[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 114 (Friday, August 2, 2013)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1214]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  ENERGY CONSUMERS RELIEF ACT OF 2013

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. GENE GREEN

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, July 31, 2013

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1582) to 
     protect consumers by prohibiting the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating as final 
     certain energy-related rules that are estimated to cost more 
     than $1 billion and will cause significant adverse effects to 
     the economy, with Ms. Ros-Lehtinen in the chair.

  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to the 
Scalise amendment to H.R. 367, the Regulations From the Executive in 
Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act. While Mr. Scalise may have the best 
intentions in trying to prevent the Administration from regulating 
carbon, the amendment actually subjects any regulation that places a 
fee, price or levy on pollution to the Congressional approval procedure 
mandated under the bill.
  While some of my colleagues would still definitely support that, 
there are some unintended consequences to this approach. Take Houston, 
for example.
  Houston has two programs that put a price on nitrogen oxide and 
volatile organic compound emissions. These market-based programs have 
been successful in lowering smog levels. Houston has had to have its 
programs approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as part 
of the state implementation plan (SIPs) under the Clean Air Act.
  Under the Scalise amendment, the EPA cannot approve state programs in 
SIPS that would put a fee on emissions without an act of Congress. 
Houston's program could remain in place, but if they ever wanted to 
strengthen, relax or otherwise modify the program, it appears that the 
Scalise amendment would prevent that from happening. That would require 
Houston to find another way to comply with the Clean Air Act, which 
would likely be less flexible and more burdensome.
  I want to be clear that I do not support the Administration devising 
a carbon control program; that is the job of the Congress. That said, 
this Congress must get to work and pass a bill that deals with carbon 
with input from Members that represent diverse constituencies 
nationwide. 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.
  I encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

                          ____________________