oil.
Further, a return to outdated technology will limit new innovations in
renewable and more efficient technologies and limit the job growth
opportunities in these emerging manufacturing industries.
Rhode Islanders have great respect for their environment and they
deserve the right to step outside and feel safe breathing the air
around them. By preventing the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas
emissions, we are turning back the progress we have made to protect our
health under the Clean Air Act and we are halting important economic
opportunities that will help make our nation a world leader in new
technologies. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill and
supporting responsible regulations that will keep our nation moving
forward and keep our environment safe for future generations.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the legislation before
the House, which would weaken the Clean Air Act and the ability of the
Environmental Protection Agency to protect public health and the
environment from carbon pollution.
The scientific community has been telling us for years, with growing
urgency, that greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to changes in
the climate and that the impact of these changes will be overwhelmingly
negative going forward. There is a lot of room for a constructive
debate on what the U.S. response should be to the buildup of heat-
trapping gases in the atmosphere. Our response cannot be to simply deny
the existence of the problem.
But that is exactly what the bill before the House does. This
legislation rejects the scientific consensus that climate change is
occurring and overturns EPA's scientific finding that carbon pollution
endangers public health and the environment. In a word, this bill would
take a fundamentally anti-science dogma and enshrine it into public
law. It is the legislative equivalent of sticking our heads in the
sand.
We've heard a lot of overheated rhetoric by the proponents of this
bill that protecting the American people from carbon pollution amounts
to some kind of job-killing tax increase that will make gasoline and
electricity cost more. In fact, the rules EPA is developing seek to
curb carbon pollution by the very largest emitters in this country over
a period of many years. We're talking about facilities that emit more
than 75,000 tons of carbon into the air each year. In most cases, the
new rules will simply require these facilities to make energy
efficiency improvements. As we've seen in so many other areas,
investments in energy efficiency often pay for themselves and actually
create jobs.
H.R. 910 is opposed by scientists, public health groups,
environmentalists, sporting organizations like Trout Unlimited, as well
as the UAW and the Blue/Green Alliance. This legislation should be
rejected.
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 910, The Energy
Tax Prevention Act of 2011. This legislation will amend provisions of
the Clean Air Act, to establish general rules prohibiting the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from
regulating green house gas emissions to address the issue of climate
change.
Being from Nebraska, I meet with a number of agriculture interests,
all of them very concerned about the activism that the EPA has and is
demonstrating these last few years. Folks joke about green house gas
emissions that come from farm animals, especially cows and cattle.
While on the one hand it is funny to think that this is a problem;
however, on the other hand, it just demonstrates the kind of

[[Page H2360]]

people who are working in today's EPA and this is really serious.
When Administrator Jackson testified before the House Agriculture
Committee she stated, ``One notion is that EPA intends to regulate the
emissions from cows--what is commonly referred to as a `cow tax.' ''
``The truth is--the EPA is proposing to reduce greenhouse gas emission
in a responsible, careful manner and we have even exempted agricultural
sources from regulation.'' When the Administrator testified before the
Energy and Power Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee, as
a member, I asked her to clarify if she would exempt agriculture from
these regulations and she said she would--twice over. I appreciate her
willingness to exempt this very important industry, because not
exempting agriculture would have a dramatic impact on the Nebraska
economy. My concern is that Administrator Jackson does not have the
legal authority to unilaterally exempt agriculture; and even if she
does, that industry is only one law suit away from being regulated, due
to citizen law suits. I have no doubt that the Sierra Club, PETA, the
Natural Resource Defense Council, the U.S. Humane Society, or some
other group will sue either individually or together with regards to
greenhouse gases on farms.
The EPA's own figures on agriculture state that 37,000 farms are
above the threshold of being a major source of greenhouse gas
emissions. The Clean Air Act explicitly states that ``major sources''
must obtain a Title V operating permit. This could have a direct impact
on many operations within agriculture, including corn, wheat, grain,
cattle, and hog operations. This overzealous regulation will cause the
cost of food production to rise and will also cause an indirect impact
on bringing goods to market by helping to increase energy costs.
While I appreciate Administrator Jackson's willingness to exempt us
from the cow tax, I think it is more important that we pass H.R. 910
and get it to the President for his signature, in order to guarantee
that none of our energy is taxed.
Only with the passage of H.R. 910 will we end EPA's over reach on
this issue.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chair, emboldened by their electoral victories last
fall, my Republican colleagues have embarked on a campaign to weaken or
repeal many of the landmark laws that have protected the public's
health and the environment.
The first opening shots at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
were fired through amendments to legislation (H.R. 1) to complete the
fiscal 2011 budget.
More than 22 anti-environmental and anti-conservation riders, that
suspend agencies from taking action to implement provisions in Federal
law, were added to bill on the House floor during the week of February
13th.
Fortunately, the Senate rejected the House bill, bringing us down a
path to where we are today in a high stakes showdown whose outcome
looks even more likely to result in a government-wide shutdown.
But, instead of sitting down to try to work out a budget, we are here
on the House floor debating a bill to overturn a scientific finding.
EPA determined through its December 2009 endangerment finding that
greenhouse gases endanger the public's health.
Today's House floor action is reminiscent of the Catholic Church's
response to Galileo Galilei's publication of his famous work, Dialogue
Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which stated that the sun was
the center of the universe.
It was not until October 31, 1992 when Pope John Paul II expressed
his regret for how the Galileo affair was handled by the Catholic
Church.
Unfortunately, climate change does not afford us the luxury of time
to amend our policies decades from now.
Climate change is upon us and the longer we delay, question the
science and fail to take even modest action to curb future growth, the
costlier the consequences will be.
Today's legislation is a cynical attempt to pretend climate change is
not occurring and restrict the one agency authorized by law to do
something about it.
History will neither reflect kindly on those who reject science in
the pursuit of short-term economic and political gain.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chair. I rise in opposition to H.R.
910. While cynically called the Energy Tax Prevention Act by its
sponsors, the bill could more aptly be named the ``Dirty Air Act''.
This legislation would overturn EPA's scientific finding that
greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare, which stemmed from
a landmark 2007 Supreme Court decision, and prevent the EPA from using
the Clean Air Act--now or in the future--to limit greenhouse gas
pollution from power plants and other industrial sources. This reckless
and misguided attack on our environment and public health will allow
more pollution into the air we breathe and threaten the health of
Americans across the country.
Supporters of the bill claim that setting standards for greenhouse
gases under the Clean Air Act will cost jobs and undermine the
competitiveness of America's manufacturers. But the argument that clean
air somehow poses a hazard to the economy is as ridiculous now as it
was in the 1970s, when the major polluters used it to try and stop
enactment of landmark environmental laws. Rolling back the EPA's
authority to limit pollution--whether it be carbon or lead--won't
create a single job. It will simply undo 40 years of progress toward a
cleaner environment and better public health.
In fact, the very provisions of the Clean Air Act that this bill
attacks have a forty-year track record of delivering cleaner air and
improved health, along with the benefits of enormous growth in the
economy. In its first 20 years, the Clean Air Act prevented an
estimated 200,000 premature deaths. Some 1.7 million tons of toxic
emissions have been removed from our air each year since 1990.
Innovations spurred by the Act have made our cars up to 95 percent
cleaner today than they were in the past. EPA economists estimate that
the total benefits of the Clean Air Act amount to 30 times its costs.
Passage of this bill would also mark the first time in history that
Congress has approved legislation to overrule an objective scientific
finding. Congress enacted the Clean Air Act precisely to require the
EPA to make science-based decisions about the threats to health and
welfare presented by air pollution instead of allowing such decisions
to be driven by political ideology or special interests. And that is
exactly what EPA's scientists have done: under both the Bush and Obama
administrations, objective scientific studies have found that
greenhouse gases pose a real and indisputable threat.
Recently, more than 2,500 scientists--from all 50 states--sent a
letter to Congress calling on Members to support EPA's updated carbon
pollution standards under the Clean Air Act, noting that the ``science-
based law has prevented 400,000 premature deaths and hundreds of
millions of cases of respiratory and cardiovascular disease during the
40 years since it was first passed--all without diminishing economic
growth.''
Rather than heeding the science and letting the EPA and the states do
their job to protect public health and our environment, this bill would
give the nation's biggest polluters a free pass to keep polluting and
place the health of our nation--particularly our children, elderly
citizens and other vulnerable populations--at risk. A vote for this
bill is a vote against the commonsense Clean Air Act provisions that
keep our air clean and protect our public health. I urge my colleagues
to support science and the Clean Air Act and oppose H.R. 910.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 910, the Energy
Tax Prevention Act of 2011.
Based on the physical evidence and forecasts of most scientists, it
is clear climate change is happening, man-made causes are a significant
factor, and that left unaddressed, climate change poses a public health
risk. I believe we must move forward from debating the science of
climate change to developing balanced policies that combat its impacts.
However, I oppose the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's)
attempt to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. I believe Congress must
retain the authority to develop a climate change policy that reduces
emissions, improves energy efficiency, and encourages clean energy
technology, including clean coal, while also protecting and creating
jobs, keeping energy costs affordable, and preserving our economic
recovery. I am not convinced EPA's current path will achieve those
goals.
While I do not agree with all aspects of this legislation, I support
H.R. 910, to ensure Congress has the ability to develop a practical
climate change policy at the appropriate time. I ask my colleagues to
join me in supporting this legislation.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the Energy Tax Prevention
Act of 2011, which would prohibit the EPA from regulating greenhouse
gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.
With gas prices averaging $3.70 per gallon, up from $3.50 a month
ago, up nearly a dollar from a year ago, and with unemployment rates
continuing at heartbreaking levels, the last thing the American people
need is a national energy tax.
Yet the Obama EPA seems intent on implementing policies that will not
only drive up the price at the pump, but drive even more American jobs
to places like India and China. According to a study conducted by the
Heritage Foundation, annual job losses will exceed 800,000 should the
Congress fail to act in preventing the EPA from moving ahead with their
global warming agenda.
In this difficult economy, the federal government must make
affordable, domestic energy production a top priority and House
Republicans are doing just that.
I applaud the work of my colleagues in developing an all-of-the-above
energy solution

[[Page H2361]]

that will create jobs and end our dependence on foreign sources of
energy.
But Congress first must stop the EPA's assault on working families,
small businesses and family farms by rejecting this backdoor national
energy tax.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to weakening
the Clean Air Act and ignoring the very real threat posed by global
warming. Republicans might like to teach creationism in schools and
demonize science, but the fact is that climate change is man-made, is
happening, and threatens our way of life. Failure to act is
unacceptable.
The Obama Administration is taking small but important steps toward
regulating only the largest sources of greenhouse gases. This
legislation would end that progress. The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is exercising its Clean Air Act authority as recognized by
the conservative Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA. The Upton-
Inhofe bill (H.R. 910) would not only undermine the Clean Air Act, it
would also take the unprecedented step of overturning a scientific
finding by the EPA that carbon pollution endangers America's health and
environment.
At a time of rising gas prices and oil related conflicts around the
world, this legislation would further increase our dependence on oil
and other fossil fuels. This bill would take us back to a failed energy
policy that has made our country addicted to fossil fuels and imported
oil.
Rather than sticking our heads in the sand, Congress needs to
implement a comprehensive energy policy that puts a price on carbon
pollution and invests in the energy sources of the future. We could
start by ending taxpayer subsidies for giant oil companies and corn
ethanol, but I doubt that bill will be on the floor anytime soon.
The Republican attack on science and logic will not create a single
job or protect a single American's health. All it will do is appease
the radical fringe of their party. I urge all my colleagues to vote no.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, which is common-sense legislation
that will help economic recovery efforts and reduce energy prices.
It is troubling to see the Obama Administration continue to advocate
for policies that will inhibit job creation in this country, and also
raise prices of goods and services for every American. We should not
move forward with imposing regulations that will slow the current
economic recovery.
Over the last few months, my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle have borrowed the Republican mantra from the past couple of years
when the Democrats had control and asked, ``Where are the jobs?'' I
have found this quite humorous considering that since Republicans have
taken over leadership of the House, we have been actively working to
rein in excess government waste and pass legislation to make it more
affordable to do business in this country. But, setting that aside, we
should all be able to agree that without passage of the Energy Tax
Prevention Act, the answer to their question will be: not in the U.S.
We must not continue to allow the EPA to move forward in regulating
all sectors of our economy. It is a simple fact that by imposing costly
regulations on American businesses, it will ultimately force these
companies to reduce jobs, or in the worst case scenario, move
operations overseas. Additionally, while some may feel that industries
can afford to pay more to comply with the slew of EPA regulations that
have already been implemented, or will soon be implemented, these extra
costs will ultimately be passed onto the American consumer.
The EPA's reliance on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) assessment reports should be cause for alarm. Given the
climategate e-mail scandal, and other information that has come to
light, there are many serious questions as to the legitimacy of the
process used by the IPCC to base their conclusions. It would seem to me
that since the EPA relied heavily on questionable conclusions by the
IPCC, it is essential for Congress to pass H.R. 910 so we may go back
and reexamine our greenhouse gas policy.
Like most Americans, I believe that there can and should be a proper
balance between economic prosperity and environmental sustainability.
Everyone wants clean air and clean water, and no one wants sky-high
electric and tax bills. I have long argued that the key to our energy
independence is through technological innovation. The best way for the
federal government to support technological innovation is to
incentivize it through research and development grants and tax credits.
Excessive regulations cannot assure technological breakthroughs,
especially expensive and onerous mandates like the cap-and-tax
proposals in the previous Congress.
With the recent spike in gas prices, we need to do all we can to
decrease the cost of doing business. H.R. 910 is the first in a series
of legislative proposals that Republicans are planning on putting
forward to cut energy prices and reduce the regulatory burdens that
businesses and consumers face. I strongly support passage of this
important legislation, and urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, today I rise in strong opposition to H.R.
910, the Republican Majority's so-called ``Energy Tax Prevention Act.''
I think a more accurate title would be the ``Science Ignorance
Appreciation Act'' or ``Foreign Energy Dependence Act.''
Today's measure would unilaterally invalidate the Environment
Protection Agency's findings that carbon dioxide and other air
pollutants pose a threat to public health and environment. Even more
egregiously, the bill prohibits the EPA to regulate man-made greenhouse
gases in spite of verified independent scientific research that shows
that climate change poses an existential threat to our way of life.
The proposal is nothing more than censorship of government scientists
who simply want to protect human and environmental health. There is an
overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is directly due
to man-made behavior. In recent years we have begun to witness this
science first hand, as extreme weather such as floods, droughts,
blizzards, hurricanes and other natural disasters have begun to affect
areas unaccustomed to such events. We cannot ignore the science and
evidence.
If we pass this flawed legislation, we will lose an incredible
opportunity to create the market forces necessary to stimulate
innovation in clean energy technology such as wind, solar, and other
clean energy programs.
The Energy Tax Prevention Act deliberately delays the day that
America will be freed from its addiction to foreign oil. As we have
seen with the recent instability in the Middle East, there are dramatic
downsides to our current energy dependence strategy.
A ``yes'' vote today is a vote for unchecked pollution and global
warming. It is a vote against scientific consensus and a clean energy
future.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 910, the
Dirty Air Act. That this bill is taken seriously enough to receive a
vote in the United States House of Representatives is embarrassing.
This bill not only requires Members of Congress to ignore thousands of
the world's best scientists and over four decades of peer reviewed
research, but it requires Congress to assert that it is more qualified
to judge the entire body of science. It is an assault on science, on
reason, and on common sense. Americans expect better from their elected
leaders.
No amount of fossil fuel company spin, lobbying and campaign
contributions can change the fact that global warming is happening. But
they can make important changes to global warming; The longer we wait
to substantively and aggressively act, the faster global warming will
happen, the more fiercely it will happen, and the less control we will
be able to exert over it.
We are also throwing away badly needed opportunities. Failing to
control global warming pollution means we fail to provide needed
impetus to make the transition to clean energy. We are voting to turn
our back on the opportunity to reclaim the mantle of global leader on
clean energy from China and now, Germany. We are voting to turn our
back on the opportunity to revitalize our manufacturing sector which
has been ailing in cities like Cleveland for decades. We are voting to
turn our back on the opportunity to create millions of new jobs and
boost our economy. We are voting to turn our back on the opportunity to
reduce air pollution that kills tens of thousands of people very year,
who are disproportionately from communities of color and are of low
income. We are voting to turn our back on the opportunity to strengthen
our national security, which, according to the Pentagon, is threatened
by global warming. We are voting to turn our back on the opportunity to
inspire and lead with alternatives that would build a stronger America.
It is time for us to cast a vote in favor of future generations
instead of merely invoking them to try to justify inhumane budget cuts.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has 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 amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:

H.R. 910

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 ``Energy Tax Prevention Act of
2011''.

[[Page H2362]]

SEC. 2. NO REGULATION OF EMISSIONS OF GREENHOUSE GASES.

Title III of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7601 et seq.) is
amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 330. NO REGULATION OF EMISSIONS OF GREENHOUSE GASES.

``(a) Definition.--In this section, the term `greenhouse
gas' means any of the following:
``(1) Water vapor.
``(2) Carbon dioxide.
``(3) Methane.
``(4) Nitrous oxide.
``(5) Sulfur hexafluoride.
``(6) Hydrofluorocarbons.
``(7) Perfluorocarbons.
``(8) Any other substance subject to, or proposed to be
subject to, regulation, action, or consideration under this
Act to address climate change.
``(b) Limitation on Agency Action.--
``(1) Limitation.--
``(A) In general.--The Administrator may not, under this
Act, promulgate any regulation concerning, take action
relating to, or take into consideration the emission of a
greenhouse gas to address climate change.
``(B) Air pollutant definition.--The definition of the term
`air pollutant' in section 302(g) does not include a
greenhouse gas. Notwithstanding the previous sentence, such
definition may include a greenhouse gas for purposes of
addressing concerns other than climate change.
``(2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) does not prohibit the
following:
``(A) Notwithstanding paragraph (4)(B), implementation and
enforcement of the rule entitled `Light-Duty Vehicle
Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel
Economy Standards' (as published at 75 Fed. Reg. 25324 (May
7, 2010) and without further revision) and finalization,
implementation, enforcement, and revision of the proposed
rule entitled `Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel
Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and
Vehicles' published at 75 Fed. Reg. 74152 (November 30,
2010).
``(B) Implementation and enforcement of section 211(o).
``(C) Statutorily authorized Federal research, development,
and demonstration programs addressing climate change.
``(D) Implementation and enforcement of title VI to the
extent such implementation or enforcement only involves one
or more class I substances or class II substances (as such
terms are defined in section 601).
``(E) Implementation and enforcement of section 821 (42
U.S.C. 7651k note) of Public Law 101-549 (commonly referred
to as the `Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990').
``(3) Inapplicability of provisions.--Nothing listed in
paragraph (2) shall cause a greenhouse gas to be subject to
part C of title I (relating to prevention of significant
deterioration of air quality) or considered an air pollutant
for purposes of title V (relating to permits).
``(4) Certain prior agency actions.--The following rules
and actions (including any supplement or revision to such
rules and actions) are repealed and shall have no legal
effect:
``(A) `Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases', published
at 74 Fed. Reg. 56260 (October 30, 2009).
``(B) `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).
``(C) `Reconsideration of Interpretation of Regulations
That Determine Pollutants Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting
Programs', published at 75 Fed. Reg. 17004 (April 2, 2010)
and the memorandum from Stephen L. Johnson, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator, to EPA Regional
Administrators, concerning `EPA's Interpretation of
Regulations that Determine Pollutants Covered by Federal
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit Program'
(December 18, 2008).
``(D) `Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V
Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule', published at 75 Fed. Reg.
31514 (June 3, 2010).
``(E) `Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits Under
the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to
Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Finding of Substantial
Inadequacy and SIP Call', published at 75 Fed. Reg. 77698
(December 13, 2010).
``(F) `Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits Under
the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to
Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Finding of Failure To
Submit State Implementation Plan Revisions Required for
Greenhouse Gases', published at 75 Fed. Reg. 81874 (December
29, 2010).
``(G) `Action to Ensure Authority To Issue Permits Under
the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to
Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Federal Implementation
Plan', published at 75 Fed. Reg. 82246 (December 30, 2010).
``(H) `Action to Ensure Authority to Implement Title V
Permitting Programs Under the Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule',
published at 75 Fed. Reg. 82254 (December 30, 2010).
``(I) `Determinations Concerning Need for Error Correction,
Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval, and Federal
Implementation Plan Regarding Texas Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Program', published at 75 Fed. Reg. 82430
(December 30, 2010).
``(J) `Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-
Sources in State Implementation Plans', published at 75 Fed.
Reg. 82536 (December 30, 2010).
``(K) `Determinations Concerning Need for Error Correction,
Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval, and Federal
Implementation Plan Regarding Texas Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Program; Proposed Rule', published at 75 Fed.
Reg. 82365 (December 30, 2010).
``(L) Except for actions listed in paragraph (2), any other
Federal action under this Act occurring before the date of
enactment of this section that applies a stationary source
permitting requirement or an emissions standard for a
greenhouse gas to address climate change.
``(5) State action.--
``(A) No limitation.--This section does not limit or
otherwise affect the authority of a State to adopt, amend,
enforce, or repeal State laws and regulations pertaining to
the emission of a greenhouse gas.
``(B) Exception.--
``(i) Rule.--Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), any
provision described in clause (ii)--

``(I) is not federally enforceable;
``(II) is not deemed to be a part of Federal law; and
``(III) is deemed to be stricken from the plan described in
clause (ii)(I) or the program or permit described in clause
(ii)(II), as applicable.

