[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 173 (Tuesday, December 1, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H8658-H8663]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 8, NORTH AMERICAN ENERGY SECURITY
AND INFRASTRUCTURE ACT OF 2015; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S.J.
RES. 23, PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF A RULE SUBMITTED BY
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF
S.J. RES. 24, PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF A RULE
SUBMITTED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 539 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 539
Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 8) to modernize energy infrastructure, build a
21st century energy and manufacturing workforce, bolster
America's energy security and diplomacy, and promote energy
efficiency and government accountability, and for other
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce. After general debate, the Committee of
the Whole shall rise without motion. No further consideration
of the bill shall be in order except pursuant to a subsequent
order of the House.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House any joint resolution specified
in section 3 of this resolution. All points of order against
consideration of each such joint resolution are waived. Each
such joint resolution shall be considered as read. All points
of order against provisions in each such joint resolution are
waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on each such joint resolution and on any amendment thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour
of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce; and (2) one motion to commit.
Sec. 3. The joint resolutions referred to in section 2 of
this resolution are as follows:
(a) The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 23) providing for
congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United
States Code, of a rule submitted by the Environmental
Protection Agency relating to ``Standards of Performance for
Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, Modified, and
Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating
Units''.
(b) The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 24) providing for
congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United
States Code, of a rule submitted by the Environmental
Protection Agency relating to ``Carbon Pollution Emission
Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility
Generating Units''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1
hour.
{time} 1230
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 539 provides for a rule to consider
three important bills that will help millions of Americans and their
families who are having to pay or will soon be paying higher energy
costs due to the administration's misguided and ill-conceived energy
policies. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided
between the majority and the minority of the Energy and Commerce
Committee, on each of the pieces of legislation before us, including
S.J. Res. 23, a resolution of disapproval of a rule promulgated by the
Environmental Protection Agency on greenhouse gases from new stationary
sources; S.J. Res. 24, a resolution of disapproval of a rule
promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency on greenhouse gases
from existing stationary sources; and H.R. 8, the North American Energy
Security and Infrastructure Act of 2015, which will move this country
in a direction of greater energy independence.
The rule before us today provides for a closed rule on both
resolutions of disapproval, as is standard for such measures, allowing
for 1 hour of debate equally divided between the majority and minority
of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, while allowing the minority a
motion to commit on each of the resolutions.
Further, the rule provides for 1 hour of debate on H.R. 8, also
equally divided between the chair and ranking member of the Committee
on Energy and Commerce. A subsequent order from the Committee on Rules
will likely address any amendments to be made in order later in the
week.
The House, in taking up these measures, is doing so to reflect the
will of the people so many of us represent who are opposed to the
administration's actions and wish to stop this out-of-control
Environmental Protection Agency from doing further damage to the
economy. Further, H.R. 8 reflects a broad consensus of energy
stakeholders who are ready and willing to move the country's energy
future into high gear.
S.J. Res. 23, disapproving of the Environmental Protection Agency's
new greenhouse gas rules on new stationary sources--loosely translated,
that means the Nation's power plants, keeping the lights on in your
home, the heat on in the winter, and the air-conditioning on in the
summer--and S.J. Res. 24, disapproving of the EPA's new greenhouse gas
rules on existing stationary sources, both of these joint resolutions
passed in the Senate in October by a majority vote of 52-46. The
Congressional Review Act, the law which allows for the process of
disapproval by Congress when an administration goes too far with one of
its rules, allows us an up-or-down vote on the resolution, which cannot
be filibustered, thus allowing the measure to be considered in the
Senate. It is now time for the House to be heard on this measure as
well.
Mr. Speaker, the Environmental Protection Agency's overreaching
greenhouse gas rules have had an extensive number of hearings in the
Energy and Commerce Committee over the last few years. The committee
reviewed all aspects of the proposed rules, including the impacts on
reliability and the impacts on consumer costs, including bringing the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to discuss possible impacts on
reliability around the country due to these rules.
Already, in many States across the Nation, coal-fired power plants
are closing because they see that the Obama administration's EPA has
made it clear that it will go after them relentlessly until they are
shuttered. This means fewer cost-effective options for consumers and
also the potential for brownouts and blackouts during high-consumption
times, like during the peak of the summer in Texas, where rolling
brownouts are already not uncommon. The Environmental Protection
Agency's new rules will only exacerbate this issue.