``(ii) Provision defined.--For purposes of clause (i), the
term `provision' means any provision that--

``(I) is contained in a State implementation plan under
section 110 and authorizes or requires a limitation on, or
imposes a permit requirement for, the emission of a
greenhouse gas to address climate change; or
``(II) is part of an operating permit program under title
V, or a permit issued pursuant to title V, and authorizes or
requires a limitation on the emission of a greenhouse gas to
address climate change.

``(C) Action by administrator.--The Administrator may not
approve or make federally enforceable any provision described
in subparagraph (B)(ii).''.

SEC. 3. PRESERVING ONE NATIONAL STANDARD FOR AUTOMOBILES.

Section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7543) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(4) With respect to standards for emissions of greenhouse
gases (as defined in section 330) for model year 2017 or any
subsequent model year new motor vehicles and new motor
vehicle engines--
``(A) the Administrator may not waive application of
subsection (a); and
``(B) no waiver granted prior to the date of enactment of
this paragraph may be construed to waive the application of
subsection (a).''.

SEC. 4. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

It is the sense of the Congress that--
(1) there is established scientific concern over warming of
the climate system based upon evidence from observations of
increases in global average air and ocean temperatures,
widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average
sea level;
(2) addressing climate change is an international issue,
involving complex scientific and economic considerations;
(3) the United States has a role to play in resolving
global climate change matters on an international basis; and
(4) Congress should fulfill that role by developing
policies that do not adversely affect the American economy,
energy supplies, and employment.

The CHAIR. No amendment to the committee amendment is in order except
those printed in House Report 112-54. 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 Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in
House Report 112-54.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Strike sections 2 and 3 of the bill, redesignate section 4
of the bill as section 3, and insert after section 1 of the
bill the following section:

SEC. 2. STUDY AND REPORT.

(a) Study.--In the interest of protecting national
security, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency shall conduct a study to determine--
(1) the long term impacts of the Environmental Protection
Agency having no authority to regulate emissions of
greenhouse gases;
(2) if there are alternatives to ensure compliance with the
Clean Air Act; and
(3) best practices with respect to greenhouse gas
regulation under the Clean Air Act.
(b) Report.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency shall submit to Congress a report on the
results of the study under subsection (a), including any
findings and recommendations.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 203, the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I want to thank the ranking member of the

[[Page H2363]]

full committee for reading a very important letter into the Record that
the EPA has no intention to manipulate or to utilize cap-and-trade as
part of their responsibilities. This is not a cap-and-trade initiative
or legislation. It has nothing to do with cap-and-trade.
In fact, I think the whole concept of this Energy Tax Prevention Act
is muddled and befuddled. I don't understand it. I practiced oil and
gas law for almost 15 or 20 years. I come from Houston, and I recognize
the difficulties that we have in the industry and understanding the
industry. But I also am cognizant that this majority, my good friend on
the other side that represents that, they are interested in adhering to
the Constitution.
And I don't know why they have not studied the Supreme Court decision
in Massachusetts versus EPA that clearly indicates, even though this
was motor vehicle emissions that they were talking about, but it held
that greenhouse gases, widely viewed as contributing to climate change,
constitute air pollutants, and therefore that phrase as utilized under
the Clean Air Act and the EPA has jurisdiction to regulate under the
Clean Air Act.
I assume what we are doing is trying to bash a long-standing process
rather than coming up with better ideas. I think my amendment brings
about a better idea, because energy is a national security issue. And
what my amendment poses to do is to ask serious questions about the
impact of eliminating the EPA authority, finding a way to work through
this question: What would be the long-term impact? Because the
legislation that is now written by my friends on the other side of the
aisle is telling the United States of America, in conflict with the
United States Supreme Court decision--and let me just hold up a visual,
the Constitution, which is what this majority says that they are basing
their whole legislative agenda on.
Well, we have constitutional authority. And they are now telling us
that we should not regulate water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane,
nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons,
perfluorocarbons, and any other substance. I don't hear a scream and
cry of the industry. I do hear the idea that there are burdens that
will come upon the industry that we should address.
So the amendment that I have that I am asking for real consideration
on the basis of a national security question, How will we provide for
resources that will provide for the engine economy of this Nation, the
long-term impact of the Environmental Protection Agency having no
authority to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases? Also, if there are
alternatives to ensure compliance with the Clean Air Act, if you have a
better alternative. And best practices with respect to greenhouse gas
regulation under the Clean Air Act, which the Supreme Court decision
clearly dictates that it has the authority to regulate it. But we need
to collaborate and cooperate and understand how we balance the needs of
an energy policy.
Might I also say that energy recognizes all forms of energy. And
energy companies that are in oil and gas are looking at alternatives.
They have whole sections that are addressing the question of
alternative fuels. Why are we raising a bill that has no sense of
direction in what it is trying to do and to eliminate an oversight that
is protecting the American public in their quality of life and also
doesn't speak to how we work with the industry to actually make sure
that we check these emissions but as well provide the opportunity for
domestic growth and domestic energy growth?
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. UPTON. I just want to say to my friend from Texas that with
regard to the hue and cry of folks that support this legislation, not a
lot of business folks, I have a whole series of letters of support for
our legislation from the American Electric Power to the Farm Bureau,
the Iron and Steel Institute, Americans for Tax Reform, American Public
Power, Business Roundtable, Chamber of Commerce, Metalcasters Alliance,
Multi-Traders Letters, auto dealers, Realtors, manufacturers, National
Association of Manufacturers, cattlemen, Mining Association,
petrochemical, Rural Electrical Cooperative, and on and on.

Letters of Support

AF&PA Press Statement
American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity Press
Statement
American Electric Power
American Farm Bureau Federation
American Iron and Steel Institute
Americans for Prosperity Press Statement
Americans for Tax Reform
API-ACC Coalition Letter
American Public Power Association
Business Roundtable Letter
Chamber of Commerce
Cornwall Alliance
Freedom Action Press Release
Industrial Energy Consumers of America Press Statement
Metalcasters Alliance
Midwest Power Coalition
Multi-Traders Letters
NACS
National Automobile Dealers Association
National Association of Realtors
National Association of Manufacturers
National Association of Manufacturers Press Statement
National Cattleman's Beef Association
National Center for Public Policy Research
National Mining Association Press Statement
National Petrochemical & Refiners Association
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
NRECA Press Statement
Nucor Letter
Southern Company
Steelgram--Support H.R. 910
Tesoro Corporation
The Brick Industry
The Fertilizer Institute
Valero Energy Corporation
____

American Forest &

Paper Association,

Washington, DC.

AF&PA Statement on the Energy Tax Prevention Act (H.R. 910)

Washington.--American Forest & Paper Association President
and CEO Donna Harman today issued the following statement
regarding the Energy Tax Prevention Act (H.R. 910) as
introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Energy and
Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI), Agriculture
Committee Ranking Member Collin Peterson (D-MN),
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Ranking Member
Nick Rahall (D-WV), and Energy and Power Subcommittee
Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-KY).
``I applaud the introduction of this bi-partisan
legislation to bring a halt to regulation of greenhouse gases
through the Clean Air Act. There is broad agreement that the
Clean Air Act is the wrong tool to regulate greenhouse gases.
The rule serves to impose high costs and business uncertainty
related to new investments in the manufacturing sector.
Congress, not EPA, should decide energy policy; in
particular, issues related to investments in renewable
energy, including biomass.
``The Greenhouse Gas regulations are the latest example of
those that would hamper job growth and put obstacles in the
way of American business to compete in the global
marketplace. Inexplicably, this is happening as other parts
of the Administration are promoting the need for more exports
and job creation.
``I commend Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred
Upton (R-MI), Agriculture Committee Ranking Member Collin
Peterson (D-MN), Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
Ranking Member Nick Rahall (D-WV), and Energy and Power
Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-KY) for introducing
this legislation. We look forward to working with Congress on
this very important issue.''
____

American Coalition for

Clean Coal Electricity,

Alexandria, VA.

House, Senate Introduce Legislation To Stop EPA Regulations

Alexandria, VA.--The American Coalition for Clean Coal
Electricity today praised the introduction in the U.S. House
and Senate of bipartisan legislation that would ensure the
authority to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases rests
with Congress, and not the EPA. The bills were introduced by
House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton and
Senate Environment and Public Works Ranking Member James
Inhofe.
``The EPA's sweeping regulations will affect the lives of
millions of Americans, from their electricity bills to the
economy as a whole. Given this wide-ranging impact, it is
important that Congress--not the EPA--address greenhouse gas
emissions in a manner that takes into consideration both
environmental and economic impacts,'' said Steve Miller,
president and CEO of ACCCE.
The bills would eliminate EPA's authority to regulate
greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, which is
ill-suited for that task. The legislation introduced today
would leave in place all of the essential provisions of the
Clean Air Act.
EPA's proposed regulations on greenhouse gas emissions
could have a dramatic impact

[[Page H2364]]

on jobs and the economy. A recent analysis by the American
Council for Capital Formation concluded that uncertainty
caused by these regulations could, by 2014, result in the
loss of between $25 billion to $75 billion in investment in
the economy and that this could result in the loss of between
476,000 and 1.4 million jobs.
``At a time when Americans are struggling with high energy
costs, the EPA's proposed regulations could make electricity
more expensive. The affordability of coal-fueled electricity
has helped moderate increases in energy costs, and continued
reliance on coal can help the U.S. recover economically and
American businesses to compete globally,'' said Miller. ``We
thank Chairman Upton and Senator Inhofe for their leadership
on this critical issue as well as Members of Congress from
both parties who have agreed to be initial co-sponsors of the
bill.''
____

American Electric Power,

Columbus, OH, March 3, 2011.
Hon. Fred Upton,
Chairman, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House
of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Upton: I am writing today to express my
strong support for the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011.
When the Clean Air Act was originally enacted, it was not
the expectation of Congress that this Act be applied to
greenhouse gases. In fact, the Act was designed to regulate
ambient air quality and hazardous air pollutants, among other
matters. Moreover, the regulation of greenhouse gases was not
mandated by the Supreme Court ruling and therefore is not
necessarily required by the Clean Air Act.
It is clear to us at American Electric Power that the issue
of climate change policy should be addressed exclusively
through the legislative process. The Congress of the United
States is better equipped to holistically evaluate not only
the environmental impacts of greenhouse gases but also the
impacts of greenhouse regulation on the economy, employment,
energy and international trade. I firmly believe that this
approach is crucial to ensuring a sound national policy.
I again thank you for your leadership on this important
matter, and AEP looks forward to working with you to enact
this legislation.
Sincerely,

Michael J. Morris,

Chairman of the Board,
President and Chief Executive Officer.
____

American

Farm Bureau Federation,

Washington, DC, March 3, 2011.
Hon. Fred Upton,
U.S. House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Upton: The American Farm Bureau Federation
(AFBF) strongly supports the Energy Tax Prevention Act of
2011 that you plan to introduce in the House of
Representatives.
This bill would preempt regulation of greenhouse gases
(GHG) by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) based on
climate change considerations. The bill would not affect
previously enacted or proposed rules regarding emissions from
mobile sources.
The regulation of GHG does not fit within the current
framework of the Clean Air Act. Unlike other regulated
pollutants, where Clean Air Act thresholds are sufficient to
regulate the largest emitters, GHG regulation at statutorily
required, thresholds holds the prospect of costly and
burdensome permit requirements on farms, ranches, schools,
hospitals and some large residences.
Farmers and ranchers will be particularly disadvantaged
under such a regulatory scheme. The costs incurred by
utilities, refiners and manufacturers to comply with GHG
regulations will be passed along to their customers,
including farmers and ranchers, increasing their fuel,
fertilizer and energy costs. Unlike other types of
businesses, farmers and ranchers have much less ability to
pass along such costs. Additionally, under the thresholds set
by the Clean Air Act, many farmers and ranchers would
eventually be required to obtain costly and burdensome Title
V operating permits or New Source Review/Prevention of
Significant Deterioration permits. EPA itself estimates that
more than 37,000 farms will be subject to Title V permits, at
a cost of more than $866 million.
While the costs of compliance may be high, the
environmental benefits from EPA regulation are marginal at
best. Unless and until an international agreement is reached,
unilateral action by EPA will have little or no environmental
impact. EPA Administrator Jackson has acknowledged this fact
in testimony before Congress.
The president has stated that congressional action is a
better way to address the issue than EPA regulation. We
agree. The Energy Tax Prevention Act recognizes this as well
and places the responsibility for regulating GHGs where it
belongs--with Congress. We commend you for introducing this
bill and look forward to working with you on it.
Sincerely,
Bob Stallman,
President.

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton.)

{time} 1600

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the distinguished chairman for the time.
Well, let me say something positive about my good friend from
Houston, Texas's amendment before I say something negative. If it were
to pass, it would at least force the EPA to do a real study, which is
more than I can say they did before they issued their endangerment
finding.
If you look at the endangerment finding that they actually did to
satisfy the requirement of the Supreme Court, they didn't do any
scientific analysis. They didn't do any independent analysis. They
basically took regurgitated research and press clippings and apparently
some student's thesis as the justification for coming up with their
endangerment finding.
If we accept the gentlelady from Houston's amendment, you do really
gut this bill, which, if you are opposed to it, that's probably a good
outcome. But if you are supportive of it, it's not a good outcome.
We don't need to do a study. CO2 is not a pollutant under
the definitions of the Clean Air Act. It's not harmful to health, as I
keep pointing out.
As I speak, I create CO2, and so you need CO2
for life. Manmade CO2 does not significantly contribute to
climate change. We do have climate change, as we always have and always
will.
But to say that CO2 emissions made by man somehow are
causing all these catastrophic changes is simply not true. What the
bill before us does is say we protect the Clean Air Act, we want to
enforce the Clean Air Act, but we want it to be in force for the
criteria pollutants that it was intended for, and we do not believe
that CO2 is one of the pollutants that it was intended to
regulate.
So we don't need a study, and I would oppose my good friend from
Houston's amendment and encourage all Members to also oppose it.
Mr. UPTON. May I ask how much time remains.
The Acting CHAIR (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman from California has
2\3/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. UPTON. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Bilbray), a member of the committee.
Mr. BILBRAY. I appreciate that.
Let's talk science, ladies and gentlemen. Everyone wants to talk
about the threat of climate change, but no one wants to address the
fact that what EPA has proposed, by the admission of the administrator,
cannot even indicate what percentage of greenhouse gases those
regulations could reduce. And not one scientist, not one expert in our
committee, or I have seen anywhere else, has ever said what is being
proposed by EPA, that is going to cost at least $200 million, will not
avoid the problem of climate change. So the question is this, what are
the American people getting for their $200 million.
Now, I'm sorry, some of us have worked on air pollution issues. I
know the precursors to ozone. If they are saying that the problem is
it's a precursor to ozone, believe me, it is so small and minute that
those of us that are working in non-attainment areas never even gave a
second glance at CO2. So don't talk about it being a health
risk based on a precursor to ozone. Look at what we are getting for the
money.
What we are actually talking about here is not allowing EPA to go out
and implement programs that the administrator admits that she cannot
tell us what the American people are going to get for their dollars.
If you want to do a study, then let's do a study on what would have
to be done to address this issue the way that some of us think it
should be addressed. But let's not say that somehow that by holding up
a program that is admitted not to be able to deliver any tangible
benefits, that holding up that program is somehow going be a threat to
public health.
So let's just get back down to the real science, and that is no one
in this establishment is talking about addressing the climate change
issue. Some people are saying it doesn't exist and others are trying to
sell an environmental placebo that makes you look good because you are
doing something, but spends huge amounts of money, has a great impact,
and does not address the problem and would not avoid the problem.
One thing we have got to make clear. Don't talk to me about
incrementalism

[[Page H2365]]

when we talk about climate change. You talked to the same scientists
that you say are telling us about climate change, and they say if we
don't get the job done within the next decade or two, forget about it.
It's over with.
The fact is that climate change will happen. And, sadly, what I have
seen in the last 2 years about this issue, I have come to the
conclusion this body really should be talking about what we need to do
to mitigate the impact, because you are not doing anything to avoid it,
and we shouldn't tell the American people that we are.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. May I ask the remaining time.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas has 1 minute remaining.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I yield 30 seconds to my good friend from
California (Mr. Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much.
I just want to point out, Mr. Barton, my very good friend who used to
be chairman of the committee and was ranking member when I asked him to
work with us on a bipartisan energy bill policy, he said, I don't
believe there is such a thing as global warming. It doesn't exist, it's
not a problem. Why spend any effort or money to find the solution?
And now, while the gentlelady's amendment is saying at least study
what will happen if you don't do anything in this area, and he said
that's not needed either. I think at least we ought to know what the
gentlelady is suggesting, and that is, what would be the long-term
impact if we do nothing.
I support the Jackson Lee amendment.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman for all
of his work.
I come as a peacemaker, Madam Chair. Houston, by the American Lung
Association, is the seventh most ozone-polluted city in the Nation. The
Supreme Court clearly said under the Clean Air Act that it authorized
the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases as it makes a judgment that it
impacts on climate change. At the same time there are industries that
happen to be oil and gas that can sit down and benefit from a real
study that will talk about best practices and also have the engagement
that we need to have.
It is reckless to talk about what scientists have said. The Members
are not scientists, and I believe you cannot rid the EPA of its
jurisdiction.
I would ask my colleagues to be thoughtful, along with the industry,
and let's have a reasonable study. This impacts national security.
I ask my colleagues to support my amendment.
Madam Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 910, ``Energy
Tax Prevention Act of 2011.'' H.R. 910 prematurely eliminates the
responsibilities of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate
greenhouse gas emissions. My amendment would require an assessment of
the industry by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ensure
accurate consideration of how proposed regulations would affect energy
production levels, feasibility of implementation on the industry, as
well as the adverse environmental effects of delaying implementation of
proposed regulations. My amendment would also ensure the Environmental
Protection Agency retains its ability to regulate greenhouse gas
emissions under the authority provided by the Clean House Act.
I cannot envision any American living in a polluted area wanting to
support a permanent ban on the Environmental Protection Agency's
ability to regulate greenhouse gases. The potential negative impact of
greenhouse gases is supported by the scientific community. The National
Academy of Sciences reported in 2010: ``Climate change is occurring, is
caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for--
and in many cases already affecting--a broad range of human and natural
systems.'' It is clear that quality of our air impacts the quality of
our health. The Clean Air Scientific Advisor Committee, EPA's
independent science advisors, reviewed evidence from roughly 1,700
studies in the scientific research of the health impact of ozone. They
unanimously concluded that the EPA needs ozone standards. This would
ensure an adequate margin of safety for the public as required by law.
This is about protecting our nation's health, industry, and our
environment.
As a Houstonian the affects of H.R. 910 are of particular concern to
me. A study conducted by the American Lung Association ranked Houston
as the 7th most ozone-polluted city in the country. Children, teens,
senior citizens, and people with lung diseases like asthma, chronic
bronchitis, emphysema and others are particularly vulnerable to poor
air quality and are at risk for developing irreversible lung damage. A
rise in poor air quality has the potential to increase emergency room
visits and hospital admissions for respitory problems which increases
the cost of healthcare to tax payers.
In Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, TX, over a million children under the
age of 18 will be negatively impacted if air quality continues to
decline. Children exposed to air pollution suffer stunted long growth,
as well as development of asthma, and increased respitory infections.
According to the American Lung Association, researchers have also
concluded that prenatal exposure to air pollution harms children, and
increase the risk of babies being born with low birth weight.
We owe it to our children to provide clean, healthy air. We have an
agency that is charged with regulating our air quality. My amendment
would ensure the EPA can continue to protect our nation's health by
regulating green house emissions.
This amendment will ensure that the EPA reports to Congress its
findings on the long term negative impacts of greenhouse gases.
Findings from a recent EPA study titled ``Assessment of the Impacts of
Global Change on Regional U.W. Air Quality: A Synthesis of Climate
Change Impacts on Ground-Level Ozone'' suggest that climate change may
lead to higher concentrations of ground-level ozone, a harmful
pollutant. Additional impacts of climate change include, but are not
limited to: increase drought; more heavy downpours and flooding, and
harm to water resources, agriculture, wildfire and ecosystems.''
Not only would the deregulation of greenhouse gases impact the health
of our citizens, it will also, have a negative impact on our ability to
maintain and create new jobs. Poor health and low air quality only
discourages industries from coming to an area. New industries will not
be willing to move into areas that are polluted which negatively
impacts job growth in those communities.
Currently there are programs in Houston such as the Energy Efficiency
Incentive Program which aims to significantly reduce Houston's
emissions of greenhouse gases and criteria air pollutants. The oil and
gas industry is also investing alternative energy sources and improving
air quality standards; such initiatives look towards the future,
ensures job creation, and protects our nation's health.
I believe the Environmental Protection Agency plays an essential role
in providing appropriate and balanced guidance to the industry, which
in turn encourages them to have a workable timeframe to determine the
appropriate measures to improve our nation's air quality. The EPA
ensures that energy industries have a reasonable standard to base their
operations.
My amendment requires the EPA to carefully study this issue and to
determine the long term impact on health, the industry and the
environment. I strongly urge my colleagues to support a reasonable,
fair and measured response to addressing regulation of greenhouse
gases.
Under current law, The Clean Air Act provides the EPA with the
authority to take steps that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. On
April 2, 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA that
greenhouse gas, constitute ``air pollutants'' as the phrased is used in
the Clean Air Act. Such pollutants may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare. As a result, the government has the
legal authority to issue standards for greenhouse gas emissions. As the
Clean Air Act falls under the authority of the Environmental Protection
Agency, it is therefore legitimate for the EPA to regulate greenhouse
gases. My amendment ensures compliance with a U.S. Supreme Court
ruling. As written, H.R. 910 would overturn Massachusetts v. EPA. As
written H.R. 910 would overturns a ruling by the Supreme Court. Such an
action is too extreme when there are other more tenable solutions
available.
We cannot allow a total eradication/elimination of the
responsibilities of the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. This would
impact the health of our nation, negatively impact industries, and
overturns a Supreme Court ruling. The present version of H.R. 910,
without amendment fails to provide a studied and measured approach when
trying to find a balance between the need for our nation to maintain
quality air levels and the need for our nation to continue job growth.
This bill takes a sledge hammer approach that is too extreme.
The purpose behind my amendment is to reach a compromise. To ensure
that fair and reasonable regulations can be implemented without adverse
effects to our nation's air and our nations industry.
Madam Chair, I believe it is very important to provide the EPA with
the opportunity to carefully study this matter and report back to
Congress within 60 days and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting
this amendment.

[[Page H2366]]

Houston Mayor's Task Force on the Health Effects of Air Pollution

Thousands of tons of potentially harmful chemicals are
discharged each day into Houston's atmosphere as a result of
human activities, substances, and technologies. Consequently,
people living in Houston are exposed routinely to a myriad of
pollutants in the air they breathe. Estimated and/or measured
concentrations of some of these airborne chemicals in ambient
air are high enough to cause illness or injury in exposed
individuals, especially those in our society who are most
vulnerable, such as children and seniors. Although the
available data are incomplete and uneven, the Task Force
surveyed information on 179 air pollutants and identified 12
substances in Houston's air that are definite risks to human
health, 9 that are probable risks, and 24 that are possible
risks. Sixteen substances were found to be unlikely risks to
Houstonians at current ambient levels, and 118 substances
were labeled uncertain risks because there was inadequate or
insufficient information to determine whether they presently
pose a health threat to Houston residents.
____

Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency

The U.S. Supreme Court Synopsis

Supreme Court of the United States

MASSACHUSETTS et al., Petitioners, v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
et al.

Background: States, local governments, and environmental
organizations petitioned for review of an order of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) denying a petition for
rulemaking to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor
vehicles under the Clean Air Act. The Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit, 415 F.3d 50, dismissed or
denied the petitions. Certiorari was granted.
Holdings: The Supreme Court, Justice Stevens, held that:
(1) state of Massachusetts had standing to petition for
review;
(2) Clean Air Act authorizes the EPA to regulate greenhouse
gas emissions from new motor vehicles in the event that it
forms a ``judgment'' that such emissions contribute to
climate change; and
(3), EPA can avoid taking regulatory action with respect to
greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles only if it
determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate
change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to
why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to
determine whether they do.
Background: On April 2, 2007, in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549
U.S. 497 (2007), the Supreme Court found that greenhouse
gases are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act. The
Court held that the Administrator must determine whether or
not emissions of greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles
cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether
the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision. In
making these decisions, the Administrator is required to
follow the language of section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.
The Supreme Court decision resulted from a petition for
rulemaking under section 202(a) filed by more than a dozen
environmental, renewable energy, and other organizations.
On April 17, 2009, the Administrator signed proposed
endangerment and cause or contribute findings for greenhouse
gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. EPA held a
60-day public comment period, which ended June 23, 2009, and
received over 380,000 public comments. These included both
written comments as well as testimony at two public hearings
in Arlington, Virginia and Seattle, Washington. EPA carefully
reviewed, considered, and incorporated public comments and
has now issued these final Findings.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam 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 Texas will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in House Report 112-54.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Strike sections 2 and 3, redesignate section 4 as section
3, and insert after section 1 the following:

SEC. 2. CONSIDERATIONS AND PROCEDURES IN FINALIZING
GREENHOUSE GAS REGULATIONS.

In the interest of properly considering the importance of
energy to the national security of the United States, before
finalizing any greenhouse gas regulation the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency--
(1) shall provide a notice period of no less than 30 days
specifically to the affected greenhouse gas producers
proposed to be regulated and allow industry-specific comments
to be submitted to the Administrator regarding the economic
impact of the proposed regulation on the regulated industry;
and
(2) provide an opportunity for the regulated industry to
request and receive a 60-day extension of such comment period
during which the Administrator shall conduct a study to be
submitted to Congress regarding--
(A) the effect of the proposed regulation on the level of
greenhouse gas reduction;
(B) the effect of the proposed regulation on energy
production levels;
(C) the feasibility of implementation of the regulation on
the entities being regulated;
(D) the effect of the proposed regulation on the
availability of energy to consumers; and
(E) the adverse environmental effects of delaying
implementation of the proposed regulation.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 203, the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I am going to take a slightly different
perspective and ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
Again, I am hoping, I know there are a lot of letters that my good
friend from Michigan says that he has, and any time you put forward
legislation that trade groups send word out to membership and say, this
is going to save you a bucket full of money, and you better jump on the
bandwagon, and there is no alternative or there is no basis of
understanding the underpinnings of what we are doing, then you get that
kind of praise.
I hope that many people who are with the industry, having practiced
the law, and I have seen some of the mountains that all industries have
to climb, I think we can find a reasonable way of functioning.
I just want to put in the Record that the industry, which is part of
the drive of my friends on the other side, the oil and gas industry
does generate 9.237 million jobs, $1 trillion contributed to the
economy, $178 billion paid to the U.S. Treasury or to the government in
royalties and bonus payments, and $95.6 billion in taxes, income taxes,
$194 billion invested to improve the environmental performance of its
products, and $58.4 billion invested in low- and zero-carbon emission
technologies from 2000 to 2008.

{time} 1610

I encourage them to keep going. But the way that you keep going is
not to eliminate the oversight body, but you work with it. And my
amendment is very clear. I create a pathway for the industry to be
engaged on any rulemaking. It shall provide a notice period of no less
than 30 days specifically to the affected greenhouse gas producers--and
this is a sort of pipeline for the industry--proposed to be regulated
and allow industry-specific comments to be submitted to the
administrator separate and apart from the public comment period and to
discuss the economic impact of the proposed regulation; provide for an
opportunity for the regulated industry to request and receive a 60-day
extension. And we should take into consideration the effect of the
proposed regulation on greenhouse gas emissions.
These companies have employees living in our community. And it is
noted that Houston, the Houston area to Huntsville has some of the
largest pollutants in the air. We should also consider the effect of
the proposed regulation has on energy production, the feasibility of
the implementation of the regulation on the entities being regulated,
the effect of the proposed regulation on the availability of energy to
consumers, and the adverse environmental effects of delaying
implementation of the proposed regulation.
It allows a discussion that may not be at the level that we would
like it today. I can't imagine, and I guess my friend on the other side
of the aisle will come up and show me all the letters that he's saying
that are supporting legislation that completely obliterates the
opportunity for any governmental oversight. I disagree. I want to know
the question of whether or not we have had the kinds of discussions
that warrant a deliberative process and to bring

[[Page H2367]]

about a concept of listening to industry and industry listening on the
question of air pollutants.
I hold up the mayor's task force on the health effectiveness. It
talks about Houston. But I'm not going to narrow this to Houston.
Wherever there are companies that are refineries, as they so discussed,
we are not trying to undermine that work. But does anyone want to live
in China with the air pollutants that they have?
Let me just say that what we are addressing is a question of balance.
My amendment provides input by the industry and by the EPA
collaborating on how this will impact going forward. I would like you
to support my amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I would like to yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), the chairman of the
Environment and the Economy Subcommittee.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for up to
5 minutes.
Mr. SHIMKUS. I would like to thank my colleague from Kentucky for the
time, and I appreciate this opportunity to really talk about this.
I rise reluctantly to oppose my friend from Houston. I know she has a
lot of her constituents who work in the fossil fuel industry and the
refining industry and the refinery section, but parts of the amendment
do some disastrous things to the bill.
First of all, it strikes most of the base text. We are here today--
and I understand her position of wanting industry to listen, we want
EPA to listen. The whole debate, why we're down here, is we want EPA to
listen. And so as we address this debate, her amendment would strike
most of the base text. And the whole reason why we're here is to get
the attention of the EPA and respond to the people who sent us here to
not hurt and harm job creation.
My friends, Ranking Member Waxman and Markey, their bill did not pass
the legislative process. It didn't go through both Chambers and did not
get signed by the President. Why? Because we understood what would have
happened. We successfully argued the debate that energy costs go up. If
you price carbon, you raise the cost of electricity. If you price
carbon, you raise the cost of manufacturing. If you price carbon, you
raise the cost of gasoline. Now in this recessionary economy, do we
want to do that? And do we want to give the Environmental Protection
Agency the sole authority without our doing the process that I think
the legislative process allows us to do, to talk about the winners and
the losers, the give and take?
What was decided in the last Congress was the legislative process
could not pass this because it was too controversial and it would
affect jobs. It would affect jobs. And this is what we are all
concerned about.
The last round of the Clean Air Act where you could really talk about
toxic emittents cost thousands of jobs in southern Illinois, cost
thousands of jobs in Kentucky and cost thousands of jobs in the Ohio
Valley. Again, you go back to the basic premise if you price carbon.
So what my colleague's amendment does is it says let's keep the EPA
pricing of emittents that are not toxic--carbon dioxide is not a toxic
emittent. It's not nitrous oxide, it's not sulfur dioxide, it's not a
particulate matter, and it's not a criteria pollutant under the EPA and
the Clean Air Act. So we're saying, don't regulate emittents that
aren't toxic; don't put a price on carbon that will cost jobs. So
that's why we need to reject this.
Now, in debates on the other amendments, this isn't the only attack
on the fossil fuel industry. Greenhouse gas is just one rule coming
down. Then we've got boiler MCH, we've got mercury MCH, we've got
cooling towers, we've got coal ash, we've got the transport rule, all
separate rules, and these will affect the refining industry. Most of
these regulations are new regulations coming down from the EPA to
destroy the fossil fuel sector that raises costs and destroys jobs.
So my colleague's amendment, what it does is it doesn't change the
reason why we're here. The reason why we're here is saying, EPA, stop.
If it's a good enough policy, it can pass the legislative body. But do
you know what? It wasn't a good enough policy to pass a Democrat-
controlled Senate. And it wasn't good enough policy to get a bill to
the President to sign into law.
So why is it a good policy to let unelected bureaucrats in the
Environmental Protection Agency move on a process to destroy jobs?
Let's be held accountable. If we want to do that, let's cast our votes.
What we're casting our votes today for is to keep the cost of power low
and save jobs, create jobs and grow jobs. If you want job creation, we
support the underlying bill. We do not support any amendment that puts
off telling the EPA to stop and desist and do no more.
Again, the basic premise of the climate debate is putting a price on
carbon emission that is not toxic. And by putting a price on there, you
raise the cost of energy that everybody uses. You raise the cost of
home heating, automobiles, electricity and the like.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I yield 15 seconds to the ranking member,
the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you for yielding to me.
This bill, the EPA does not put a price on carbon. The EPA is not
setting up a cap-and-trade program. The EPA is only saying, in new
facilities with large amounts of carbon emissions, put in efficiency
standards so that you can reduce those emissions. That's all.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman.
My friend from Illinois, have I got an amendment for you. I'm
answering your concern.
My amendment says it requires, before finalizing emission regulations
on greenhouse gas producers, the EPA must provide the producer with
adequate notice of at least 30 days. The provision would also allow for
industry input, encouraging collaboration between EPA and energy
providers during the regulation process.
Currently, the EPA does not have a minimum time requirement. It also
gives another 60-day extension. This is about national security because
air pollutants and then no energy, bad on one side and bad on the
other. Let's get together. Because we can't dismiss any of these energy
sources, but they need to be better. And how can we, since this is
supposed to be the Supreme Court Constitution side, how can you dismiss
the constitutional right that EPA has to regulate?
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. This is an amendment
for them.
Madam Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment No. 37 to H.R.
910, ``Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011.'' H.R. 910 prematurely
eliminates the responsibilities of the Environmental Protection Agency
to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. My amendment would protect our
national security by considering industry specific energy providers
that are uniquely connected to our national security. This measure
would expand the opportunity to garner industry input during the
rulemaking process, and would provide the Environmental Protection
Agency with a timeframe to engage with the industry during the process.
Madam Chair, this amendment requires that before finalizing emissions
regulations on greenhouse gas producers, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) must provide the producer with adequate notice of at least
30 days. This provision would also allow for industry input,
encouraging collaboration between the EPA and energy providers during
the regulation process. Currently, the EPA does not have a minimum time
requirement.
By mandating industry engagement during the rule making process We
will ensure that the proposed regulations do not negatively impact
industry jobs and domestic energy. This amendment would force a
discussion between the government and the industry during We rule
making process so that jobs can be maintained, U.S. dependence on
foreign oil can be decrease, and the Supreme Court's confirmed
responsibilities of the Environmental Protection Agency will not be
extinguished by short sighted legislation.
As the Representative for Houston, the nation's energy capital, I am
committed to finding a balance that will support continued growth in
the energy industry while protecting the environment.
My amendment to H.R. 910 provides emissions producers in the energy
industry the ability to engage in discussions and studies with the EPA.
The provisions in this amendment will encourage communication between

[[Page H2368]]

the EPA and energy providers throughout the regulation process.
Americans should not have to risk living with highly polluted air. We
must not shy away from the importance of the Clean Air Act and the role
of the Environmental Protection Agency. This country needs energy. We
utilize on and off shore drilling exploration. We must ensure that the
industries impacted are engaged in the process while simultaneously
regulating the affects of green house gas. This is crucial to the daily
lives of Americans.
The Clean Air Act provides the EPA with the authority to regulate
emissions reduction. This authority was upheld by the Supreme Court's
decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. Any attempt to strip the EPA of this
responsibility would undermine the Clean Air Act and exacerbate global
warming.
The EPA must be allowed to regulate the emission of greenhouse gases.
The climate change caused by these emissions affects temperature,
causes extreme weather and dramatically reduces air quality, resulting
in asthma, respiratory disease and lung cancer. The EPA projects that
continued improvements in air quality under the Clean Air Act will save
more than a trillion dollars by 2020, and prevent 230,000 deaths per
year. By allowing the EPA to protect our environment now, we provide
security for future generations.
Prohibiting the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions to
ensure clean air and slow the rate of climate change will have lasting
consequences. We must, however, also consider the consequence to the
energy industry.
H.R. 910 simply takes the wrong approach. Instead of focusing on
developing standards upon which both the Environmental Protection
Agency and the affected industries agree, it attempts to remove the
Environmental Protection Agency from the process. Thereby baring the
industry from developing standards upon which they can all agree. It is
a matter of fairness. The EPA would ensure that industries would have a
minimum standard to follow. This measure would ensure the industry
would be involved when determining the best practices to ensure that
reasonableness of those regulations.
Madam Chair, my amendment is essential to provide greater
consideration to this sensitive issue by affording an opportunity for
energy providers to state the impact that the proposed rule would have
on their industry. This amendment will forge important compromises
between the EPA and the energy industry. I urge my colleagues to join
me in supporting my amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam 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 Texas will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. McNerney

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in House Report 112-54.
Mr. McNERNEY. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

In section 330(b)(2)(C) of the Clean Air Act, as added by
section 2 of the bill, after ``demonstration programs''
insert ``and voluntary programs''.

{time} 1620

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 203, the gentleman
from California (Mr. McNerney) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. McNERNEY. Madam Chair, I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 910.
Let's be crystal clear about two things. The bill we are considering
today, which I will call the dirty air act, is an attack on science,
and it's bad policy that will harm the American people. The world's
scientific experts overwhelmingly agree that climate change is
happening, it's primarily caused by human activities, and it has
harmful consequences.
However, despite our disagreements about the merits of H.R. 910, I am
offering an amendment that I think we can all support. My amendment is
pro-environment, pro-consumer, and pro-business to make sure that our
country can continue to administer voluntary programs to reduce
pollution, improve public health, and address climate change.
Mr. UPTON. Madam Chair, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McNERNEY. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. UPTON. We are prepared to accept the agreement.
Mr. McNERNEY. I thank the gentleman.
As currently written, H.R. 910 prohibits the EPA from taking action
to control greenhouse gas emissions. However, the bill provides a few
narrow exceptions, such as allowing for the continuation of statutorily
authorized research, development, and demonstration programs meant to
combat climate change. My amendment simply clarifies that voluntary
programs to control climate change are also exempted from the bill's
prohibitions and can continue to take place.
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 amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Cuellar

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in House Report 112-54.
Mr. CUELLAR. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

In section 330 of the Clean Air Act, as added by section 2
of the bill, amend subsection (a) to read as follows:
``(a) Definition.--In this section, the term `greenhouse
gas' means any of the following:
``(1) Carbon dioxide.
``(2) Methane.
``(3) Nitrous oxide.
``(4) Hydrofluorocarbons.
``(5) Perfluorocarbons.
``(6) Sulfur hexafluoride.
In section 330(b) of the Clean Air Act, as added by section
2 of the bill--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), strike ``under this Act'' and
insert ``under title I or title V of this Act''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B), strike ``The definition'' and
insert ``For purposes of title I and title V only, the
definition'';
(2) in paragraph (2)(A), strike ``Notwithstanding paragraph
(4)(B), implementation'' and insert ``Implementation''; and
(3) strike paragraph (4) and redesignate paragraph (5)
accordingly.
Strike section 3 of the bill (and redesignate section 4 of
the bill as section 3).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 203, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Cuellar) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. CUELLAR. Madam Chair, I rise today to encourage my colleagues to
support my amendment.
The intent of my amendment is quite narrow. This amendment makes the
underlying legislation a question of authority, not a question of
science. The amendment strikes the finding of the language from the
particular bill. This ensures that H.R. 910 is only about Article I of
the Constitution, giving the U.S. Congress the right to say whether the
EPA can or cannot regulate greenhouse gas.
Also, the amendment preserves the authority of the agency to improve
the efficiency of automobiles and light trucks, an issue on which there
is widespread agreement. While H.R. 910 intends to exempt auto
standards, the legislation would stop the EPA from improving on any
future car efficiency standards. This amendment does not remove any
enforcement power the EPA has previously exercised since enactment of
the Clean Air Act.
At the same time, this amendment does not authorize new regulatory
initiatives beyond what the agency has done for decades. For example,
the agency is in no way authorized by the amendment to undertake low
carbon fuel standards or new emission guidelines for permitting
obligations for stationary sources.
Finally, my amendment refines the definition of H.R. 910 by removing
water vapor. This is consistent with the legislation we have considered
in the past of what is and isn't greenhouse gas. Water vapor is not a
long-term harmful warming cause.
In short, this amendment makes the underlying legislation a question
of the EPA's authority granted under the Clean Air Act.
Madam Chair, I thank you for the consideration of this amendment. I
urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

[[Page H2369]]

I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I rise in opposition to my good friend from
Texas, Mr. Cuellar's amendment. It may be well intentioned, but it is
poorly drafted. He may not have intended it, but if we were to accept
it, by allowing the EPA to regulate anything under title 2, he would
give the EPA authority not only to regulate tailpipe emissions from
cars and trucks, but also authority to regulate trains, planes, and any
other mobile source. I don't know that that was his intent, but that is
certainly the effect of the amendment.
We oppose the amendment for that reason, for the drafting reason. We
also oppose the amendment because it is the majority's opinion that we
need, after 2017, to have one regulator for mobile sources, and that
regulator is NHTSA, the National Highway Transportation Safety
Administration. This amendment would have three regulators: NHTSA, EPA,
and the State of California.
We have been very careful in the drafting of the underlying bill to
make sure that the existing standards for tailpipe emissions stay in
place. This bill does not change that. It would prevent EPA from
issuing regulations for CO2 emissions for tailpipes, but the
underlying bill does not prohibit regulating the various emissions
under NHTSA and the State of California for tailpipe emissions that
actually affect fuel economy.
The only thing even without this bill that the EPA would have the
ability to regulate are the emissions out of the coolant of the air
conditioning systems. They have absolutely no effect on fuel economy.
So we oppose the amendment.
With that, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Olson), and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control
that time.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas is
recognized for 3 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. OLSON. I thank the chairman of the committee.
Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. H.R. 910 was
carefully written to provide the auto industry with greater certainty
by streamlining the regulatory process with only one fuel economy
regulator--NHTSA--from 2017 onward.
This amendment would remove that provision by requiring that we
continue to have three separate regulators--the EPA, NHTSA, and
California--setting fuel economy standards. This is wasteful and
duplicative spending at a time when government should be more efficient
and providing greater certainty for customers.
This amendment would allow the EPA to set low carbon fuel standards
that would equate to nothing more than a carbon tax at the pump. In a
weak economy, this administration has disregarded studies which have
concluded that greenhouse gas regulations will increase energy costs
and destroy jobs.
An AP headline today read: ``Rising Oil Prices Beginning to Hurt U.S.
Economy.'' These regulations will only force Americans to pay more.
Furthermore, it is Congress, not the EPA, that has constitutional
authority to decide if or how greenhouse gases should be regulated.
My home State of Texas has improved its air quality and increased its
energy production even as we are having the largest population growth
in America.
Our legislation allows America to find commonsense solutions that
provide an affordable, reliable energy supply for our Nation, as well
as providing much-needed certainty to an unstable job market.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and support the
underlying bill, H.R. 910.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CUELLAR. Madam Chair, I thank my colleague from Houston and my
colleague from Dallas also. Just because we drafted this doesn't mean
it was poor drafting. With all due respect, if they have a problem with
whether they want to put language there on science, that is one thing.
My amendment is on the same page as what they are trying to do. My
amendment just strikes the findings. What we want to do is H.R. 910 is
only about Article I of the Constitution, giving the U.S. Congress the
right to say whether EPA can or cannot regulate greenhouse gas.
This should not be a question of science. I think this should be a
question of authority. We are on the same page, but I see that the
majority wants to keep the findings, and I can understand that. I just
ask, Madam Chairwoman, the support of this particular amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. UPTON. Madam Chair, I think we have the right to close. How much
time is remaining on each side?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson) does have the
right to close and has 1 minute remaining, and the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Cuellar) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.