Whether Members of this body support these rules or oppose them, the
measures before us today will provide each Member the opportunity to be
officially registered on where they stand on these EPA rules, and that
is what we are all here to do.
H.R. 8, in contrast to the EPA's regulations, moves the country to a
place of greater energy security and abundance. Over the past several
years, the Energy and Commerce Committee has worked towards modernizing
the Nation's energy laws, making the government more accountable, more
accountable to the people it is meant to represent as it makes
decisions which affect literally every citizen in this country and
their pocketbooks.
The free market has long been the guiding force in moving this
country ahead in the energy sector. Texas was one of the first major
beneficiaries, with the oil boom in the last two centuries. Now, as new
technologies and innovations emerge, Congress must stand on the side of
the free market
[[Page H8659]]
again, stopping the executive branch from picking winners and losers in
the energy market and allowing consumers--allowing consumers--to make
those decisions for themselves.
When consumers choose what energy sources and what technologies work
best for them, the economy grows faster and grows more efficiently than
ever the government could possibly drive it. That is what the
Architecture of Abundance is all about.
This country has the resources to be energy independent. It has the
ability to end our reliability on oil and gas from the Middle East, a
region that is perpetually in turmoil. But the Obama administration has
stymied much of the progress that was made in the first decade of this
century, slowing or stopping leases on public lands for new exploration
of our own resources and putting up red tape and numerous barriers to
allowing Americans to tap into what is rightfully theirs. This is a
bill that is long overdue, and I certainly thank Chairman Upton for his
work on the bill, H.R. 8.
I encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and
``yes'' on the three underlying bills. They are an important first step
in setting this country on the path to a modern, stable, and abundant
energy future.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Burgess) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule and the
underlying legislation.
I want to begin by congratulating the Republican majority for
breaking a record today. Through their exemplary, heavyhanded,
undemocratic leadership, this is now officially the most closed session
of Congress in the entire history of the United States of America. I am
not sure that is something to be proud of, but that is the title that
they have earned.
Today, we are debating the 47th and 48th closed rules of the 114th
Congress. We are in our third legislative week since Speaker Ryan took
the gavel, and we are already debating our third and fourth closed
rules during his short tenure.
Speaker Ryan promised a more open, more inclusive, more deliberative,
more participatory process. I think he must have misspoken because, by
any measure, the Republican leadership has already fallen short of that
commitment.
Today, we are considering three bills: two that seek to undermine the
EPA's ability to protect our public health and environment and a third
that offers many troubling provisions, including one which would
hastily rush the natural gas pipeline approval process and allow
pipelines to be built and run right through our magnificent national
parks.
On December 11, our government will run out of money. During the
114th Congress, we have stood in this Chamber debating Republican
messaging bills to repeal the Affordable Care Act, undermine the Dodd-
Frank financial reform law, and weaken public health and environmental
regulations while failing to consider meaningful legislation that would
create jobs, boost the economy, and help vulnerable Americans rise out
of poverty. Instead of focusing on these priorities, this majority will
bring to the floor three bills intended to prevent the EPA from
effectively doing its job.
Now, if anyone is feeling deja vu, that is probably because what I
just said is from a floor speech I gave on a rule for three antiscience
bills that the Republicans brought before us last November. The only
difference is I changed 113th to 114th Congress. And while I hate to
repeat myself, unfortunately, the majority is in a rut of bringing
before us the same old same old: unproductive legislation that is going
nowhere.
We have 6 legislative days left to ensure that the government doesn't
run out of money, just 6 days; but instead of focusing on that, instead
of working to ensure the government is funded, we are on the floor
debating more Republican messaging bills that I think were written in
the National Republican Congressional Committee because they are poorly
drafted. These bills have drastic and devastating effects on public
health and the environment, and they will be vetoed by the President of
the United States.
I include in the Record the Statements of Administration Policy on
these bills, expressing the administration's intent to veto these
bills.
Statement of Administration Policy
H.R. 8--North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of 2015
(Rep. Upton, R-MI, Nov. 30, 2015)
The Administration is committed to taking responsible steps
to modernize the Nation's energy infrastructure in a way that
addresses climate change, promotes clean energy and energy
efficiency, drives innovation, and ensures a cleaner, more
stable environment for future generations. The Administration
strongly opposes H.R. 8 because it would undermine already
successful initiatives designed to modernize the Nation's
energy infrastructure and increase our energy efficiency.