{time} 1630

Mr. CUELLAR. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, again, my amendment is just about saying that H.R. 910
should be article I of the Constitution. The question is, does Congress
have the right to regulate or do we let the bureaucrats decide? This is
what my amendment does. It just says that we, the Members of Congress,
should decide whether the EPA can or cannot regulate greenhouse gas.
Again, this is a question of authority and should not be a question of
science.
With that, Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OLSON. I yield the balance of my time to my colleague from
Michigan (Mr. Upton).
Mr. UPTON. Madam Chair, I would just urge again my colleagues to vote
``no'' on this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).
The amendment was rejected.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Murphy of Connecticut

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5
printed in House Report 112-54.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. 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 10, line 6, after subparagraph (C), insert the
following new subparagraph:
``(D) Technical assistance.--Nothing in this section shall
be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to
provide technical assistance to States or groups of States
for the implementation of regulations those States have
adopted or may adopt concerning the limitation of greenhouse
gas emissions, including providing any data developed in
accordance with the rules or actions repealed by subsection
(b).''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 203, the gentleman
from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chair, this amendment is fairly simple. While the underlying
bill, though, I think very wrongly prevents the EPA from going forward
on regulating greenhouse gases, my amendment affirms that state-run
greenhouse gas programs will not be affected by the underlying
legislation.
My amendment simply clarifies that language, by keeping in practice
the longstanding tradition whereby the EPA will be able to continue
providing technical assistance for States like mine who have taken
action on their own to combat climate change. I think this is a good
and perfecting amendment. Unfortunately, it doesn't do enough to allow
me to support this legislation.
I can't support this legislation, because, as many have said before,
it is simply an affront, an attack on science, on 99 percent of peer
reviewed articles which have supported the idea that the United States
needs to do something as 5 percent of the world's population and 25
percent of the world's pollution. We have 230,000 deaths that have been
prevented by the Clean Air Act, and the economic benefits outweigh the
costs of it by a 3-to-1 margin.
But even if you set aside the scientific debate, there are dozens of
other reasons why we should be supportive of the United States and the

[[Page H2370]]

EPA taking a strong role on the issue of regulating greenhouse gases.
It is an affront to the millions of unemployed workers in this country
who are asking for leadership from this Congress on developing a new
economy in the area of clean energy, to allow the EPA the ability to
join other nations around the world in putting a downward pressure on
carbon emissions so that we can have an upward pressure on the number
of new clean energy jobs that this country can create. But even if you
set aside that argument, even if you set aside the science, set aside
the jobs argument, from a national security perspective, we need to go
forward with these EPA regulations, or, in the absence, we need to be
passing legislation here in the United States Congress.
We continue to send abroad American dollars to petro-dictators who
use it to funnel money to the very people that are seeking to attack
this nation. From a national security standpoint, we need to be moving
forward with a greenhouse gas strategy.
I am proposing this amendment, though, because for all of the
naysayers, for all of the people who talk about doomsday and Armageddon
if these EPA regulations are to go into effect, I'd like them to come
to Connecticut, I'd like them to come to the 10 States that are part of
the RGGI carbon emissions regime in which we have seen what smart
regulation of carbon can do. We have set an aggressive standard in our
RGGI system whereby we are seeking a 10 percent reduction in carbon,
and we're doing it through the dreaded cap-and-trade regime that many
on the other side have talked about for years.
What have we seen in Connecticut? The jury is in, the results are in,
and we have in the 10 RGGI States saved enough energy to equal the
cumulative input of 442,000 homes. We've saved an immense amount of
energy. Now by doing that, what's happened to cost? Well, guess what?
Cost has plummeted. We have saved $744 million for consumers in
Connecticut. Why? We've decreased demand for energy, and so we have
decreased cost. We have saved energy and we have decreased cost through
a system of carbon control not dissimilar to ones we've talked about in
this Congress and not dissimilar to what we are looking at at the EPA
today. I propose this amendment as a way of simply allowing States to
move forward with what I think have been very beneficial carbon
reduction regimes in the absence of Federal control.
I think it's a sad day that we're here talking about this today. It
used to be that Republicans and Democrats could at the very least agree
on clean air. We could at the very least agree on the fact that
pollution was an issue which we should address. And the fact that that
is now a subject of disagreement, I think, is a grave statement on how
far the Republican Party has come over the last decade.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCALISE. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SCALISE. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr.
Pompeo).
Mr. POMPEO. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Murphy
amendment.
I heard my colleague speak. He talked about it being a sad day, a day
when Republicans and Democrats cannot agree about the importance of
environmental safety and clean air. I could not disagree more. Those of
us on our side care deeply to make sure we've got clean air and clean
water and safe drinking water. We care deeply about that. It is not a
sad day.
I've been here in Congress for 90 days. Yesterday marked 3 months on
station. The Democrats have been talking about jobs bills. Where are
the jobs bills? Well, here's one. Here's the first of many. If we can
begin to peel away the burden and the disaster that are the regulations
that EPA is beginning to place on our country, then we will once again
create an environment where the private sector can create jobs, where
we can once again create manufacturing jobs.
Until January 5 of this year, I was in the manufacturing sector. I
was making things in the private sector. And I watched as government
got in the way and made it expensive, drove up the cost of energy so
that our products were not competitive. We are now, beginning with H.R.
910, to peel that back, to take on the task of restoring opportunity
for Americans once again to manufacture here in our country, for those
folks who are struggling to begin once again to afford energy for
themselves, for their families, and for our small businesses.
I oppose the Murphy amendment because it guts what we're trying to do
in H.R. 910, which is to once again put America back on a course that
says we're going to have safe air, we're going to have clean drinking
water, but we're going to do it in a way where the private sector can
create jobs, we can grow our economy, and we will not have to have the
unemployment rate that we have struggled through for the last 2\1/2\
years.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. May I inquire as to how much time is
remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Connecticut has 30 seconds
remaining, and the gentleman from Louisiana has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I yield myself the balance of my time.
I would inquire of the gentleman as to how he thinks this amendment
guts the underlying legislation. All this amendment does is simply
allow for the EPA to continue working with States on their own systems.
I think the hyperbole has gotten a little out of control from the
Republican side. This is simply seeking to assist States in the work
that they are continuing to do today. It does absolutely nothing to gut
the underlying legislation, and it just adds clarifying language to
allow States to move forward with their own systems of controlling
greenhouse gases.
I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 1640

Mr. SCALISE. Madam Chair, we are here today because the EPA has
continued to push this effort to pass a national energy tax. It was
tried through cap-and-trade over the last year and a half. That bill
went through the legislative process and was defeated in a bipartisan
way. This is not a Republican or a Democrat issue when we're talking
about preventing the EPA from running millions of jobs out of our
country, and that is literally what's at stake here.
Believe me, as people look through the letters of support and as we
comb through the days of testimony that we've had on this over the last
2 years with regard to this concept of the EPA's regulating greenhouse
gases, Madam Chair, we are talking about a proposal by the EPA that,
according to the National Association of Manufacturers, would run 3
million jobs out of our country.
Now, we should all be here working feverishly to create jobs. In
fact, our legislation, the National Energy Tax Prevention Act, will
create jobs because it will remove the uncertainty that exists today
where so many employers, so many of our job creators, are scared to
death of the threat now of regulation coming over; because, again,
Congress rejected their proposal for the national energy tax through
cap-and-trade in a bipartisan way.
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The Acting CHAIR. Does the gentleman from Louisiana yield to the
gentleman from California for that purpose?
Mr. SCALISE. If the gentleman has a parliamentary inquiry, I don't
think that comes out of my time.
Mr. WAXMAN. Parliamentary inquiry.
The Acting CHAIR. If the gentleman from Louisiana yields for the
parliamentary inquiry it will come out of his time.
Mr. SCALISE. I yield for a parliamentary inquiry.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, my inquiry is: Must the debate be on the
pending amendment or can the debate be on a broader bill?
Mr. SCALISE. I reclaim my time, Madam Chair, because I am talking
specifically about the amendment. If I am allowed the opportunity to
continue with my comments, I have to finish a thought first before we
talk specifically about the amendment.

[[Page H2371]]

First of all, if you look at what happened by legislation, they tried
legislation, and the legislation failed. A bipartisan vote defeated
that legislation. Then they came back with regulation. So this proposed
regulation is being addressed by our bill, the underlying bill.
The amendment by the gentleman from Connecticut proposes to create a
loophole to continue to allow the EPA to get their nose back under that
tent to regulate greenhouse gases. You can just look at the language to
see that it allows for that loophole that we're trying to close.
First of all, in a bipartisan fashion, Madam Chair, Congress has said
we don't want the EPA imposing the national energy tax that cap-and-
trade would propose. We don't want those millions of jobs leaving our
country. Then they came back through regulation, and they said, Well,
we'll just do it through regulation, a de facto cap-and-trade energy
tax, because they couldn't get it passed through Congress.
Of course, anyone who has taken civics knows you're supposed to go
through the legislative process if you want to change policy. So, if
our underlying bill passes the House, then they won't be able to go
through regulation; but the gentleman's amendment would actually say
that there would be a loophole even though Congress would say, No, you
don't have the authority to do that. You can't run those jobs to places
like China where they have absolutely no environmental controls that we
have today, which are dramatically better than those they have in China
and India and in some of the other countries, countries which would be
happy to take the millions of American jobs that would flee this
country if they were able to get away with it.
We have to reject this amendment and take that loophole away. Don't
give them that loophole to continue to regulate greenhouse gases
through a de facto cap-and-trade national energy tax. So I would ask
that we reject this amendment and pass the underlying bill.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
In response to the gentleman from California's parliamentary inquiry,
remarks are to be confined to the question under debate.
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent that we expand the
debate by 2 minutes on each side on this particular amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from California?
Mr. UPTON. One and one. Why don't we do 1 minute each.
Mr. WAXMAN. Two and two. Let's do 2 minutes each.
Mr. UPTON. We can accept one and one.
Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent that the majority and the
minority each have an additional 1 minute on this amendment.
Mr. WAXMAN. Reserving the right to object, I would plead with my
chairman to agree to an additional minute to each side because I think
that there is an important issue that is being ignored in this
particular amendment. Each side may not need to take up the 2 minutes.
Mr. UPTON. We're working against the clock a little bit; so I would
prefer that we just do one and one and end it there on this amendment.
Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent that each side have 1 additional
minute on this amendment.
Mr. WAXMAN. I ask unanimous consent that each side have 1\1/2\
minutes.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Michigan for 1 minute for each side?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise) and the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) each will control 1 extra
minute.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 1
minute.
Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the majority for their graciousness in allowing
for a clarification.
This amendment simply says all that you suggest in your bill would
become law, if it were passed, with the exception that we would
continue to allow the EPA to give technical information to the States.
It does not replace the other restrictions on EPA. It only allows them
to give technical information to the States, which they do already
without regulating greenhouse gases, under the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change, which was ratified by the Senate in 1992
after submittal by President Bush. Because of this international
agreement, we try to keep track of what's going on, and the States
should be able to talk to the EPA and to get expert advice from the EPA
unless you think the States should not be allowed to do anything on
their own, which would be something beyond the scope of this amendment.
So I would urge my colleagues who support their bill not to be
against this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SCALISE. I appreciate the offer of the gentleman from California,
but I cannot adhere to a United Nations framework. I cannot adhere to
the ability for the EPA to continue to keep their nose under the tent
to provide whether it's called ``technical assistance'' or whether they
try to continue to push things, because the EPA does interact with
States on other issues, and I surely would not want to see some kind of
situation where the EPA is going to try to hold something else over a
State's head and use this threat, because they really do want the
chance to regulate greenhouse gases and impose an energy tax.
So I think we've debated it very thoroughly. I understand your
position, and I respect the gentleman from Connecticut's position. I
just don't agree. I think we need to preserve American jobs and let the
States do what they already do such a good job of doing; but we need to
tell the EPA that ``no'' means ``no.'' They've got their own role to
play, and it's not regulating greenhouse gases.

American Iron and Steel Institute,

Washington, DC, March 9, 2011.
Hon. Fred Upton,
Chairman, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rayburn
House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Upton: On behalf of the American Iron and
Steel Institute (AISI), I am pleased to offer our support for
H.R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act (EPTA). This
legislation is necessary to prevent EPA from regulating
greenhouse gases (GHGs) from stationary sources under the
Clean Air Act, thereby removing a regulatory uncertainty that
is impeding domestic economic growth and job creation.
AISI is comprised of 25 member companies, including
integrated and electric furnace steelmakers, and 140
associate and affiliate members who are suppliers to or
customers of the steel industry. AISI's member companies
represent approximately 80 percent of both U.S. and North
American steel capacity. The steel industry in the U.S. has
substantially reduced its GHG emissions over the past two
decades. The industry has reduced its energy-intensity by 30%
since 1990, and reduced while GHG emissions by 35% over the
same time period. The industry has well exceeded the Kyoto
Protocol targets, is committed to continued improvement, and
hasn't waited for Congress or EPA to act.
The domestic steel industry is both energy-intensive and
subject to substantial international competition. In
particular, this competition comes from nations such as
China, where no similar CO2-reduction legislation
or regulatory policies exist. In the absence of an
international agreement on GHG emissions reductions, EPA
regulation of stationary sources will only transfer
emissions--and high-value manufacturing jobs--overseas. This
will have a negative impact on domestic industry and will not
result in a net emissions reduction worldwide.
As you know, the Clean Air Act was not written to regulate
greenhouse gas emissions, and is therefore the wrong
mechanism for EPA to use in this case. No policies have been
proposed to accompany the EPA regulations to address
competitiveness concerns of energy-intensive, trade-exposed
industries, such as steel. The result will be the ``leakage''
of emissions and manufacturing jobs to competitor nations
without comparable regulations, which is problematic from
both the economic and environmental perspectives.
If the EPA is allowed to proceed with its GHG regulations
from stationary sources, plants in the steel industry will be
forced to adhere to yet another level of new strict
regulations and be required to obtain costly permits. This
would be a devastating blow to investment and growth in the
industry, not to mention the implications of coupling these
regulations with the recession that has hit the country and
the manufacturing economy.
Sincerely,
Thomas J. Gibson,
President and Chief Executive Officer.

[[Page H2372]]

____
[From Americans for Prosperity, March 3, 2011]

Americans for Prosperity Applauds Representatives Collin Peterson, Dan
Boren and Nick Rahall for Supporting EPA Preemption

AFP today commended three senior Democratic
representatives--Collin Peterson of Minnesota, Dan Boren of
Oklahoma and Nick Rahall of West Virginia--for cosponsoring
the Inhofe-Upton bill to clarify that the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has no authority to regulate
greenhouse gasses under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
``It's great to see three leading Democratic congressmen
speak with such a clear voice that EPA should not be allowed
to go around Congress to adopt job-killing global warming
regulations,'' said AFP vice President for Policy Phil
Kerpen. ``These regulations amount to a backdoor effort to
adopt restrictions similar to the cap-and-trade bill Congress
and the American people already rejected.''
``AFP commends free market heroes like Senator Inhofe and
Congressman Upton for challenging unelected bureaucracies
like the EPA when they try to bypass the American people,''
said president of AFP, Tim Phillips.
The Clean Air Act is so ill-suited to being twisted as a
global warming bill that EPA resorted to disregarded
statutory thresholds and demanding that states amend their
laws to conform. This so-called Tailoring Rule is being
contested in court and experts predict it is unlikely to
survive the legal challenge.
``Kudos to Boren, Peterson, and Rahall for standing up to
the EPA and doing what's right,'' Kerpen concluded. ``I hope
more Democrats will put jobs, the economy, and legitimate
legislative process ahead of environmental extremism and join
them.''
____

Americans For Tax Reform,

Washington, DC, March 7, 2011.
Dear Representative: On behalf of Americans for Tax Reform
(ATR) and millions of taxpayers nationwide, I urge you to
support Rep. Fred Upton's (R-Mich.) Energy Tax Prevention Act
of 2011. If passed, this legislation will return the
obligation of setting America's climate policy to Congress
from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Since losing the Cap-and-Trade debate, Democrats have
turned to the EPA to impose their radical environmental
agenda on this country. The impetus behind Cap-and-Trade was
to force Americans to move towards less efficient, more
expensive sources of energy. Similarly, the EPA is attempting
to achieve this end through the regulation of greenhouse
gases.
Standing on legally precarious ground, the EPA is citing
the Clean Air Act as justification for its dubious agenda.
Employing the Clean Air Act for objectives it was never
intended to realize, the EPA has infringed on the legislative
responsibilities of Congress.
The Energy Tax Prevention Act has been introduced to put a
stop to such regulatory overreach and abuse. Addressing one
of the most pressing problems facing this country, the Energy
Tax Prevention Act bars federal regulators from co-opting the
Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases.
If the EPA continues on its current course, unelected
federal bureaucrats will continue to unilaterally dictate
ruinous economic policies. We should hold President Obama to
his stated commitment to reassess America's regulatory system
in the name of economic growth and fiscal responsibility. The
President should be reminded that the EPA's initiatives to
regulate greenhouse gasses would raise energy prices, destroy
businesses, and ship jobs overseas. These policies are
motivated not by science, and not out of concern for American
industry, but by ideology alone.
Rep. Upton seeks to restore the role of the U.S. congress
in the development and implementation the nation's climate
and energy policy. Their bill is not a referendum on climate
change or greenhouse gases but rather who will set our
country's energy policy--elected Representatives or
unaccountable political appointees.
In the interest of preserving our economic freedom, and the
proper authority of congress, please join me in supporting
the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011.
Onward,
Grover G. Norquist.
____