Increased energy efficiency offers savings on energy bills,
provides opportunities for more jobs, and improves industrial
competitiveness. H.R. 8 would stifle the Nation's move toward
energy efficiency by severely hampering the Department of
Energy's (DOE) ability to provide technical support for
building code development and State implementation. In
addition, the bill would undercut DOE's ability to enforce
its appliance standards and would weaken section 433 of the
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which requires
a reduction in fossil fuel-generated energy in Federal
buildings.
H.R. 8 includes a provision regarding certain operational
characteristics in capacity markets operated by Regional
Transmission Organizations (RTO5) and Independent System
Operators (ISOs). The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) and RTOs and ISOs are already well positioned,
especially as technologies change over time, to ensure that
capacity market structures adequately provide for the
procurement of sufficient capacity to efficiently and
reliably fulfill the resource-adequacy function that these
markets are intended to perform.
H.R. 8 includes new, unnecessary provisions that would
broaden FERC's authority to impose deadlines on other Federal
agencies reviewing the environmental implications of natural
gas pipeline applications. H.R. 8 also would unnecessarily
curtail DOE's ability to fully consider whether natural gas
export projects are consistent with the public interest.
Further, H.R. 8 would undermine the current hydropower
licensing regulatory process in place under the Federal Power
Act that works to minimize negative impacts associated with
the siting of hydropower projects, including negative impacts
on safety, fish and wildlife, water quality and conservation,
and a range of additional natural resources and cultural
values. Among the ways that H.R. 8 would undermine this
process would be by creating a new exemption from licensing
that would undercut bedrock environmental statutes, including
the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act,
and the Endangered Species Act.
Finally, H.R. 8 presents certain constitutional concerns.
Sections 1104 and 3004 would impermissibly interfere with the
President's authorities with regard to the conduct of
diplomacy and in some cases diplomatic communications, and
sections 1109 and 1201 raise concerns under the
Recommendations Clause.
If the President were presented with H.R. 8, his senior
advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.
____
Statement of Administration Policy
S.J. Res. 23--Disapproving EPA Rule on Greenhouse Gas Emissions from
New, Modified, and Reconstructed Electric Utility Generating Units
(Sen. McConnell, R-KY, Nov. 17, 2015)
The Administration strongly opposes S.J. Res. 23, which
would undermine the public health protections of the Clean
Air Act (CAA) and stop critical U.S. efforts to reduce
dangerous carbon pollution from power plants. In 2007, the
Supreme Court ruled that the CAA gives the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to regulate greenhouse
gas (GHG) pollution. In 2009, EPA determined that GHG
pollution threatens Americans' health and welfare by leading
to long-lasting changes to the climate that can, and are
already, having a range of negative effects on human health
and the environment. This finding is consistent with
conclusions of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and numerous other
national and international scientific bodies. Power plants
account for roughly one-third of all domestic GHG emissions.
While the United States limits dangerous emissions of
arsenic, mercury, lead, particulate matter, and ozone
precursor pollution from power plants, the Carbon Pollution
Standards and the Clean Power Plan put into place the first
national limits on power plant carbon pollution. The Carbon
Pollution Standards will ensure that new, modified, and
reconstructed power plants deploy available systems of
emission reduction to reduce carbon pollution.
S.J. Res. 23 would nullify carbon pollution standards for
future power plants and power
[[Page H8660]]
plants undertaking significant modifications or
reconstruction, thus slowing our country's transition to
cleaner, cutting-edge power generation technologies. Most
importantly, the resolution could enable continued build-out
of outdated, high-polluting, and long-lived power generation
infrastructure and impede efforts to reduce carbon pollution
from new and modified power plants--when the need to act, and
to act quickly, to mitigate climate change impacts on
American communities has never been more clear.
Since it was enacted in 1970, and amended in 1977 and 1990,
each time with strong bipartisan support, the CAA has
improved the Nation's air quality and protected public
health. Over that same period of time, the economy has
tripled in size while emissions of key pollutants have
decreased by more than 70 percent. Forty-five years of clean
air regulation have shown that a strong economy and strong
environmental and public health protection go hand-in-hand.
Because S.J. Res. 23 threatens the health and economic
welfare of future generations by blocking important standards
to reduce carbon pollution from the power sector that take a
flexible, common sense approach to addressing carbon
pollution, if the President were presented with S.J. Res. 23,
he would veto the bill.
____
Statement of Administration Policy
S.J. Res. 24--Disapproving EPA Rule on Carbon Pollution Emission
Guidelines for Existing Electric Utility Generating Units
(Sen. Capito, R-WV, Nov. 17, 2015)
The Administration strongly opposes S.J. Res. 24, which
would undermine the public health protections of the Clean
Air Act (CAA) and stop critical U.S. efforts to reduce
dangerous carbon pollution from power plants. In 2007, the
Supreme Court ruled that the CAA gives the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to regulate greenhouse
gas (GHG) pollution. In 2009, EPA determined that GHG
pollution threatens Americans' health and welfare by leading
to long-lasting changes to the climate that can, and are
already, having a range of negative effects on human health
and the environment. This finding is consistent with
conclusions of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and numerous other
national and international scientific bodies. Power plants
account for roughly one-third of all domestic GHG emissions.
While the United States limits dangerous emissions of
arsenic, mercury, lead, particulate matter, and ozone
precursor pollution from power plants, the Clean Power Plan
and the Carbon Pollution Standards put into place the first
national limits on power plant carbon pollution. The Clean
Power Plan empowers States to cost-effectively reduce
emissions from existing sources and provides States and power
plants a great deal of flexibility in meeting the
requirements. EPA expects that under the Clean Power Plan, by
2030, carbon pollution from power plants will be reduced by
32 percent from 2005 levels.
By nullifying the Clean Power Plan, S.J. Res. 24 seeks to
block progress towards cleaner energy, eliminating public
health and other benefits of up to $54 billion per year by
2030, including thousands fewer premature deaths from air
pollution and tens of thousands of fewer childhood asthma
attacks each year. Most importantly, the resolution would
impede efforts to reduce carbon pollution from existing power
plants--the largest source of carbon pollution in the
country--when the need to act, and to act quickly, to
mitigate climate change impacts on American communities has
never been more clear.
Since it was enacted in 1970, and amended in 1977 and 1990,
each time with strong bipartisan support, the CAA has
improved the Nation's air quality and protected public
health. Over that same period of time, the economy has
tripled in size while emissions of key pollutants have
decreased by more than 70 percent. Forty-five years of clean
air regulation have shown that a strong economy and strong
environmental and public health protection go hand-in-hand.
Because S.J. Res. 24 threatens the health and economic
welfare of future generations by blocking important standards
to reduce carbon pollution from the power sector that take a
flexible, common sense approach to addressing carbon
pollution, if the President were presented with S.J. Res. 24,
he would veto the bill.
Mr. McGOVERN. But I guess from the Republican point of view, the
positive thing about these bills is that they are yet another pander to
big money fossil fuel special interests. I urge my colleagues to follow
the money because that is what this is all about here today. It is not
about serious legislating. It is about fundraising.
Mr. Speaker, S.J. Res. 23 and S.J. Res. 24 look to stop commonsense
regulations that the EPA has put in place that protect us from the
harmful pollution emitted by power plants. These joint resolutions are
another clear message from the Republican majority that they do not
believe that climate change is real. Over 120 environmental, faith-
based, and public health organizations have already come out opposing
these two resolutions, including the American Lung Association, the
Allergy and Asthma Network, the League of Conservation Voters, the
Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, and Public Citizen.
I can stand here forever and repeat the other organizations that have a
lot of public support in this country that have come out against these
bills.
Power plants account for 40 percent of our annual carbon pollution
emissions. They are the single biggest source of carbon pollution in
the country. Yet the Republican majority wants to take away the
greatest step we have taken to try to curb that major source of
pollution. These two joint resolutions would permanently prevent the
EPA from ever, ever limiting pollution from power plants in the future
as well.
H.R. 8 is also a deeply troubling piece of legislation. It favors the
use of fossil fuels over renewable energy and favors consumption over
energy efficiency.
{time} 1245
It would ram pipeline applications through FERC in under 90 days even
though most applications, by the way, are reviewed and approved in less
than 1 year.
It all but removes individuals from the process, allowing big gas
companies to choose to build wherever they want, regardless of the
consequences for local communities. It would even allow them to build
through our treasured national parks. It is an early Christmas gift for
big special interests.