March 9, 2011.
Re Upton-Inhofe Bill a Key Step Toward Stopping EPA's GHG
Regulations.
Dear Chairman Upton and Chairman Whitfield: On January 2,
2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began
regulating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from stationary
sources. EPA's rules require industrial sites, power plants
and other businesses that emit GHGs above certain thresholds
to apply for a permit whenever they want to build or
modernize their facilities. In today's fragile economy, when
we need American businesses to be expanding at full speed,
these rules create uncertainty and delay.
We welcome the efforts of lawmakers from both parties to
stop the EPA's harmful regulations so that business growth
and hiring can continue. We applaud the leadership that you
and Senator Inhofe are providing on this issue through the
introduction of The Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011 (H.R.
910). This bipartisan legislation is helping to keep
attention squarely focused on the issue and building momentum
toward a solution.
Congress, not EPA, should be guiding America's energy
policy. Without action by lawmakers, EPA's regulations will
make it difficult to attract new manufacturing capacity and
jobs to the United States, let alone double U.S. exports in
five years, as President Obama has pledged. Moving your
legislation forward is a critical first step.
We look forward to working with you to stop harmful
regulations and in doing so, strengthen the economic
recovery, support American manufacturing and create jobs.
Sincerely,
American Chemistry Council, American Coalition for Clean
Coal Electricity, American Forest & Paper Association,
American Iron and Steel Institute, American Petroleum
Institute, Brick Industry Association, CropLife America,
Industrial Minerals Association, National Association of
Manufacturers.
National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, National
Lime Association, National Mining Association, National
Oilseed Processors Association, National Petrochemical and
Refiners Association, The Aluminum Association, The
Fertilizer Institute, U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
____

American Public Power

Association,

Washington, DC March 9, 2011.
Hon. Fred Upton,
Chairman, House Energy & Commerce Committee, Rayburn House
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Ed Whitfield,
Chairman, House Energy & Power Subcommittee, Rayburn House
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Upton and Chairman Whitfield: On behalf of
the American Public Power Association, I am writing to
express our support for the Energy Tax Prevention Act. APPA
is the national service organization representing the
interests of over 2,000 community-owned, non-for-profit
electric utilities. These utilities include state public
power agencies, municipal electric utilities, and special
utility districts that provide electricity and other services
to over 46 million Americans.
APPA believes that the Clean Air Act (CAA) is not
appropriately designed to address greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions and that the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) efforts to regulate such gases under the statute are
causing undue uncertainty for the electric utility sector and
are likely to result in unnecessarily high costs. In
particular, APPA members are concerned with the application
of Best Available Control Technologies (BACT) for GHG
emissions under New Source Review (NSR) and the planned
establishment of Section 111 New Source Performance Standards
for GHGs for new, modified, and existing electric power
plants. No commercially available technologies currently
exist to reduce GHG emissions. APPA also believes that many
states will find that they need additional time in order to
implement any final EPA regulatory action given state budget
cuts, staff reductions, and other administrative issues. For
these reasons, APPA supports congressional action to preempt
EPA's authority to regulate GHG emissions under the CAA.
Instead, APPA believes Congress should address the issue of
climate change through new legislation and supports efforts
to do so on an economy-wide basis that properly balances
environmental goals with impacts on consumers and the
economy. Such legislation should create a new regime for
reducing GHG emissions that is separate and apart from the
CAA, which was created to address criteria pollutants for
human health protection.
Thank you for your leadership on this important issue
affecting electric utilities. I hope you will feel free to
contact me or the APPA government relations staff with any
questions.
Sincerely,
Mark Crisson,
President & CEO.

Mr. SCALISE. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Madam Chair, 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 Connecticut
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Waxman

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6
printed in House Report 112-54.
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, 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 the bill, add the following new section:

SEC. 5. CONGRESSIONAL ACCEPTANCE OF SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS.

Congress accepts the scientific findings of the
Environmental Protection Agency that climate change is
occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses
significant risks for public health and welfare.

[[Page H2373]]

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 203, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Waxman) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I rise to offer an amendment, with my
colleagues Representatives DeGette and Inslee, that recognizes the
scientific reality of climate change.
Our amendment states that Congress accepts EPA's scientific finding
that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human
activities, and poses significant risks for public health and welfare.
This simple recognition is far from enough, but it is crucially
important. As long as Congress pretends that climate change isn't
occurring, we can justify not addressing it.
Last month, the eminent scientific journal Nature wrote an editorial
entitled, ``Into Ignorance.''

{time} 1650

And I want to read from this editorial: ``Republicans on the Energy
and Commerce Committee have made clear their disdain for climate
science. At a subcommittee hearing, misinformation was presented as
fact, truth was twisted, and nobody showed any inclination to listen to
scientists. There has been an embarrassing display, not just for the
Republican Party, but also for Congress and the U.S. citizens it
represents.''
The U.S. Congress has entered the intellectual wilderness. This
amendment is a step out of that wilderness. It says we accept the
scientific findings of EPA--and the best scientists in our country and
around the world--that climate change is a serious threat to our health
and welfare. And it recognizes that while we have the power to change
the laws of our Nation, we cannot rewrite the laws of nature.
It may be difficult for us to agree on a solution to climate change,
but at least we should be able to agree that it is a real problem and
one we need to address.
I hope my colleagues will support this amendment.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold).
Mr. DOLD. Madam Chair, I believe in science. I also know that the
Earth has been warming for some time. In fact, the underlying bill,
H.R. 910, concludes by acknowledging there is scientific concern over
the warming of the climate system and that addressing the climate
change is an international issue.
I believe that human activity is also playing a role. The question is
how big a role. This amendment would have Congress adopt intentionally
vague language on human involvement and the risks associated with
climate change without defining the size and scope of human behavior
and the risk to the environment.
Madam Chair, I believe that we must reduce our dependence on foreign
oil and expand research and development of clean energy sources and
ensure that future generations of Americans have a clean and healthy
environment. But I do not believe in the notion that the Waxman
amendment puts forward that states that Congress shall only accept the
scientific findings of the EPA. We should encourage open, transparent
scientific studies, not limit our scientific findings to one government
agency.
We must work together in a bipartisan manner to promote clean energy
and encourage greater energy efficiencies to guarantee that our
children and grandchildren have a cleaner environment than we have
today.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
Mr. INSLEE. I appreciate my Republican colleague's statement, but the
clear fact of this bill is, if it passes, what does it do? It basically
says that Sir Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, and Thomas Edison didn't
know what they were talking about because this bill, in rather clear
form, caters to a narrow sector of a narrow political interest to
ignore clear science. And there is no way you can get around this or
sweet-talk your way around this clear rejection of science.
Now, this isn't just us. Who has cleared and said this statement that
we seek to put in this bill is correct? Only the National Academy of
Sciences, NOAA, the Department of Defense, the Centers for Disease
Control, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical
Union, the Geological Society of America, the American Association for
the Advancement of Science, the American Institute of Physics, and the
American Chemical Society. But one side of the aisle thinks that the
tea party has greater scientific credibility, and that's who you are
catering to when you refuse to adopt this amendment.
Let's have a bipartisan statement of the problem so that we can have
a bipartisan statement of the solution.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Chair, I am the only speaker left, and I
believe that I have the right to close. So if the gentleman from
California could use the remainder of his time.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has the right to
close.
The gentleman from Wisconsin has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining; the
gentleman from California has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Madam Chair, this is an amendment that attempts to reverse the entire
thrust of this legislation. In effect, it gives the proxy to the EPA to
make determinations that will have vast impact on our economy without
going through the usual legislative process. This is our job to make a
determination on whether the Clean Air Act is the proper vehicle to
deal with issues related to greenhouse gases.
This is not a debate on the underlying science of climate change, and
I think that has to be made clear. But if we do want to talk about the
EPA's ability to mitigate climate change, let's focus on their own
projections.
EPA's analysis of the current rule states that it will only result in
1/100 of a degree of lowering of the Earth's average temperature by the
year 2100. Administrator Jackson herself stated before the Energy and
Commerce Committee that EPA regulation will not ultimately be able to
change the amount of CO2 that is accumulating in the
atmosphere if other nations do not agree also to limit emissions. And
they aren't, and they won't.
So, regardless of whether or not Congress issues a scientific finding
based upon a 10-minute amendment debate, we are faced with the
indisputable fact that EPA greenhouse gas regulations will lead to
billions upon billions of dollars leaving our economy with absolutely
zero environmental benefit. This amendment flunks the cost-benefit
analysis. It ought to be rejected.
We are here today about protecting the economy, job creation, and
stopping energy prices from skyrocketing. That's what will happen if
this amendment is adopted. It should be rejected in the name of jobs
and a healthy economy.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, to close, I yield the balance of my time to
my colleague, who is a cosponsor of this legislation along with myself
and Mr. Inslee, the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
Ms. DeGETTE. I thank the ranking member for allowing me to close.
This amendment gives Members of the House what should be a very
simple choice: recognize the overwhelming science or vote to deny the
overwhelming science.
We in Congress can certainly change the laws of this country, but
last I heard we cannot change the laws of nature. There is no serious
disagreement on the science of climate change. In fact, the findings
have been confirmed by all leading scientific academies around the
world. The National Academy of Sciences last year issued a series of
comprehensive reports that are unambiguous. It says, for example,
``Climate change is occurring. It is caused largely by human
activities, and in many cases it is already affecting a broad range of
human and natural systems.'' And even a team of scientists from UC
Berkeley, who were

[[Page H2374]]

told to try to disprove global climate change, just reported last week
to a congressional committee that in fact global climate change is
occurring.
This is simple. This is clear. H.R. 910 represents an effort to deny
and run away from science and reality. It ignores one of the chief
drivers behind our need for a clean and modernized energy policy:
massive and growing human consumption of carbon-based fuels.
Last Congress, and again today, I chose to be on the side of those
who acted to address a climate disaster and put into place the
framework for an energy policy which this country so painfully goes
without and so little can afford. I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Vote ``yes'' on this amendment. Vote ``no'' on the underlying bill
and stand with science.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chair, 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.

{time} 1700

Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Quigley

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7
printed in House Report 112-54.
Mr. QUIGLEY. 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 the bill, add the following:

SEC. 5. GAO REPORT.

Not later than one year after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a
report containing the results of a study of health care costs
in the United States as affected by the elimination of
Environmental Protection Agency regulation under this Act, as
compared to health care costs in the United States as would
be affected by the Environmental Protection Agency proceeding
with regulation in its role as determined in Massachusetts v.
EPA (549 U.S. 497 (2007)).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 203, the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Quigley) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. QUIGLEY. Madam Chair, my amendment would require that the GAO
report to Congress the results of a study of health care costs in the
U.S. as affected by the elimination of EPA regulation under this act.
Further, the report would also detail health care costs in the U.S.
proceeding under the EPA's current regulatory authority as determined
in 2007 in Massachusetts v. EPA.
It is science, hard facts, and figures that have led hundreds of
scientists to confirm that global warming is real. Despite the other
numbers you may have heard, the most convincing one is that there are
over 200 peer reviewed scientific studies that have determined that
global warming is real and that man contributes to that, and exactly
zero that have proved or shown evidence to the contrary.
It was science that led the Congress to pass the Clean Air Act, the
act which designated the EPA as the body charged with overseeing,
adapting, and implementing these regulations. It was science that led
the Supreme Court to rule in 2007 that the Environmental Protection
Agency does in fact have the authority to regulate greenhouse gases.
My amendment is simple. It directs the GAO to report the cost of
health care under the Clean Air Act, and then to report the costs of
health care with this bill passing as it modifies the amendment.
In 2010 alone, the EPA reported the reduction in fine particulate and
ozone pollution from the Clean Air Act prevented more than 160,000
premature deaths, 130,000 heart attacks, 13 million lost workdays, and
1.7 million asthma attacks. These are serious health issues that burden
the government with serious bills.
We face serious budgetary times. We may be out of a recession, but we
are far from recovered. If we are committed to making the government
more efficient and effective to cutting waste, fraud, and abuse, we
must acknowledge that spending a smart dollar up front saves many
dollars on the back end.
I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment that will allow
the experts at the GAO to show us a world with the Clean Air Act and a
world without. My estimation is that a world with less mercury in our
water and less ozone in our air will cost far less in dollars and
deaths than the opposite, but I will defer to the experts and look
forward to their report on this subject.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HARPER. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Mississippi is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HARPER. This amendment filed by the gentleman from Illinois would
require a GAO study to be completed, 1 year, analyzing how health care
costs are affected if EPA does not proceed with regulation in its role
as determined in Massachusetts v. EPA.
You know, this case did not determine whether or how EPA should
regulate greenhouse gases. To the contrary, it did not mandate that EPA
move forward with global warming regulations, and it certainly did not
direct the EPA to begin regulating tens of thousands or millions of
stationary sources across the United States economy.
In any event, no GAO study is needed because the EPA, itself, has
already concluded that greenhouse gases pose no direct adverse health
effects.
Here's what the EPA has stated: ``Current and projected ambient
greenhouse gas concentrations remain well below published thresholds
for any direct adverse health effects, such as respiratory or toxic
effects.''
So even if the EPA had concluded that there were direct health
impacts, EPA's own administrators concluded that the agency's
greenhouse gas rules are not going to be effective in appreciably
reducing temperatures or global emissions.
Administrator Jackson has said: ``We will not ultimately be able to
change the amount of CO2 that is accumulating in the
atmosphere alone.'' If anything, EPA's global warming rules will cause
global emissions to increase as U.S. manufacturing and industry goes to
countries with much less stringent environmental laws.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. QUIGLEY. Madam Chair, I guess my response is, with all due
respect, prove me wrong. If there is no health care risk, let the GAO
independent analysis prove us wrong.
But there's a lot at stake here, and I would defy anyone to say that
greenhouse gases are not in and of themselves--putting aside the issue
of global warming--dangerous because many of them are precursors to
ozone. I live in Chicago, which is the morbidity and mortality capital
of the United States for people who are afflicted with asthma, and
there is a dramatic and direct impact of what ozone does to those
people suffering from asthma.
So prove me wrong. Show me how we're wrong on this. Let there be a
study which goes to this, because if I'm wrong, no damage done. But if
there is some danger here and we have decided that it is not worth our
study, then we have done a grave disservice to the American public and
put their lives at risk.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HARPER. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Chair, I want to thank the chairman of
the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Upton, and the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Harper) for yielding time for me to speak on this
amendment.
I rise in strong opposition to the Quigley amendment because it
represents an unnecessary use of case law in Massachusetts v. EPA. Some
of what I say is repetitive. Mr. Harper has just said it, but it bears
repeating, Madam Chair.
This amendment requires the GAO to conduct a study analyzing how
health care costs will be affected if the EPA does not proceed with
regulation in its role as determined in Massachusetts v. EPA.
Madam Chair, I would like to remind the author of the amendment, Mr.

[[Page H2375]]

Quigley, that Massachusetts v. EPA did not determine whether or how the
EPA should regulate greenhouse gases. Furthermore, a GAO study on this
matter is not necessary because the EPA has already concluded that
greenhouse gases have no adverse health effect.
Specifically, the EPA has stated: ``Current and projected ambient
greenhouse gas concentrations remain well below published thresholds
for any direct adverse health effects, such as respiratory or toxic
effects.''
Opponents of this legislation have tried unsuccessfully to assert
that the underlying bill will block the EPA from safeguarding public
health from the effects of air pollution and will result in increased
asthma attacks or other respiratory illnesses. Nothing could be further
from the truth.
Madam Chair, H.R. 910 does not affect the EPA's ability and
responsibility to protect the public from hazardous air pollution.
Regardless of whether or not EPA imposes these cap-and-trade
regulations, the agency will continue to have the authority to regulate
all of the high-priority pollutants that raise public health concerns.
As an original cosponsor of H.R. 910, I strongly support the
underlying bill to prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from
using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases.
By avoiding these harmful regulations, H.R. 910 will save countless
numbers of jobs and prevent the implementation of an energy tax that
would cost our economy literally tens of billions of dollars when we
can least afford it.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and
support the underlying bill.
Mr. BILBRAY. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. BILBRAY. Madam Chair, I want to point out the comment was made
about the precursor to ozone. Thirty years of air pollution
regulations. Ask the South Coast Air Basin in Los Angeles. It never
regulated CO2 as a precursor to ozone because it was so
miniscule that there are so many other issues that are absolutely
essential to address that you didn't even look at that.
And if you didn't think those of us in California, that we're working
on air pollution, air quality, our county in San Diego went from
``severe'' down to ``serious'' because we were successful. And it
wasn't chasing ozone. I mean, not chasing CO2. It was
tracing true toxic emissions.
So when you talk about implementing these plans, understand you're
talking about sacrificing efforts that are at true risk.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Georgia has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Quigley).
The amendment was rejected.

{time} 1710

Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Polis

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8
printed in House Report 112-54.
Mr. POLIS. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

In section 330 of the Clean Air Act, as proposed to be
added by section 2 of the bill, insert after subsection (a)
the following (and redesignate the subsequent subsections
accordingly):
``(b) Temporary Suspension for Public Health Emergencies.--
The Administrator may by rule, after public notice and
comment, temporarily suspend the provisions of this section
if--
``(1) a detailed analysis and review by the Administrator
of the latest credible and peer-reviewed science shows ground
level ozone will pose significant dangers to public health;
``(2) extreme weather events pose significant danger to
public health;
``(3) an increase in food and waterborne pathogens pose
significant danger to public health; or
``(4) there are other significant threats to public health.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 203, the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Polis) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, this amendment is simple, and I appreciate
the rule making it in order. It allows the Environmental Protection
Agency to continue protecting the American people from the greatest
public health and environmental challenge in global history, global
climate change.
The overwhelming scientific evidence suggests that greenhouse gases
and carbon pollution, if left unchecked, pose a significant threat to
public health. This is not a scientific conclusion that anybody in the
investigative community desires or wants. It is an unfortunate reality.
I simply want the administrator to have the ability to temporarily
unlock the handcuffs on the bill if there is a significant threat to
the public health.
Let's walk ourselves through what this bill does. The bill tells the
EPA, EPA, you have done your homework just like the Supreme Court told
you to do, and every inch of credible science is telling you there is a
danger to America's health. Yet, we here in Congress know better. We
will pretend like there is not a danger to the American health. We
won't allow you, the EPA, that we set up and charged with this, to pay
attention to the warnings or protect Americans from the dangers.
To me, that's a very dangerous directive, telling the EPA they can't
act even though they know we are in danger. If there was a meteor
hurtling towards us, I would hope that this body wouldn't pass a bill
that tells NASA to ignore it, to step away from the telescope,
specifically forbids them from telling people to get out of the way.
Yet that's exactly what this bill does with the very real and present
danger.
I, for one, want the EPA to be able to protect me, and my family and
my constituents and all American families when the overwhelming warning
signs say they should do just that. But if this body sends a message to
the contrary, at the very least we should be smart enough to include a
temporary escape hatch, a safety valve that my amendment provides.
Madam Chair, I am going to vote today to put America's health before
big polluters. The other side of the aisle likes to skew the facts. And
instead of paying attention to the warning signs, they protect their
big polluter friends by confusing the facts. It's critical that we
provide a safety valve that when there is a clear and present danger to
the health of the American people we don't hamstring the very agency
that we have set up to protect the health of the American people, and
enable them to move forward to protect us.
This endangerment finding, the title of the EPA's research on dangers
to our health, was based on sound science and found that as climate
change increases, so does ground ozone level, air- and water-borne
pathogens, and mold and pollen allergens that affect and make health
problems worse like asthma, respiratory irritation, and heart disease.
We cannot oversimplify a very serious problem with no easy answers.

[From the Federal Register, Tuesday, Dec. 15, 2009]

Part V--Environmental Protection Agency

40 cfr chapter i--endangerment and cause or contribute findings for
greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the clean air act; final rule

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Chapter I
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171; FRL-9091-8]
RIN 2060-ZA14
Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse
Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Administrator finds that six greenhouse gases
taken in combination endanger both the public health and the
public welfare of current and future generations. The
Administrator also finds that the combined emissions of these
greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor
vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas air
pollution that endangers public health and welfare under CAA
section 202(a). These Findings are based on careful
consideration of the full weight of scientific evidence and a
thorough review of numerous public comments received on the
Proposed Findings published April 24, 2009.
DATES: These Findings are effective on January 14, 2010.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action
under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171. All documents in
the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site.
Although listed in the index, some information is not
publicly available, e.g.,

[[Page H2376]]

confidential business information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket materials are available
either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at EPA's Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20004. This Docket Facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket
is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeremy Martinich, Climate
Change Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs (MC-6207J),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 343-9927; fax
number: (202) 343-2202; e-mail address:
[email protected]. For additional information regarding
these Findings, please go to the Web site http://www.epa.gov/
climatechange/endangerment.html.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Judicial Review
Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final
action is available only by filing a petition for review in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit by February 16, 2010. Under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B),
only an objection to this final action that was raised with
reasonable specificity during the period for public comment
can be raised during judicial review. This section also
provides a mechanism for us to convene a proceeding for
reconsideration, `` `[i]f the person raising an objection can
demonstrate to EPA that it was impracticable to raise such
objection within [the period for public comment] or if the
grounds for such objection arose after the period for public
comment (but within the time specified for judicial review)
and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome
of this rule.' '' Any person seeking to make such a
demonstration to us should submit a Petition for
Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency, Room 3000, Ariel Rios
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004,
with a copy to the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate General
Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of
General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004.
Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms and
abbreviations are used in this document.