At some point, we must face the facts, Mr. Speaker.
So I want to say something to my colleagues on the Republican side. I
know it may make you feel uncomfortable, but it is the truth: Climate
change is real.
The overwhelming science says it is real, yet a huge chunk of the
Republican Conference is in denial. They don't believe there is such a
thing as climate change. They don't believe we have any responsibility
to our children or to future generations to combat climate change.
They are perfectly happy living in this fantasy world where you can
rely on fossil fuels and rely on fossil fuels and rely on fossil fuels
and can just make believe that it has no impact at all on the
environment.
Quite frankly, if climate change weren't such a serious issue, it
would be comical, but climate change is a serious issue. It is a real
issue. It is an issue not just for us; it is an issue for future
generations. So their denial, quite frankly, is frightening.
We shouldn't be propping up coal and oil industries with taxpayer
subsidies. We shouldn't be using taxpayer money to destroy our
environment. When the scientific community reaches a clear consensus on
an issue like climate change, Congress shouldn't undermine them with
dangerous legislation like this.
When we receive credible, peer-reviewed study after study after study
after study that tells us we are in the middle of a climate crisis and
that something must be done about it, we need to listen, but the
Republican majority refuses to listen.
Climate change is often referred to as the most pressing issue of our
time. We know that climate change is for real. We know that. We see it.
We live it. The scientific community has verified it.
Climate change is not a theory, it is not a hoax, and it is certainly
not some silly fantasy. When arctic ice is crashing into the oceans at
record rates, that is not a hoax. When species are going extinct at
accelerated rates around the globe, that is not a fantasy. When extreme
weather events are becoming commonplace, that is not a theory. When the
global temperature of the planet continues to increase every year for
decades, we should pay attention.
These are the exact same scare tactics that have been used for over
45 years in opposition to climate change. It is the same old stuff.
Opponents of clean air have been claiming for half a century that clean
air regulations would kill jobs and hurt economic growth, but they are
wrong.
The truth is that the Clean Air Act alone has created $57 trillion in
benefits since it was enacted in 1970. The Clean Power Plan will lead
to a stronger economy, a safer climate, and better health for all of
us.
Why is this so difficult? Maybe it is because my friends on the other
side of
[[Page H8661]]
the aisle don't like the President, so anything that he is for they
have to be against. You have got to move beyond your anger. You have
got to look at the issues, and you have to evaluate them based on the
evidence.
The evidence is that climate change is for real, but you would never
know that in listening to the majority. They have no solutions, only
denial. Let's keep on down the road of the same old, same old, and
their ``just say no'' agenda is a recipe for disaster.
As we gather here, leaders from all around the world are meeting in
Paris to talk about how to deal with the issue of climate change. What
we should be doing here is providing some wind at the backs of not only
our President but of all of the leaders of the world who are gathering
to try to figure out how to deal with this challenge.
Instead of doing that, we are doing this. It is really sad that this
is what we have come to. If we are going to say ``no'' to anything
today, it should be to this closed rule and to S.J. Res. 23 and to S.J.
Res. 24.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
The Republican Party is in the majority today. There are a couple of
reasons that is so.
There were bills passed in 2009 and 2010, and the American people
looked at what was happening in their legislative body and said: We
need a change. We need a change from the direction in which we are
going.
One of those bills, I will submit, was the Waxman-Markey bill, the
cap-and-trade scheme that was drawn up in the Energy and Commerce
Committee, of which I am a member. I sat through the debate on it. I
remember it very well.
That bill was brought to this floor, and that bill was forced through
this House in June of 2009, right before Members went home for the 4th
of July weekend.
A lot of people will look at the Affordable Care Act and say that is
the reason Congress changed from a majority-Democrat institution to a
majority-Republican institution. It is because of the passage of the
Affordable Care Act.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, I submit that it was actually that activity in June
of 2009 that caused people to look at what was going on in their
Congress and to look at that bill that was drafted in the Energy and
Commerce Committee by Chairman Waxman and Chairman Markey and say: No,
not for us. We are not going along with this. This is not a direction
in which we want you to take this country.
We still function under that quaint notion that we have government
with the consent of the governed, but the governed did not consent to
what they saw being passed in Congress late in June of 2009. So it is
no accident that things are the way they are today.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 1 minute.