ACUS Administrative Conference of the United States
ANPR Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
APA Administrative Procedure Act
CAA Clean Air Act
CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy
CAIT Climate Analysis Indicators Tool
CASAC Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
CBI Confidential Business Information
CCSP Climate Change Science Program
CFCs chlorofluorocarbons
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CH4 methane
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e CO2-equivalent
CRU Climate Research Unit
DOT U.S. Department of Transportation
EO Executive Order
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FR Federal Register
GHG greenhouse gas
GWP global warming potential
HadCRUT Hadley Centre/Climate Research Unit (CRU) temperature
record
HCFCs hydrochlorofluorocarbons
HFCs hydrofluorocarbons
IA Interim Assessment report
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
MPG miles per gallon
MWP Medieval Warm Period
N2O nitrous oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NF3 nitrogen trifluoride
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOI Notice of Intent
NOX nitrogen oxides
NRC National Research Council
NSPS new source performance standards
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of
1995
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PFCs perfluorocarbons
PM particulate matter
PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
SIP State Implementation Plan
TSD technical support document
U.S. United States
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
USGCRP U.S. Global Climate Research Program
VOC volatile organic compound(s)
WCI Western Climate Initiative
WRI World Resources Institute
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction
A. Overview
B. Background Information Helpful To Understand These
Findings
1. Greenhouse Gases and Transportation Sources Under CAA
Section 202(a)
2. Joint EPA and Department of Transportation Proposed
Greenhouse Gas Rule
C. Public Involvement
1. EPA's Initial Work on Endangerment
2. Public Involvement Since the April 2009 Proposed
Endangerment Finding
3. Issues Raised Regarding the Rulemaking Process
II. Legal Framework for This Action
A. Section 202(a) of the CAA--Endangerment and Cause or
Contribute
1. The Statutory Framework
2. Summary of Response to Key Legal Comments on the
Interpretation of the CAA Section 202(a) Endangerment and
Cause or Contribute Test
B. Air Pollutant, Public Health and Welfare
III. EPA's Approach for Evaluating the Evidence Before It
A. The Science on Which the Decisions Are Based
B. The Law on Which the Decisions Are Based
C. Adaptation and Mitigation
D. Geographic Scope of Impacts
E. Temporal Scope of Impacts
F. Impacts of Potential Future Regulations and Processes
that Generate Greenhouse Gas Emissions
IV. The Administrator's Finding That Emissions of Greenhouse
Gases Endanger Public Health and Welfare
A. The Air Pollution Consists of Six Key Greenhouse Gases
1. Common Physical Properties of the Six Greenhouse Gases
2. Evidence That the Six Greenhouse Gases Are the Primary
Driver of Current and Projected Climate Change
3. The Six Greenhouse Gases Are Currently the Common Focus
of the Climate Change Science and Policy Communities
4. Defining Air Pollution as the Aggregate Group of Six
Greenhouse Gases Is Consistent With Evaluation of Risks
and Impacts Due to Human-Induced Climate Change
5. Defining the Air Pollution as the Aggregate Group of Six
Greenhouse Gases Is Consistent With Past EPA Practice
6. Other Climate Forcers Not Being Included in the
Definition of Air Pollution for This Finding
7. Summary of Key Comments on Definition of Air Pollution
B. The Air Pollution Is Reasonably Anticipated To Endanger
Both Public Health and Welfare
1. The Air Pollution Is Reasonably Anticipated To Endanger
Public Health
2. The Air Pollution Is Reasonably Anticipated To Endanger
Public Welfare
V. The Administrator's Finding That Greenhouse Gases From CAA
Section 202(a) Sources Cause or Contribute to the
Endangerment of Public Health and Welfare
A. The Administrator's Definition of the ``Air Pollutant''
B. The Administrator's Finding Whether Emissions of the Air
Pollutant From Section 202(a) Source Categories Cause or
Contribute to the Air Pollution That May Be Reasonably
Anticipated To Endanger Public Health and Welfare
C. Response to Key Comments on the Administrator's Cause or
Contribute Finding
1. The Administrator Reasonably Defined the ``Air
Pollutant'' for the Cause or Contribute Analysis
2. The Administrator's Cause or Contribute Analysis Was
Reasonable
VI. Statutory and Executive Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination
With Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-
Income Populations
K. Congressional Review Act
I. Introduction
A. Overview
Pursuant to CAA section 202(a), the Administrator finds
that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be
anticipated both to endanger public health and to endanger
public welfare.
Specifically, the Administrator is defining the ``air
pollution'' referred to in CAA section 202(a) to be the mix
of six long-lived and directly-emitted greenhouse gases:
carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4),
nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs),

[[Page H2377]]

perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride
(SF6). In this document, these six greenhouse
gases are referred to as ``well-mixed greenhouse gases'' in
this document (with more precise meanings of ``long lived''
and ``well mixed'' provided in Section IV.A).
The Administrator has determined that the body of
scientific evidence compellingly supports this finding. The
major assessments by the U.S. Global Climate Research Program
(USGCRP), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), and the National Research Council (NRC) serve as the
primary scientific basis supporting the Administrator's
endangerment finding. The Administrator reached her
determination by considering both observed and projected
effects of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, their effect
on climate, and the public health and welfare risks and
impacts associated with such climate change. The
Administrator's assessment focused on public health and
public welfare impacts within the United States. She also
examined the evidence with respect to impacts in other world
regions, and she concluded that these impacts strengthen the
case for endangerment to public health and welfare because
impacts in other world regions can in turn adversely affect
the United States.
The Administrator recognizes that human-induced climate
change has the potential to be far-reaching and
multidimensional, and in light of existing knowledge, that
not all risks and potential impacts can be quantified or
characterized with uniform metrics. There is variety not only
in the nature and potential magnitude of risks and impacts,
but also in our ability to characterize, quantify and project
such impacts into the future. The Administrator is using her
judgment, based on existing science, to weigh the threat for
each of the identifiable risks, to weigh the potential
benefits where relevant, and ultimately to assess whether
these risks and effects, when viewed in total, endanger
public health or welfare.
The Administrator has considered how elevated
concentrations of the well-mixed greenhouse gases and
associated climate change affect public health by evaluating
the risks associated with changes in air quality, increases
in temperatures, changes in extreme weather events, increases
in food- and water-borne pathogens, and changes in
aeroallergens. The evidence concerning adverse air quality
impacts provides strong and clear support for an endangerment
finding. Increases in ambient ozone are expected to occur
over broad areas of the country, and they are expected to
increase serious adverse health effects in large population
areas that are and may continue to be in nonattainment. The
evaluation of the potential risks associated with increases
in ozone in attainment areas also supports such a finding.
The impact on mortality and morbidity associated with
increases in average temperatures, which increase the
likelihood of heat waves, also provides support for a public
health endangerment finding. There are uncertainties over the
net health impacts of a temperature increase due to decreases
in cold-related mortality, but some recent evidence suggests
that the net impact on mortality is more likely to be
adverse, in a context where heat is already the leading cause
of weather-related deaths in the United States.
The evidence concerning how human-induced climate change
may alter extreme weather events also clearly supports a
finding of endangerment, given the serious adverse impacts
that can result from such events and the increase in risk,
even if small, of the occurrence and intensity of events such
as hurricanes and floods. Additionally, public health is
expected to be adversely affected by an increase in the
severity of coastal storm events due to rising sea levels.
There is some evidence that elevated carbon dioxide
concentrations and climate changes can lead to changes in
aeroallergens that could increase the potential for
allergenic illnesses. The evidence on pathogen borne disease
vectors provides directional support for an endangerment
finding. The Administrator acknowledges the many
uncertainties in these areas. Although these adverse effects
provide some support for an endangerment finding, the
Administrator is not placing primary weight on these factors.
Finally, the Administrator places weight on the fact that
certain groups, including children, the elderly, and the
poor, are most vulnerable to these climate-related health
effects.
The Administrator has considered how elevated
concentrations of the well-mixed greenhouse gases and
associated climate change affect public welfare by evaluating
numerous and far-ranging risks to food production and
agriculture, forestry, water resources, sea level rise and
coastal areas, energy, infrastructure, and settlements, and
ecosystems and wildlife. For each of these sectors, the
evidence provides support for a finding of endangerment to
public welfare. The evidence concerning adverse impacts in
the areas of water resources and sea level rise and coastal
areas provides the clearest and strongest support for an
endangerment finding, both for current and future
generations. Strong support is also found in the evidence
concerning infrastructure and settlements, as well ecosystems
and wildlife. Across the sectors, the potential serious
adverse impacts of extreme events, such as wildfires,
flooding, drought, and extreme weather conditions, provide
strong support for such a finding.
Water resources across large areas of the country are at
serious risk from climate change, with effects on water
supplies, water quality, and adverse effects from extreme
events such as floods and droughts. Even areas of the country
where an increase in water flow is projected could face water
resource problems from the supply and water quality problems
associated with temperature increases and precipitation
variability, as well as the increased risk of serious adverse
effects from extreme events, such as floods and drought. The
severity of risks and impacts is likely to increase over time
with accumulating greenhouse gas concentrations and
associated temperature increases and precipitation changes.
Overall, the evidence on risk of adverse impacts for
coastal areas provides clear support for a finding that
greenhouse gas air pollution endangers the welfare of current
and future generations. The most serious potential adverse
effects are the increased risk of storm surge and flooding in
coastal areas from sea level rise and more intense storms.
Observed sea level rise is already increasing the risk of
storm surge and flooding in some coastal areas. The
conclusion in the assessment literature that there is the
potential for hurricanes to become more intense (and even
some evidence that Atlantic hurricanes have already become
more intense) reinforces the judgment that coastal
communities are now endangered by human-induced climate
change, and may face substantially greater risk in the
future. Even if there is a low probability of raising the
destructive power of hurricanes, this threat is enough to
support a finding that coastal communities are endangered by
greenhouse gas air pollution. In addition, coastal areas face
other adverse impacts from sea level rise such as land loss
due to inundation, erosion, wetland submergence, and habitat
loss. The increased risk associated with these adverse
impacts also endangers public welfare, with an increasing
risk of greater adverse impacts in the future.
Strong support for an endangerment finding is also found in
the evidence concerning energy, infrastructure, and
settlements, as well ecosystems and wildlife. While the
impacts on net energy demand may be viewed as generally
neutral for purposes of making an endangerment determination,
climate change is expected to result in an increase in
electricity production, especially supply for peak demand.
This may be exacerbated by the potential for adverse impacts
from climate change on hydropower resources as well as the
potential risk of serious adverse effects on energy
infrastructure from extreme events. Changes in extreme
weather events threaten energy, transportation, and water
resource infrastructure. Vulnerabilities of industry,
infrastructure, and settlements to climate change are
generally greater in high-risk locations, particularly
coastal and riverine areas, and areas whose economies are
closely linked with climate-sensitive resources. Climate
change will likely interact with and possibly exacerbate
ongoing environmental change and environmental pressures in
settlements, particularly in Alaska where indigenous
communities are facing major environmental and cultural
impacts on their historic lifestyles. Over the 21st century,
changes in climate will cause some species to shift north and
to higher elevations and fundamentally rearrange U.S.
ecosystems. Differential capacities for range shifts and
constraints from development, habitat fragmentation, invasive
species, and broken ecological connections will likely alter
ecosystem structure, function, and services, leading to
predominantly negative consequences for biodiversity and the
provision of ecosystem goods and services.
There is a potential for a net benefit in the near term for
certain crops, but there is significant uncertainty about
whether this benefit will be achieved given the various
potential adverse impacts of climate change on crop yield,
such as the increasing risk of extreme weather events. Other
aspects of this sector may be adversely affected by climate
change, including livestock management and irrigation
requirements, and there is a risk of adverse effect on a
large segment of the total crop market. For the near term,
the concern over the potential for adverse effects in certain
parts of the agriculture sector appears generally comparable
to the potential for benefits for certain crops. However, The
body of evidence points towards increasing risk of net
adverse impacts on U.S. food production and agriculture over
time, with the potential for significant disruptions and crop
failure in the future.
For the near term, the Administrator finds the beneficial
impact on forest growth and productivity in certain parts of
the country from elevated carbon dioxide concentrations and
temperature increases to date is offset by the clear risk
from the observed increases in wildfires, combined with risks
from the spread of destructive pests and disease. For the
longer term, the risk from adverse effects increases over
time, such that overall climate change presents serious
adverse risks for forest productivity. There is compelling
reason to find that the support for a positive endangerment
finding increases as one considers expected future conditions
where temperatures continue to rise.
Looking across all of the sectors discussed above, the
evidence provides compelling support for finding that
greenhouse gas air pollution endangers the public welfare of
both current and * * *

I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H2378]]

Mr. BURGESS. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. BURGESS. At this point, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), and I ask unanimous consent that
he be allowed to control that time.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Georgia will
control the time.
There was no objection.
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I want to thank my friend from Texas (Mr.
Burgess) for yielding and again thank the chairman of the Energy and
Commerce Committee and the chairman of the Energy and Power
Subcommittee, Messrs. Upton and Whitfield, for again allowing me to
speak on this amendment.
Much like the previous amendment, I rise again in strong opposition,
opposition at this time to the Polis amendment because it seeks to give
a duplicative authority to the EPA. This amendment would temporarily
suspend H.R. 910 if the EPA administrator has ruled that ground-level
ozone, extreme weather events, or an increase in food- and water-borne
pathogens presents a significant danger to the public health, or that
there are other significant threats to public health.
Madam Chair, under section 303 of the Clean Air Act, the EPA already
has the authority to respond to any imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health or welfare, or the environment.
Therefore, this amendment is wholly unnecessary. Furthermore, the Polis
amendment would give the EPA administrator the authority to move
forward with a cap-and-trade agenda if the administrator believed that
there were threats to public health from ozone, extreme weather,
pathogens, or there are other significant threats to public health,
which could be completely unrelated to greenhouse gases.
I wholeheartedly believe that this amendment is literally a hammer in
search of a nail. The EPA already has the authority to address the
concerns raised by this amendment and my friend from Colorado. I would
urge my friend from Colorado to consider withdrawing this amendment;
but if he doesn't, I would urge all of my colleagues to oppose it and
continue to support the underlying legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time, Madam Chair.
Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Georgia. My concern is that the
underlying bill removes some of the authority under these conditions
that this amendment would reinstate. If this amendment merely restates
this, I would hope that we can clarify the bill by specifically
allowing the EPA the authority to suspend the prohibitions in the bill
if a detailed analysis demonstrates that ground-level ozone, or extreme
weather events, or food- and water-borne pathogens are a significant
threat to public health. And, of course, we would hope that under their
charge the EPA would then proceed if given this authority with regard
to protecting the public health.
To the extent that this clarifies something that was consistent with
the intent of the original bill, I would hope that the gentleman would
accept it. If it is contrary to a small element of the bill, we would
hope to reestablish that authority in the case of a significant threat
to public health, again, with the additional burden and requirement of
a detailed analysis under the law.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Chair, I want to point out to my
colleague that the EPA, as I think I previously said, but just let me
repeat it, the EPA has already concluded that greenhouse gases pose no
public health emergency. And they stated: ``Current and projected
ambient greenhouse gas concentrations remain well below published
thresholds for any direct adverse health effect such as respiratory or
toxic effects.''
I yield such time as he may consume, Madam Chair, to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Bilbray).
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for up
to 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. BILBRAY. Let's be clear: We are not talking about greenhouse
gases here because the regulations that have been proposed by the EPA
do not address climate change. They don't address climate change. We
are not talking climate change here. We are talking about EPA proposing
regulations that admitted by the administrator does not have any
projections of what reductions you will have here. Remember, the
minimum that we need to do to address the threat of climate change is
17 percent within 9 years. So let's be up front. This is not about
climate change.
This is about proposed regulations by a bureaucracy in a field of law
that was never meant to address this issue at all. And I say that as
somebody who worked for over a decade at implementation of the Clean
Air Act. All I have to say to the colleague, with the problems that you
are pointing out, they are legitimate issues. But what is being
proposed as an answer to a problem has not only nothing to do with and
will not affect climate change, but it also will not affect the issues
that you have raised.
So in reality, your amendment is not germane because the issues that
you are concerned about don't exist. Because when you do nothing, you
can't change anything.

{time} 1720

And the fact that it is keeping somebody from selling a placebo does
not solve the problem, or it does not aggravate the problem. The fact
is what has been proposed by EPA is a placebo under a law that was
never meant to administer this.
So let's not be concerned about if the placebo is not available to
the public somehow there may be a concern with these items. They are
legitimate items. But the EPA and the underlying bill does not affect
those issues.

parliamentary inquiry

Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, I have a point of parliamentary inquiry.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. POLIS. Is the amendment germane to the bill?
The Acting CHAIR. Under the circumstances that calls for an advisory
opinion, which the Chair will not render.
The gentleman from Colorado has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. POLIS. Well, again, the Rules Committee found, and I believe the
Parliamentarian advised, that the amendment was germane, and I have not
been informed otherwise other than by the gentleman from California.
Does the gentleman want to appeal the ruling of the Parliamentarian?
I believe that it is germane.
The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is pending. There is no occasion for
a ruling on whether it is germane.
Mr. POLIS. The amendment is pending; that's correct. Well, again, if
the rule does waive this, we discussed in Rules Committee yesterday,
and I believe that all the non-germane amendments were not included
under this rule.
Mr. BILBRAY. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. POLIS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. BILBRAY. As I said, it's not germane to the issue.
Mr. POLIS. Reclaiming my time, there might be a different use of the
word ``germane'' by the gentleman. I would encourage all of us to try
to be on the same page with regard to the word ``germane.''
It is germane to the bill, the topic.
Again, all my amendment does is say that if the EPA sees the danger
they should act. It's a safety valve. The amendment respects the
finding of the Supreme Court in the Massachusetts vs. EPA case that
ensures that the Clean Air Act still has the ability to protect the
public and that it is not removed under the underlying bill.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. The underlying bill tells the EPA in this case to perhaps
ignore some science. My amendment says that the science shouldn't be
ignored if it means you are risking people's lives.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. It's an important clarification and I urge support of the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia has 45 seconds
remaining.
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Chair, this amendment would, in short,
be an avenue for the EPA to move forward with back-door global warming

[[Page H2379]]

regulations regardless of any relevant facts and circumventing the will
of Congress and the public.
EPA should not be authorized to move forward with back-door global
warming regulations. I urge my colleagues to vote against this
amendment.
I yield the balance of my time to my colleague from Texas (Mr.
Burgess).
Mr. BURGESS. Just finally, I do want to underscore that greenhouse
gases do not have a health impact. But in the odd event that someone
were sprayed in the face with a greenhouse gas such as methane, the
emergency powers exist under section 303 of the Clean Air Act to
respond to the imminent and substantial endangerment of public health.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, 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 Colorado
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Markey

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9
printed in House Report 112-54.
Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chair, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

SEC. 5. REDUCING DEMAND FOR OIL.