I want to read a passage from columnist George Will from earlier this
year, January 7, of his writing in the Washington Post. Mr. Will
writes:
``We know, because they often say so, that those who think
catastrophic global warming is probable and perhaps imminent are
exemplary empiricists. They say those who disagree with them are
`climate change deniers' disrespectful of science.
``Actually, however, something about which everyone can agree is
that, of course, the climate is changing--it always is. And if climate
Cassandras are as conscientious as they claim to be about weighing
evidence, how do they accommodate historical evidence of enormously
consequential episodes of climate change not produced by human
activity? Before wagering vast wealth and curtailments of liberty on
correcting the climate,'' perhaps they should consider the past.
Then he goes on to detail those episodes in the past: the Little Ice
Age and the Medieval Warm Period.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
There are, indeed, recent episodes in recorded history that can be
looked to where the climate has changed and, yes, has affected human
behavior and the human condition, but those were not climate changes
affected by the result of human activity. Those were caused by natural
cycles, within the Sun cycle, within things over which none of us had
any control.
Again, I would take the words of Mr. Will to heart. Before we wager
vast amounts of wealth and curtailments of liberty, we would do well to
consider those facts.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I inquire of the gentleman as to how many
more speakers he has, for I am prepared to close.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I believe I am the only speaker.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
With all due respect to George Will, with whom I don't agree on very
much of anything, quite frankly, if he or anybody else really believes
that there is no correlation between human activity and climate change,
I would suggest that maybe he go back to school, because the
overwhelming science tells us that there is a connection. The
overwhelming science tells us that our reliance on fossil fuels, in
particular, has accelerated the climate change on this planet.
Again, it just astounds me that, on an issue on which the scientific
community has come together overwhelmingly, there is such a disconnect.
Again, at a time when all the world's leaders are gathered in Paris
trying to figure out how to deal with this challenge, the House of
Representatives is dealing with this. I think that is sad and
regrettable.
I ask my colleagues to defeat the previous question. If we defeat the
previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up
bipartisan legislation that would grant law enforcement the authority
to block the sale of firearms and explosives to individuals who are
suspected of international or domestic terrorism.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the
text of the amendment, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, to me, this should not be controversial,
but in this Chamber that is so beholden to the National Rifle
Association, this has become a point of controversy. We are talking
about people who are suspected of international or domestic terrorism.
I don't think any reasonable person feels comfortable with selling
those people weapons.
We ought to be able to come together by putting the security
interests of the people of this country first and enacting this. I hope
that there is a strong, bipartisan vote to defeat the previous question
so that we can actually bring this up, debate it, and pass it.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter from 120
organizations--many environmental organizations, many faith-based
organizations--all who oppose S.J. Res. 23 and S.J. Res. 24.
November 30, 2015.
Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members,
the undersigned organizations urge you to oppose Senators
McConnell and Capito's Congressional Review Act resolutions
of disapproval (S.J. Res. 23 and 24) that would permanently
block the EPA's Clean Power Plan.
These resolutions are an extreme assault on public health,
the clean energy economy, and modernizing our energy sector.
The Clean Power Plan puts in place commonsense limits on
power plant carbon pollution, developed with the input of
thousands of stakeholders, and provides the flexibility
states need to develop their own plans to meet pollution
reduction targets. Blocking these commonsense safeguards puts
polluter profits before the health of our children.
Power plants are the country's single largest source of the
pollution fueling climate change and the Clean Power Plan is
the single biggest step we have ever taken to tackle climate
change. This plan is expected to deliver billions of dollars
in benefits and will prevent nearly 3,000 premature deaths
and more than a hundred thousand asthma attacks per year by
2030.
Not only would these resolutions undo all of the health and
economic benefits of the Clean Power Plan, they would also
bar EPA from issuing any standards in the future that are
substantially similar. This means that Americans would
continue to be exposed indefinitely to carbon pollution and
the impacts of climate change.
[[Page H8662]]
The world's leading scientists agree that failing to act on
climate change will ensure worsening extreme weather events,
threaten food supplies and increase public health risks. We
strongly urge you to oppose these resolutions that put the
health of our children and families at risk, threaten the
quality of our air, and strip the EPA of the tools to address
dangerous carbon pollution.