Notwithstanding any limitation on agency action contained
in the amendment made by section 2 of this Act, the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency may use
any authority under the Clean Air Act, as in effect prior to
the date of enactment of this Act, to promulgate any
regulation concerning, take any action relating to, or take
into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas to
address climate change, if the Administrator determines that
such promulgation, action or consideration will reduce demand
for oil.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 203, the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chair, I rise in support of my amendment.
My amendment is quite simple. It just says that nothing, nothing that
the Republicans are proposing today should put a limitation on the
ability of the EPA to reduce the demand for importing oil from OPEC,
which should be the number one objective in our country.
You know, we only have 2 percent of the world's oil reserves, and we
consume 25 percent on a daily basis. That is our Achilles' heel, and
there is nothing we can do about it.
So the only way in which we can solve the problem is if we reduce
consumption by increasing the efficiency of the vehicles which we
drive, of the boats which we use, of the planes that we ride in, of the
other sources that consume the oil that we use in our country.
And what they are going to do, the Republicans, is tie the hands of
the EPA to back out the 5 million barrels of oil that we import from
OPEC on a daily basis.
OPEC is not afraid of the Foreign Affairs Committee. OPEC is not
afraid of the Armed Services Committee. It is the Energy Committee that
they are afraid of.
They are afraid that one day we will actually have a policy that
backs out their imported oil, that denies them the $150 billion or $200
billion a year that we send over to them that allows them to continue
their dictatorships. That's what they are afraid of.
And what the Republicans are doing today is tying the hands of our
country to be able to tell OPEC we don't need their oil anymore than we
need their sands. That's the message that they are sending here today.
That's the message the Republicans are sending to OPEC.
Have a good night's sleep. Don't worry. We are going to tie the hands
of the EPA to back out that imported oil. That's why this amendment
goes right to the heart of the national security of our country, right
to the heart of our economic independence, as well as reducing
greenhouse gases. The national security of our country is at stake in
this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chair, my colleague just said the only way is to
reduce demand. Well, that is not the only way.
Republicans continue to move on all-of-the-above energy strategies
that increase supply. You know what happens when you increase supply?
You increase jobs.
I brought this down numerous times over the past couple of years.
Look what we could do. We could open up the OCS. Thousands and
thousands of jobs could be created by oil and gas exploration. Look
what we could do. We could take hundreds of years of supply of coal and
turn it into liquid fuel.
Look what we could do. We could open up the pipelines and bring oil
sands from Canada down.
We can be independent on transportation fuels. We cannot be, based
upon allowing the EPA to price carbon.
The only way my colleagues want to get us to driving less is to make
gasoline so high that no one can drive.
Now, that's okay when you live in major metropolitan areas, but when
you live in rural southern Illinois, where you have got to drive long
distances to get to school, to get to hospitals, to get to church,
every time you raise the price of gasoline, it hurts the poor and the
middle class of rural America. So my colleague is just wrong.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARKEY. I yield 1 minute to the ranking member of the Energy and
Commerce Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. The important thing about this amendment is that we
reduce the demand for oil, which is the primary area where we are
dependent upon OPEC countries. And to do that, we have tighter fuel
efficiency standards.
Without the Markey amendment, the EPA would not be able to continue
with those tight fuel efficiency standards for motor vehicles, planes,
et cetera.
According to Lisa Jackson from the EPA, who testified before our
committee, this bill ``would forfeit many hundreds of millions of
barrels of oil savings at a time when gas prices are rising yet
again.'' I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would vote
to massively increase America's oil independence.
I urge all Members to support the Markey amendment so we don't
massively increase our oil dependence.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois has 3\1/2\ minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Massachusetts has 2 minutes
remaining.
Mr. SHIMKUS. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the chairman of the Energy and
Air Quality Committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).

{time} 1730

Mr. WHITFIELD. I'm actually surprised the gentleman has offered an
amendment related to oil because our bill that we have on the floor
today completely preserves in every way the car rule under which EPA
sets greenhouse gas emission standards for passenger cars and trucks
for model year 2012 through 2016. That was agreed to by the Obama
administration, the automobile industry, environmentalists, EPA and
everyone; and that is preserved in this bill.
But let's talk about the electricity side. If we allow EPA to
regulate greenhouse gases, we're going to skyrocket the cost of
electricity which is going to make us less competitive in the global
marketplace; we're going to lose more jobs to China and more jobs to
India because those two countries are burning more coal because coal
produces the lowest-cost electricity. And that's why we are opposed to
this amendment of the gentleman because we've already preserved the car
rule that the gentleman is concerned about.
Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself 1 minute.

[[Page H2380]]

And let me say this to you, the Republicans: I had an amendment out
here to increase fuel economy standards from 25 to 35 miles per gallon
in 2001, 2003, 2005. You voted against it every time. You said that it
will ruin the auto industry if we improve the fuel economy standards.
Do you know who ruined the auto industry? You did. In 2009, General
Motors had to declare bankruptcy.
Now we have fuel economy standards at 35 miles per gallon. Do you
want to know what they are reporting? Record profits. Do you know what
Ford is reporting? Record profits and record hiring. Do you know who is
opposed to your bill here today? The United Auto Workers oppose you.
They believe it's going to undermine the efficiency and the job
creation which is now possible. The United Auto Workers oppose you.
So, ladies and gentlemen, if you're looking for jobs or national
security in this bill, make sure you vote for the Markey amendment
because they are so historically so far off base with this bill that it
cannot begin to be measured.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Chairman, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the former
chairman, the gentleman from Texas, Joe Barton.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I rise in opposition to my good friend, Mr.
Markey's, amendment. He must think EPA stands for ``Energy Punishment
Agency'' as opposed to ``Environmental Protection Agency.'' EPA's role
is not to regulate the oil and gas industry. It's not to set an oil
import fee. It's not to set quotas. It's to protect the environment.
And the bill before us today does that. It restricts the Clean Air Act
to its original intention, which is to regulate the criteria pollutants
for which it was intended when it was passed in the early 1990s.
We are trying to segregate greenhouse gases from regulation under the
Clean Air Act. That's all this bill does. It's not affecting fuel
efficiency standards that NHTSA regulates and will continue to
regulate. It doesn't have anything to do with that. We are simply
saying that greenhouse gases should not be regulated under the existing
Clean Air Act. We disagree with the Supreme Court decision that gave
the EPA the authority to make a decision, and we definitely disagree
with the endangerment finding, which I think was fatally flawed.
We can do a lot on decreasing oil imports both by supply increases in
the United States and letting the market operate in an efficient
fashion. We don't need the EPA to have some sort of a stranglehold on
oil production in the United States of America.
Mr. MARKEY. I yield myself the balance of my time.
What the Republicans are doing in their bill is stripping the EPA of
their authority to regulate the fuel efficiency of vehicles that we
drive in our country, of the planes, the trains and the boats where we
put the petroleum. That's what their bill does. That's what the Supreme
Court gave them as authority.
The gentleman says, EPA is misnamed. Well, let me just tell you under
the Republicans, EPA stands for ``Every Polluter's Ally.'' Under the
Democrats, it stands for ``End Petroleum Addiction.'' That's what the
Markey amendment does. It gives the EPA the authority to back out this
imported oil and to tell them that we're going to use the Oklahoma oil,
the Texas oil and the Louisiana oil; but we don't need that oil coming
out of the Persian Gulf any more than we need to send 100,000 young men
and women over there.
Let's set a new policy path here today, ladies and gentlemen. Let's
give those OPEC ministers a few sleepless nights. Let's not allow them
to look at the Congress, once again ignoring the strength of our
country, which is our technological genius, to be able to invent the
new technologies that make us less dependent. And what did the
Republicans do one month ago? They zeroed out all of the loan
guarantees for solar and wind. They zeroed them out of the legislation.
That's their all-of-the-above legislation.
Mr. SHIMKUS. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Chairman, just to put things back on the table, H.R. 910
completely preserves the car rule under the EPA, emissions standards
for passenger cars and trucks for model years 2012 to 2016. We had this
debate in the committee, the subcommittee and the full committee. It's
still there. And, unfortunately, you are acting as if it doesn't.
This is a really simple debate. This is a debate about whether we
want more supply or less supply, whether we want more jobs or less
jobs, whether we want higher energy prices or less energy prices. When
you allow the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases, which is not a toxic
emission, they do it by setting a price; and that price will drive our
country into slowing economic growth, more job loss and higher costs.
So that's why we're here today. We're very excited about this debate
today. It's about time we got to the floor and had a chance to vote on
whether we want the EPA without legislative language to raise the cost
of energy in this country. We say, no, reject the Markey amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chair, 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
Massachusetts will be postponed.

Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Rush

The Acting CHAIR. It's now in order to consider amendment No. 10
printed in House Report 112-54.
Mr. RUSH. Madam Chair, 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 the bill, add the following:

SEC. 5. LIMITATION ON APPLICABILITY.

The provisions of this Act, and the amendments made by this
Act, shall not apply until the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, in consultation with the
Secretary of Defense, certifies that the consequences of
climate change, including its potential to create sustained
natural and humanitarian disasters and its ability to foster
political instability where societal demands exceed the
capacity of governments to cope, do not jeopardize security
interests of the United States at home or abroad.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 203, the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Rush) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. RUSH. Madam Chair, my amendment revokes the provisions of this
act from going into effect until the EPA administrator, in consultation
with the Secretary of Defense, certifies that the consequences of not
regulating greenhouse gas emissions, and its subsequent impact on
climate change, including the potential to create sustained natural and
humanitarian disasters and the ability to likely foster political
instability where societal demands exceed the capacity of governments
to cope, do not jeopardize American security interests at home or
abroad.
Madam Chair, the overwhelming majority of respected scientists and
scientific organizations worldwide all agree that manmade greenhouse
gases do contribute to climate change, and these impacts can be
mitigated through policy to curb these emissions.
Just recently, a study by the National Academy of Science, conducted
at the request of the U.S. Navy, concluded that climate change will
pose a major challenge for the United States Navy in the emerging
Arctic frontier.
One of the most serious threat analyses was done by a dozen of the
country's most respected retired generals and admirals, in the 2007 CNA
report, the ``National Security and the Threat of Climate Change
Report.'' In this study, Madam Chair, these retired generals and
admirals concluded that climate change poses a serious threat to
America's national security and that the national security consequences
of climate change should be fully integrated into national security and
national defense strategies. The report goes on to say that climate
change, national security, and energy independence all pose a related
set of challenges for our military; and these threats should not be
ignored or pushed down the road for future action.

[[Page H2381]]

{time} 1740

Unfortunately, this Upton-Inhofe bill does exactly that. It pushes
the challenges of regulating greenhouse gases, which contribute to
climate change, further down the road for action at some later date far
into the future.
I do not believe it is in America's best interest to delay acting on
these threats that we know are currently endangering our health and way
of life.
Madam Chair, I encourage all of my colleagues to support this
amendment so we are not ignoring the warnings from our most esteemed
military men, and we are proactive in fighting the threat of climate
change before we are past the tipping point.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Chair, I can't think of anything more
disconnected from national security than this amendment.
To speak on that, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).
Mr. BILBRAY. Madam Chair, I regretfully rise in opposition, not
because the intention of this amendment isn't appropriately placed, but
the science doesn't reflect the concern that the gentleman has pointed
out. I say that with the understanding that the science, not talking
about the concern about climate change, but the lack of science behind
the proposed regulations that EPA has even discussed. There is no one
who has been before our committee, as the gentleman knows, that has
said that the proposed changes that EPA is bringing forth today or in
the future is going to address or solve the problem.
The fact is that the problems that the gentleman is concerned about
may be out there somewhere, but no one is saying that what the EPA is
doing is going to avoid those problems. So by not having the EPA
implement a program that nobody in the scientific community says will
address the problem doesn't mean that somehow this will de facto cause
the problem to be implemented or not avoided.
Basically I guess it says, again, what is being proposed by the EPA
is an agency that was not designed to address climate change, with
plans that not only were not designed, and using a vehicle that was not
designed regarding this problem, but by the own admission of the
administrator does not even know, and can't give us even a slight
percentage of what reduction we would have.
So I just have to say to my dear colleague from Illinois that I
appreciate his concern, but his concern should not be us telling EPA
not to implement rules that they admit will not address the problem and
will not solve the problem. Our issue ought to be talking about how do
we address those problems down the pike, because let's be very frank
about it. The problems you are talking about are going to happen, and
it is not because anyone on this side is denying the science; it is
because people are trying to take advantage and exploit a crisis rather
than address it.
I ask the gentleman again to be concerned but make sure that when you
propose an action, let's make sure that those actions have a
possibility of addressing the issues that you so sincerely are
concerned about.
Mr. RUSH. Madam Chair, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Madam Chair, I am really astounded by the remarks of my friend from
California. It seems that first of all they deny the scientists that
have come before the committee, the many scientific organizations
throughout the world who say that climate change is a reality. They
deny this science and these scientists saying we are reaching a tipping
point. Now, Madam Chair, they are denying the opinion and the warnings
from the command shelter of our American military. I just don't know
who will convince them.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes.
I appreciate the gentleman's passion for the issue, but I think when
amendments like this hit the floor, it does a huge disservice to even
the basis of their argument. You know, getting ready for World War II,
we had a truck company in Ypsilanti, Michigan, that went from building
pickup trucks with several thousand parts--in about 8 weeks, they
converted it to building bomber airplanes with over a million parts.
Only in America could that have happened to win the war. The great
industrial arsenal of democracy happened in the great State of
Michigan.
If you want to talk about national security issues, when you try to
do this on cap and trade, what you are doing is wholesale departing
manufacturing jobs and our ability to produce things in this country to
places like China and India, who have laughed at cap and trade and
said, we welcome those jobs.
We lost a million manufacturing jobs in our State alone. A million.
Cap and trade. What you seek to do will lose 1.4 million more jobs.
Admiral Mullen said the greatest threat to our national security is
our debt. When people aren't working, when America can't produce
things, I am telling you, we will do more to harm our national security
than anything I can think of.
We are going to lose just in Michigan over 100,000 jobs in the next
25 years. So guess what? You want to talk about national security,
someone who is unemployed and not paying taxes to help solve the debt
problem is a national security threat, when you want to make
unreasonable expectations.
I want clean water, and I want clean air. I don't want the EPA
shutting down factories that produce and actually produced the largest
middle class in the history of the world. Why we would attack that and
label that as a national security interest defies even the greatest of
imaginations, Madam Chair.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RUSH. Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) to close.
Mr. WAXMAN. I rise in support of the Rush amendment.
The problem of national security is threatened in two ways by the
Inhofe-Upton bill. It increases our oil dependence because we take away
the tools for addressing this oil dependence by not allowing EPA to set
tighter efficiency standards which reduce our demand for oil.
Secondly, it takes away our tools to deal with the problem of climate
change itself.
Former senior military officers wrote to us and asked that we not
undermine the Clean Air Act. They are concerned this will increase our
dependence on oil, and that such dependence is truly dangerous. In
2009, 10 retired general and admirals described how our oil dependence
funds terrorism. It puts large sums of money in the hands of unfriendly
regimes like Iran and Venezuela. Iran provides weapons to Hezbollah and
supports insurgents in Iraq.
And climate change itself, according to the State Department, is
going to bring about more migrant and refugee flows, more conflicts
over resources, drought and famine, and catastrophic natural disasters.
That is a threat to our national security, and the Rush amendment will
allow EPA to address it.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for making
our point for us. When you shut down production of oil and natural gas
into the United States, we have to import more because we are still
driving more. We have absolutely put ourselves at the mercy of a whole
region of the world that is inflamed in trying to figure out who they
are. And it has raised our prices. It went from $1.83 2 years ago to $4
a gallon.
If you want to be serious about getting this right, let the EPA do
what it does best--clean air, clean water--and let the national
security folks keep us safe and increase production so that for
goodness sake, somebody can afford to drive to work.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. RUSH. Madam Chair, 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.

[[Page H2382]]

{time} 1750

Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Doyle

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11
printed in House Report 112-54.
Mr. DOYLE. Madam Chair, 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 the bill add the following:

SEC. 5. STUDY ON EFFECT OF EPA CLIMATE CHANGE REGULATIONS ON
INTERNATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS OF UNITED STATES
PRODUCERS OF ENERGY-INTENSIVE PRODUCTS.

(a) Study.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency shall--
(1) conduct a study to determine, with respect to the
period beginning on such date of enactment and ending on
December 31, 2016, the extent to which the regulations of the
Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Air Act to
address climate change, if not repealed or otherwise made
unauthorized by section 2 of this Act, would--
(A) cause greenhouse gas leakage; and
(B) reduce the international competitiveness of United
States producers of energy-intensive products; and
(2) submit a report on the results of the study to the
Congress, including recommendations for legislative,
administrative, or other actions to mitigate--
(A) any greenhouse gas leakage identified pursuant to
paragraph (1)(A); and
(B) any reduction in international competitiveness
identified pursuant to paragraph (1)(B).
(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``energy-intensive product'' means--
(A) iron, steel, aluminum, cement, bulk glass, paper and
pulp, chemicals, or industrial ceramics; or
(B) any other manufactured product which the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency determines--
(I) is sold in bulk for purposes of further manufacture;
and
(ii) generates, in the course of the manufacture of the
product, direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions that
are comparable (on an emissions-per-dollar basis) to
emissions generated in the manufacture or production of
products identified in subparagraph (A).
(2) The term ``greenhouse gas leakage'' means an increase
in greenhouse gas emissions abroad because of the movement of
the production of economic goods from the United States to
other countries.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 203, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. DOYLE. I yield myself 2 minutes.
Madam Chair, I sit on the Energy and Commerce Committee and on the
Energy and Power Subcommittee, which has primary jurisdiction of H.R.
910. As such, I have been at several hearings on this bill where my
colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle have claimed that the
pending EPA regulations on greenhouse gases will cause our industries
to pack up and move overseas, taking with them our jobs and our carbon
emissions.
At a committee hearing on this bill held in March of this year, our
chairman told us, ``We live in a global economy with global
competition, and nations like China absolutely have no intention of
similarly burdening their industries. Manufacturing will leave this
country unless the EPA is stopped.''
Madam Chair, unfortunately, my colleagues on the Republican side of
the aisle have forgotten to check with the Chinese. Just 2 days ago, a
report came out saying China to Tax Energy Usage of Energy-Intensive
Industries. The report says that China will impose a tax on energy
usage of eight industrial sectors, including iron and steel, aluminum
and cement. Xie Zhenhua, vice chairman of National Development and
Reform, said that China has launched pilot carbon emission trading
schemes in some of their provinces. So much for this idea that all
these jobs are going to China because there's no taxing there or that
they're not looking at a trading scheme.
While I dispute the claims of my colleagues that China has no
intention of addressing climate change, what I am more concerned about
is the varying claims that these regulations will ship jobs overseas.
What we have as an amendment here is to address that very question: Are
these industries here in America that utilize energy-intensive
processes and have special trade pressures, what will the effect of
these regulations be on those types of industries?
In the last Congress, I worked with Congressman Inslee to develop and
address job and carbon leakage issues when we did the American Clean
Energy Security Act. We were able to develop a fair system of
distributing these allowances. This amendment proposes to do the same
thing.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DOYLE. Thank you.
I will reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. Madam Chairman, this is an interesting
amendment. This is an amendment to a bill to study the cost of
regulations that if this bill goes through, regulations won't exist. I
don't get it, but okay.
We don't need another study. We need jobs. I come from the 11th
Congressional District in Illinois. We have high unemployment. Where I
come from is an industry base, a manufacturing base. Americans are
hurting. We have high unemployment. Statistics show that jobs are
leaving at a record pace.
There is no longer any question about whether the EPA's climate
change regulations would actually hurt international competitiveness
and affect American companies. We already know they would. We already
know that. I talked to a factory in my district that said when cap-and-
trade was going to be passed, or this de facto cap-and-trade that's
being looked at, if that passes, that will definitely result in them
leaving. There's no benefit. It's a higher cost of doing business. It
makes us uncompetitive in the free world, especially in areas affected
where we have an ability to trade with other countries.
Now here's the very interesting part about that, though. We're
concerned about the environment, and we're very concerned about the
environment. When you add cost to doing business in a country that
already well regulates what is put out of an industry's smokestack and
you add cost to that, you drive those businesses overseas into areas
where they have far less environmental regulation. So not only are we
losing jobs here in the United States, not only is the middle class
continuing to be squeezed again by not having their manufacturing jobs,
but now we've hurt the environment.
This is backwards. This isn't what we want to do. This isn't the kind
of America that we strive to come back to, to get a middle class that's
vibrant and producing things and exporting them overseas and people are
getting a good paycheck. This amendment studies something that will not
exist if we pass this bill.
We heard from a wide cross-section of energy producers and
manufacturers on the Energy and Commerce Committee who testified as to
the harm these regulations will do in steel and chemical and
refineries. The fact that China, India and other industrial competitors
have no intention of imposing similar regulations is further evidence
that such regulations are costly and economically damaging.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DOYLE. Madam Chair, I yield myself 15 seconds to say to the
gentleman that maybe he wasn't here when I just read the fact that
China is imposing a tax on their industries, is looking at cap-and-
trade.
I would also say to the gentleman who says why we want a study for a
bill that is going to abolish these regulations, your bill is never
going to become law. This bill has a veto threat. We need to do a study
to see what the implications are on our industries.
I would now like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Ryan).
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman from Pittsburgh.
I would just like to lend my voice to taking this and studying this,
because there are issues here. There will be a transition. We want our
businesses to be aware of what the actual statistics are, to study
these regs, what they're going to be and what the effects are going to
be. But in no way, shape or form does this diminish mine or I don't
think anyone else's support for a green energy future that we need in
the United States.