Sincerely,
350.Org, ActionAid USA, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy
Environments, American Rivers, Appalachian Voices, Arizona
Interfaith Power & Light, Arkansas Public Policy Panel,
Center for Biological Diversity, Clean Air Task Force, Clean
Water Action, Climate Action Alliance of the Valley.
Climate Law & Policy Project, Climate Parents, Coalition on
the Environment and Jewish Life, Colorado Interfaith Power &
Light, Conservation Voters for Idaho, Conservation Voters of
South Carolina, Defenders of Wildlife, Delaware Interfaith
Power & Light, Earthjustice, Earth Ministry/Washington
Interfaith Power & Light, Elders Climate Action,
Environment America, Environment Arizona, Environment
California, Environment Colorado, Environment Connecticut,
Environment Florida, Environment Georgia, Environment Iowa,
Environment Maine, Environment Maryland, Environment
Massachusetts, Environment Michigan, Environment Minnesota,
Environment Missouri.
Environment Montana, Environment Nevada, Environment New
Mexico, Environment New Hampshire, Environment New York,
Environment North Carolina, Environment Ohio, Environment
Oregon, Environment Rhode Island, Environment Texas,
Environment Virginia, Environment Washington, Environmental
Advocates of New York.
Environmental Investigation Agency, Environmental Justice
Leadership Forum on Climate Change, Environmental Law and
Policy Center, Environmental and Energy Study Institute,
Environmental Defense Action Fund, Georgia Interfaith Power &
Light, GreenLatinos, Health Care Without Harm, Hoosier
Interfaith Power & Light, Illinois Interfaith Power & Light,
Interfaith Power & Light, Interfaith Power & Light (DC. MD.
NoVA), Iowa Interfaith Power & Light, Iowa Chapter Physicians
for Social Responsibility.
International Forum on Globalization, KyotoUSA, League of
Conservation Voters, League of Women Voters, Maine Interfaith
Power & Light, Maine Conservation Voters, Maryland League of
Conservation Voters, Massachusetts Interfaith Power & Light,
Michigan League of Conservation Voters, Minnesota Interfaith
Power & Light, Missouri Interfaith Power & Light, Montana
Conservation Voters, Montana Environmental Information
Center, Natural Resources Defense Council.
Nebraska Interfaith Power & Light, New Jersey League of
Conservation Voters, New Mexico Interfaith Power & Light, New
Virginia Majority, New York Interfaith Power & Light, New
York League of Conservation Voters, North Carolina Interfaith
Power & Light, North Carolina Council of Churches, North
Carolina League of Conservation Voters, Ohio Interfaith Power
& Light, Oklahoma Interfaith Power & Light, Oregon League of
Conservation Voters, PDA, Tucson, PennEnvironment,
Pennsylvania Interfaith Power & Light.
Physicians for Social Responsibility, Physicians for Social
Responsibility, Arizona, Physicians for Social Responsibility
Maine Chapter, Polar Bears International, Protect Our
Winters, Public Citizen, Rachel Carson Council, Rhode Island
Interfaith Power & Light, Sierra Club, Southern Environmental
Law Center, Southern Oregon Climate Action Now, Sunshine
State Interfaith Power & Light, Tennessee Interfaith Power &
Light.
Texas Interfaith Power & Light, Texas Physicians for Social
Responsibility, The Climate Reality Project, Union of
Concerned Scientists, Utah Interfaith Power & Light, Vermont
Interfaith Power and Light, Virginia Interfaith Power &
Light, Virginia Organizing, Voces Verdes, Voice for Progress,
WE ACT for Environmental Justice, Western Organization of
Resource Councils, Wisconsin Environment, Wisconsin
Interfaith Power & Light, Wisconsin League of Conservation
Voters, World Wildlife Fund.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter that was
sent to every Member of Congress who is opposed to these two bills. It
is signed by the Allergy and Asthma Network, the American Lung
Association, the American Public Health Association, the Children's
Environmental Health Network, the Trust for America's Health, the
National Association of Hispanic Nurses, the Asthma and Allergy
Foundation of America, and the Health Care Without Harm.
Again, they are all opposed to the legislation that we are bringing
before the House today.
November 16, 2015.
Dear Representative: The undersigned public health and
medical organizations strongly urge you to oppose
Congressional Review Act resolutions H.J. Res. 71 and 72. The
measures are excessive attacks on public health protections
from carbon pollution from power plants.
The Congressional Review Act resolutions are an extreme
tool that would permanently block the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA)'s actions to reduce dangerous carbon
pollution from power plants. These resolutions would prevent
EPA from moving forward with any substantially similar action
in the future. Carbon pollution from power plants greatly
contributes to climate change, which is widely recognized as
one of the greatest threats to public health. To protect
public health, it is vital that our nation make progress in
the fight against climate change.
As U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, MD, MBA, said during
2015 National Public Health Week, ``We know that climate
change means higher temperatures overall, and it also means
longer and hotter heat waves . . . higher temperatures can
mean worse air in cities, and more smog and more ozone. We
know that more intense wildfires will mean increased smoke in
the air. And we know that earlier springs and longer summers
mean longer allergy seasons.''
The science is clear: communities across the nation are
experiencing the health effects of climate change now.
Climate change is impacting air pollution, which can cause
asthma attacks, cardiovascular disease and premature death,
and fostering extreme weather patterns, such as heat and
severe storms, droughts, wildfires and flooding, that can
harm low-income communities disproportionately. Bold action
is needed to protect public health, which is why our
organizations support the Clean Power Plan.
EPA's action to reduce carbon pollution from power plants
will help the nation take important steps toward protecting
Americans' health from these threats. Not only does the Clean
Power Plan give states flexible tools to reduce the carbon
pollution that causes climate change, these crucial tools
will also have the co-benefit of reducing other deadly
pollutants at the same time, preventing up to 3,600 premature
deaths and 90,000 asthma attacks every year by 2030.
Please make your priority the health of your constituents
and vote NO on these Congressional Review Act resolutions,
H.J. Res. 71 and 72.
Sincerely,
Allergy and Asthma Network; American Lung Association;
American Public Health Association; American Thoracic
Society; Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America;
Children's Environmental Health Network; Health Care
Without Harm; National Association of Hispanic Nurses;
Trust for America's Health.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I close as I began, which is by reminding
my colleagues that we are at an important crossroads. We still have an
opportunity to do something about climate change.
We still have an opportunity to be on the right side of history. We
have the opportunity to do something that is good not only for all of
us but for our children, for our grandchildren, and for generations to
come.
We have an opportunity to provide some wind at the backs of the
leaders from all over the world who are gathered in Paris and who are
trying to figure out how to deal with the issue of climate change.
If we want to take advantage of that opportunity, we need to reject
the same old, same old. We need to understand that we need to
transition from our historic reliance on fossil fuels.
There is a correlation between our reliance on these forms of energy
and what we are seeing right now in our environment. It didn't begin
that way, and we didn't think we were doing harm to the environment
when we were utilizing these resources, but science, over the years,
has shown us, undeniably, the damage that has been done to our planet.
It is up to us to try to reverse this trend, not to bury our heads in
the sand, not to deny science, not to deny climate change, but to do
the right thing.
I hope that my colleagues, even some of my Republican colleagues,
will join with us in rejecting this legislation and will instead work
with this White House and will work with other world leaders to deal
with the issue of climate change
{time} 1300
We all talk about national security as being our top priority. Well,
national security is more than just the number of weapons we have in
our arsenal. It also includes the cleanliness and the purity of our
environment. It is about time we become good stewards of this planet.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and to
vote ``no'' on this backward-thinking legislation that really should
not be on the floor today.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I do feel obligated to point out that, in the absence of
the
[[Page H8663]]
Waxman-Markey bill, during this administration and the previous
administration, between 2005 and 2012, carbon emissions in this country
fell by 10 percent because of market-based activity.
That puts the United States halfway to the goal that it set for
itself in the United Nations agreement, a goal that we would reduce
carbon emissions by 20 percent in the year 2020.
We are halfway there, a 10 percent reduction. That is without Waxman-
Markey. That is without any international agreement that the President
might think he is entertaining or entering into over in Paris.
Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of three
important bills for our energy future, two resolutions disapproving of
the Environmental Protection Agency's greenhouse gas regulations and a
bill that is forward looking that will set this country on the path to
greater energy security.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts
is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 539 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts
Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
That immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
1076) to increase public safety by permitting the Attorney
General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of
firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected
dangerous terrorist. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
All points of order against provisions in the bill are
waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports
that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the
next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the
third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,
resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 2. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 1076.
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas). The question is on
ordering the previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________