[[Page H2383]]

I have been sitting here listening and you have several Members over
there saying, ``China isn't going to do cap-and-trade.'' The fact is
they're starting to do it. ``China is never going to tax carbon.'' The
fact is they're starting to do it. And now we have dropped from first
place in leading the green revolution to second, now to third, behind
China, Germany, and now the United States.
These are manufacturing jobs. Tons and tons of steel go into a
windmill; 8,000 component parts. They manufacture them in Illinois, in
Ohio, in Pennsylvania. These are jobs for our people. Why else would
the United Steelworkers of America be against this and be for the green
revolution? We're making this happen, and we have to get out of our own
way while we do it.
Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. I yield myself 15 seconds to say that
China is not the only other country. There are hundreds of countries,
hundreds of opportunities for American companies to go overseas if they
are forced and squeezed out of this. I think green energy future is a
code word for a no manufacturing jobs future.
With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Bilbray).
Mr. BILBRAY. Madam Chair, I always enjoy my colleague Mike Doyle
because I have a good friend, Mike Doyle, who was actually the first
world champion surfer; so I always remind him of that connection.
But let me just say to my colleagues, I hope you're not under some
illusion that China is even considering reducing their greenhouse gas
emissions by 17 percent within this decade. I hope you don't have that
illusion.
But let's point out what we really need to address with this issue.
You do not need a study, Congressman, about the impacts. Your State is
sitting at 8 percent. My State is sitting at 12 percent unemployment.
If you really want to see what happens if you're not careful about the
impacts and the costs of going green, which we have, we've had a great
breakthrough. Our air has been cleaned up a lot more. But there are
challenges of going beyond that and going into things that are not cost
effective.
Let me remind you, the great successes we've had with cleaning up our
air in California is we always gave priority to those emissions that
had the greatest health risk. We didn't go after one that wasn't even
on the scale. CO2 is not even on the health risk scale.
Let me just give you a good example. I'm a big supporter of algae.
Our scientists in California developed algae fuel. Our State
institutions and our educational institutions had the scientists that
developed the technology to be able to make fuel out of algae. But when
it came time to produce it, when it came time to create the jobs, I
hope the gentleman understands that our scientists had to leave the
State and go to New Mexico, because our environmental regulations were
such that it didn't allow us to implement our green revolution.
So, I hope all of those that are talking about a green revolution
today are willing to take on the environmental, regulatory, and
oversight problems that exist in implementation, because without
casting those aside, you'll never see that revolution.

{time} 1800

Mr. DOYLE. Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time remains on
both sides?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 1\3/4\ minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Illinois has 15 seconds remaining.
Mr. DOYLE. I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the gentleman from
Washington, Jay Inslee.
Mr. INSLEE. It is deeply disappointing that our Republican colleagues
are so willing, able--and apparently eager--to shut down the
government. This bill fundamentally shuts down the government. It shuts
down the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to help lead us
into a clean energy future.
Why shut down an agency that can help develop these biofuels that we
were just talking about? Why do they want to shut down the engine of
innovation? Why do they want to shut down our effort to find a solution
for energy-intensive industries? The steel industry, the aluminum
industry, the cement industry, the paper pulp industry need solutions
to this. We offered one. Yet the Republicans have no solutions.
Shutting down the government is not a solution. Shutting down the EPA
is not a solution. Shutting down American innovation is not a solution.
This is an amendment that makes a statement that we ought to study
science and economics and come up with a solution in a bipartisan way.
Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. I yield myself the balance of my time.
I only have 15 seconds.
I heard two crazy things. Number one, this doesn't change the Clean
Air Act at all. This prevents them from going outside of the
legislative will of the American people and implementing a legislative
idea. By the way, if we're looking at a government shutdown, it's not
because we haven't tried on this side; it's because no budget was
passed last year.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DOYLE. I would like to yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I just want to make two points because we hear a
lot from the other side about Ronald Reagan, and I know they burn
incense and light candles for Ronald Reagan. In the 1980s, it was
President Reagan who used cap-and-trade for leaded gasoline, and it was
George Herbert Walker Bush who used cap-and-trade for sulfur.
This is something that can be done if we put a price on this stuff.
Lead the world, not be led.
Mr. DOYLE. Madam Chair, let me just close by saying to my colleagues
that all we're asking for is to put some good data behind this. Let's
study it. Let's have the EPA take a look at this. Let's see what the
effects are on our energy-intensive industries, because this is an
issue we're going to have to deal with eventually, and we want to have
good data behind it. Let's not have all the stories be anecdotal. Let's
have the agency study this, and let's work together to find solutions
to protect our industries while we clean up our environment for our
kids and our grandkids.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DOYLE. Madam Chair, 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 Pennsylvania
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Kind

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12
printed in House Report 112-54.
Mr. KIND. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. PROHIBITIONS AGAINST REGULATION OF GREENHOUSE
GASES.

The Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 and following) is amended
by adding the following new section after section 329:

``SEC. 330. PROHIBITIONS AGAINST REGULATION OF GREENHOUSE
GASES.

``(a) New Source Review.--
``(1) General rule.--
``(A) Excluding greenhouse gas emissions from permitting
applicability determinations.--
``(i) For purposes of determining whether a stationary
source is a `major emitting facility' pursuant to section
169(1), such determination shall not be based on emissions of
any air pollutant subject to regulation solely on the basis
of such pollutant's contribution to global climate change.
``(ii) For purposes of determining whether a stationary
source has undertaken `construction' pursuant to section
165(a), such determination shall not be based on an increase
in the amount of any air pollutant subject to regulation
solely on the basis of such pollutant's contribution to
global climate change, nor be based on resulting emissions of
such an air pollutant not previously emitted.
``(B) Excluding small greenhouse gas sources from
permitting requirements.--No requirement of sections 160
through 169 shall apply with respect to any greenhouse gas
unless such gas is subject to regulation under this Act for
reasons independent of its effects on global climate change
or the gas is emitted by a source that is--

[[Page H2384]]

``(i) a new major emitting facility that will emit, or have
the potential to emit, greenhouse gases in an amount of at
least 75,000 tons carbon dioxide equivalent per year; or
``(ii) an existing major emitting facility that undertakes
construction which increases the amount of greenhouse gases,
or which results in emission of greenhouse gases not
previously emitted, on a mass basis and by at least 75,000
tons carbon dioxide equivalent per year.
``(2) Special rule.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), as of
July 1, 2011, for purposes of section 160 through 169, the
term `major emitting facility' shall include a stationary
source--
``(A) that is--
``(i) a new stationary source that will emit, or have the
potential to emit, greenhouse gases of at least 100,000 tons
carbon dioxide equivalent per year (or such other quantity
between 50,000 and 100,000 set by the Administrator by
regulation effective no earlier than July 1, 2013); or
``(ii) an existing stationary source that emits greenhouse
gases of at least 100,000 tons carbon dioxide equivalent per
year (or such other quantity between 50,000 and 100,000 set
by the Administrator by regulation effective no earlier than
July 1, 2013) and that undertakes a physical change or change
in the method of operation that will result in an emissions
increase of greenhouse gases of at least 75,000 tons carbon
dioxide equivalent per year (or such other quantity between
50,000 and 75,000 set by the Administrator by regulation
effective no earlier than July 1, 2013); and
``(B) that has greenhouse gas emissions equal to or
exceeding 250 tons per year mass emissions or, in the case of
any of the types of stationary sources identified in section
169(1), 100 tons per year mass emissions.
``(3) Nonprofit institutions.--For purposes of section
169(1), no provision in this subsection shall include within
the term `major emitting facility' any new or modified
facility which is a nonprofit health or educational
institution which has been exempted by the state in which it
is located.
``(b) Title V Operating Permits.--
``(1) General rule.--Notwithstanding any provision of this
title or title V, no stationary source shall be required to
apply for, or operate pursuant to, a permit under title V,
solely due to its status as a major source of greenhouse
gases that are subject to regulation under this Act solely on
the basis of their effect on global climate change.
``(2) Special rule.--As of July 1, 2011, the provisions of
paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not apply to any
stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit at
least 100,000 tons per year carbon dioxide equivalent (or
such other quantity between 50,000 and 100,000 set by the
Administrator by regulation effective no earlier than July 1,
2013).
``(c) Definition of Greenhouse Gas.--For purposes of this
section, the term `greenhouse gas' means the following:
``(1) Carbon dioxide.
``(2) Methane
``(3) Nitrous oxide.
``(4) Sulfur hexafluoride.
``(5) Hydrofluorocarbons.
``(6) Perfluorocarbons.
``(7) Nitrogen trifluoride.
``(8) Any other anthropogenic gas if the Administrator
determines that one ton of such gas has the same or greater
effect on global climate change as does one ton of carbon
dioxide.''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 203, the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. KIND. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chair, the bill that we are debating today just goes too far.
It repeals a scientific finding and represents an aggressive assault on
the Clean Air Act, a bipartisan law originally implemented by President
Nixon that has successfully protected the public health for over 40
years.
I represent a rural district in western Wisconsin that has
approximately 180,000 rural electric co-op members that are concerned
about possible new EPA regulations and their impact on them. I share
their concerns, and I agree that we have to approach this issue
reasonably. Still, the approach under H.R. 910 isn't the right one.
There is a middle ground that can be found, which is why I, along with
my friend and colleague from New York (Mr. Owens), am offering, really,
an amendment in the nature of a substitute today. This amendment would
permanently protect farms, small businesses and small- and medium-sized
stationary sources from greenhouse gas regulation by codifying the
Environmental Protection Agency's Tailoring Rule.
The Tailoring Rule, itself, represents a compromise. Despite being
court-ordered to regulate greenhouse gases, the EPA took into account
our fragile economy, and proposed a narrow rule that would exempt the
vast majority of stationary sources from any regulation. Through the
rule, the EPA takes the appropriate approach to regulating greenhouse
gases by only requiring very large, new and expanded emitters to seek
permits. My friends on the other side of the aisle, however, believe
that the EPA intends to go even further than the Tailoring Rule, and
will ultimately implement a tax on energy just as China is beginning to
today; but voting for this amendment will prevent the EPA from doing
this.
Some fear that farms or businesses will be regulated under this rule.
Our amendment prevents this from ever occurring. Under the Tailoring
Rule, the EPA has not identified even one farm that would meet the
regulation threshold. That's because you'd have to have over 116,000
beef cattle or 152 million broiler chickens on a single farm to trigger
the regulation. There isn't a farm in the United States, let alone
western Wisconsin, that fits that definition. Further, this amendment
will provide the utility industry with the certainty that they have
requested. Industry will know precisely what will trigger permit
requirements, and will be able to plan accordingly.
H.R. 910 takes an extreme approach to the EPA regulation of these
carbon emissions by repealing a scientific finding so compelling that
even the Bush administration determined that they were unable to ignore
it. The science is clear: Climate change is real, and greenhouse gases
pose a serious threat to human health.
I think we can all agree that we'd rather have Congress act to curb
greenhouse gas emissions, and I would certainly prefer that approach,
but we haven't been able to get our act together in this body. What we
can do is protect public health and local economies by codifying the
Tailoring Rule.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment because it is a
commonsense solution that accepts the scientific evidence that
greenhouse gases are dangerous to human health, and it enacts a
workable solution that will protect human health and that will ensure
clean air while shielding the vast majority of sources from any
regulatory requirements.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Griffith).
Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. I would like to thank the gentleman for
bringing this amendment.
Madam Chair, the EPA has passed this so-called ``Tailoring Rule''
without there being any authority in the Clean Air Act to do so. The
proper place for this type of debate, as the underlying bill makes
clear, is in the Halls of Congress, not in the halls of the EPA.
There is a button that was very popular in my district--and still
is--which reads, ``Who elected the EPA?'' The answer is no one; but we
know who elects us. The people of the United States elect us, and they
elect us to make the laws. This amendment makes it clear that this is
where it belongs; thus, we should pass the bill. The amendment should
be defeated. The bill should be passed.
It also makes clear that the EPA is overreaching and that they had to
come up with a Tailoring Rule because, as they say, without it, it
creates an absurd result, but those absurd results flow from the EPA's
determination to reach these greenhouse gases as if they were harmful
pollutants.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, this amendment, contrary to its patron's
assertions, does not shield small businesses or farms, because it does
not block the avalanche of additional greenhouse gas rules that come
under various clean air programs. The EPA's greenhouse gas regulations
will drive up the prices of gasoline, electricity, food, goods and
services; and the cost of these regulations will be passed on to
everyone, including to small businesses.
That's why the National Federation of Independent Business supports
H.R. 910. A vote in favor of H.R. 910 will be scored as a major vote
for the NFIB. The NFIB has said that using the Clean Air Act as a
framework will trigger an avalanche of regulatory requirements that
will burden hundreds of thousands of previously unregulated sources,
including many small entities.

[[Page H2385]]

I ask that you reject the amendment.
Mr. KIND. Madam Chair, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
coauthor of this amendment, my friend from New York (Mr. Owens).

{time} 1810

Mr. OWENS. I thank the gentleman.
I would like to point out that my predecessor, a respected Member of
the other side of the aisle, Mr. McHugh, was very supportive of
regulation of mercury and acid rain because it negatively impacted the
New York 23rd. I think we need to act responsibly in each of these
situations, and we need to make sure that we are working off, not the
science of proponents, but the science of understanding of the issues.
When we look at my district, it has taken great strides in terms of
moving forward with green and renewable energy. We have wood--which we
have plenty of in the Adirondacks--we have wind energy, and we have
hydro, all of which are contributing to jobs and making our economy a
green and sustainable economy.
I think it is very important to understand that what this legislation
does is, in fact, eliminate regulation for the small businesses and
farms in my district. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment
and to reject the underlying legislation.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky has 3 minutes
remaining; the gentleman from Wisconsin has 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Bilbray).
Mr. BILBRAY. I apologize, but I have to say to the gentleman, you
know, wood burning, under oxygen-deprived environment, is a terrible
particulate pollutant. So I don't think anybody involved in air
pollution issues would ever point out that wood burning is something we
want to point to. It may be renewable--and I appreciate you saying
that, and I think it's very good that you said that because I think we
mix renewable with clean all the time. But there are those renewable
sources that are very, very bad for the air pollution issue. I just
wanted to make sure we went by and didn't point at that.
In California, we have actually tried to outlaw wood-burning stoves
because of the problems with the air pollution and the toxin emissions
that are caused by the particulate problem with it.
Mr. KIND. Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the ranking
member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman).
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds.
Mr. WAXMAN. The advocates of the underlying bill have said that EPA
is going to regulate a lot of other sources. What this Kind-Owens
amendment does is says that EPA will not be allowed to regulate farms,
small businesses, and other small and medium-size sources of pollution.
This makes sense, and it deals with the problem that has been raised
about EPA. It is a commonsense solution. We ought to support it and
make sure that the tailoring rule is all that would be applicable for
EPA to do.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Well, I would say to you that EPA adopted this tailoring act because
they bit off more than they could chew, initially. That's why a lawsuit
has been filed against them, because they violated the clear language
of the Clean Air Act that says if anything emits more than 150 tons per
year, or 250 tons per year, it must be regulated if they've had an
endangerment finding, as they did in this case.
And so this amendment would simply gut the entire bill and place the
tailoring law there in its place. Under this tailoring rule, they would
be able to go down to 50-tons-per-year emissions. But the question
becomes, what happens after the year 2013? You have two conflicting
parts of this Clean Air Act as a result if we adopt this amendment.
One thing we know for certain, EPA is already involved in too many
lawsuits. In fact, we're trying to find out now exactly how many
lawsuits. We feel like this bill that we are trying to pass in the
Congress today, H.R. 910, is simply Congress reasserting itself into
the Clean Air Act because for too long decisions have been made by
unelected bureaucrats at EPA; lawsuits are being filed. Almost every
time anyone applies for a permit EPA runs and enters into a consent
decree, and then the Federal judge will award legal fees to the
plaintiffs. We think it's time to reassert ourselves into this process.
This is a good bill, H.R. 910. It says that it was never the intent
of Congress for EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. We do not in any way
interfere with their ability to regulate ambient air quality standards,
particulate matter, the hazardous air pollutants--we have about 200 or
so of those listed--acid rain, any of those things.
This is a great bill. Let's defeat this amendment. I urge passage of
H.R. 910.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. KIND. Madam Chair, 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 Wisconsin
will be postponed.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 112-54 on
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 1 by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas.
Amendment No. 2 by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas.
Amendment No. 5 by Mr. Murphy of Connecticut.
Amendment No. 6 by Mr. Waxman of California.
Amendment No. 8 by Mr. Polis of Colorado.
Amendment No. 9 by Mr. Markey of Massachusetts.
Amendment No. 10 by Mr. Rush of Illinois.
Amendment No. 11 by Mr. Doyle of Pennsylvania.
Amendment No. 12 by Mr. Kind of Wisconsin.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas
(Ms. Jackson Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 161,
noes 259, not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 233]

AYES--161

Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holt
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Peters
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz

[[Page H2386]]

Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOES--259

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--12

Cantor
Costa
Critz
Frelinghuysen
Giffords
Honda
Meeks
Moore
Olver
Pingree (ME)
Rangel
Sanchez, Loretta

{time} 1843

Mr. MEEHAN changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. BALDWIN, Messrs. CARNEY, BERMAN, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY and Mr. CLEAVER
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Westmoreland). The unfinished business is the
demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) on which further proceedings were
postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 157,
noes 266, not voting 9, as follows:

[Roll No. 234]

AYES--157

Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Polis
Price (NC)
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOES--266

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Farr
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Hirono
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Quigley
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf

[[Page H2387]]

Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--9

Costa
Frelinghuysen
Giffords
Gutierrez
Meeks
Olver
Pingree (ME)
Rangel
Sanchez, Loretta

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in
the vote.

{time} 1847

Ms. CHU and Mr. YARMUTH changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Murphy of Connecticut

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) on which further proceedings were postponed
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 182,
noes 240, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 235]

AYES--182

Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Poe (TX)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOES--240

Adams
Aderholt
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--10

Akin
Costa
Frelinghuysen
Giffords
Meeks
Olver
Pingree (ME)
Rangel
Sanchez, Loretta
Waters

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining on
this vote.

{time} 1850

Mr. McINTYRE changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 235, I voted ``aye'' and
I intended to vote ``no.''
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Dingell was allowed to speak out of
order.)

Rahall Casts 20,000th Vote

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to pay tribute to our good friend
from West Virginia, Representative Nicky Joe Rahall, who will cast in
this next vote his 20,000th vote in this House of Representatives.
Mr. Chairman, this is a milestone event. It gives us an opportunity
to recognize the great work done by our distinguished friend and
colleague from Beckley, West Virginia. He is always serving his
constituents and doing so well. He also strives to work across the
aisle, and he is the kind of Member I believe we all feel we should be.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleague, Mr. Rahall, to rise so that we may
all join together in paying tribute to our friend and colleague on the
occasion of his 20,000th vote.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Waxman

The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, 2-minute voting will continue.
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Waxman) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 236]

AYES--184

Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn

[[Page H2388]]

Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOES--240

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--8

Frelinghuysen
Giffords
Latham
Meeks
Olver
Pingree (ME)
Rangel
Sanchez, Loretta

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining on
this vote.

{time} 1857

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Polis

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Polis) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 237]

AYES--168

Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOES--257

[[Page H2389]]

Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--7

Frelinghuysen
Giffords
Meeks
Olver
Pingree (ME)
Rangel
Sanchez, Loretta

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in
the vote.

{time} 1902

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 237 I
inadvertently voted ``yea'' when I intended to vote ``nay.''

Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Markey

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) on which further proceedings were postponed
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 238]

AYES--156

Ackerman
Andrews
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Green, Al
Grijalva
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOES--266

Adams
Aderholt
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
Kildee
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--10

Akin
Frelinghuysen
Giffords
Gutierrez
Meeks
Olver
Pingree (ME)
Rangel
Sanchez, Loretta
Wilson (FL)

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in
the vote.

{time} 1905

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Rush

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Rush) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 239]

AYES--165

Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)

[[Page H2390]]

Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Reyes
Richardson
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOES--260

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--7

Frelinghuysen
Giffords
Meeks
Olver
Pingree (ME)
Rangel
Sanchez, Loretta

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in
this vote.

{time} 1909

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Doyle

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle) on which further proceedings were postponed
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 240]

AYES--173

Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holt
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Reyes
Richardson
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOES--250

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Doggett
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Holden
Honda
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McDermott
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson

[[Page H2391]]

Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--9

Brady (TX)
Frelinghuysen
Giffords
Gohmert
Meeks
Olver
Pingree (ME)
Rangel
Sanchez, Loretta

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in
this vote.

{time} 1912

Mr. CONYERS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Kind

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Kind) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 241]

AYES--160

Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dingell
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Grijalva
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Petri
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOES--264

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Holden
Holt
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Waters
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--8

Dicks
Frelinghuysen
Giffords
Meeks
Olver
Pingree (ME)
Rangel
Sanchez, Loretta

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in
this vote.

{time} 1917

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Rivera) having assumed the chair, Mr. Westmoreland, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 910) to
amend the Clean Air Act to prohibit the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating any regulation
concerning, taking action relating to, or taking into consideration the
emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change, and for other
purposes, and, pursuant to House Resolution 203, reported the bill back
to the House with an amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further
proceedings on this bill will be postponed.

[[Page H2392]]

____________________