[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 173 (Tuesday, December 1, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H8822-H8829]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE 
                    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 539, I call 
up 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'', and ask for its immediate consideration in the 
House.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 539, the joint 
resolution is considered read.
  The text of the joint resolution is as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 23

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress 
     disapproves the 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'' (published at 80 Fed. Reg. 64510 (October 23, 2015)), 
     and such rule shall have no force or effect.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The joint resolution shall be debatable for 
1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) and the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.


                             General Leave

  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to 
include extraneous material on S.J. Res. 23.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Today, we will debate resolutions of disapproval under the 
Congressional Review Act for the two EPA rules regulating greenhouse 
gas emissions from new and existing electric generating units.
  I might say that it is appropriate that we are debating these 
resolutions today. As we know, the President and other leaders are 
meeting in France as we speak. They are speaking in generalities; they 
are not being detailed in their plans. Yet, in America, we are becoming 
aware more each day of exactly the impact the EPA's regulations are 
having on the American people.
  I remind everyone that Congress was not a part of any of this. The 
White House did not talk to us about any of this. The clean energy plan 
comes from the White House and is being implemented by the EPA.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Mullin).
  Mr. MULLIN. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage Members to support these 
resolutions.
  In 1996, Congress passed and the President signed into law an 
important tool for ensuring our three branches of government stay true 
to the vision of our Founding Fathers that was set over 200 years ago. 
Today, we are here to use

[[Page H8823]]

this tool to rein in a President who has forgotten that the legislative 
branch makes the laws and that the executive branch enforces them.
  The final rules regarding emissions from new and existing power 
plants are a clear executive overreach. In issuing these rules, the EPA 
has acted outside the authority it was granted by Congress in the Clean 
Air Act.
  Electricity generation has always been the responsibility of States, 
but with these rules the President is threatening communities, 
businesses, and families by attempting to put the Federal Government in 
charge. These rules are unworkable, and they put the reliability of our 
electric grid at risk.
  I ask my colleagues to seriously consider the consequences of 
allowing such clear executive overreach to stand, and I urge them to 
support this resolution of disapproval.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in strong opposition to this resolution, and I oppose the 
other resolution that we will also consider this afternoon.
  Once again, Republicans are attempting to stop any action by this 
administration to reduce carbon emissions, and, once again, the 
opponents of the EPA's regulations have no constructive alternative to 
offer that would improve the environmental performance of the 
electricity sector.
  In fact, this week, the House of Representatives will not only 
consider these two unnecessary, ill-conceived resolutions, but it will 
also consider an energy bill that is dedicated to rolling back gains 
that have been made in energy efficiency, grid modernization, and 
renewable energy.
  Mr. Speaker, governments and many of the world's largest private 
sector companies are gathered in Paris this week. They are putting 
forward innovative ideas, and they are making commitments to forge a 
different energy path--one that will prevent us from further 
overheating the Earth and causing major disruptions to people's lives, 
their property, and the global economy.
  We know that climate change is harming us today through droughts, 
fires, floods, and storms, and we know that it will endanger our 
children's future if we don't act now.
  Some of the opposition to these resolutions is based on the assertion 
that they will not solve the world's carbon emissions problems or 
ensure that we will avoid increased warming and catastrophic climate 
change, but that is not true. Reducing carbon pollution from the power 
sector through the implementation of performance standards for new 
power plants and improving the overall environmental performance of our 
grid will reduce carbon emissions here in the United States.
  By making a commitment to this effort and demonstrating that reducing 
pollution is consistent with maintaining a reliable, resilient 
electricity supply, the United States exercises its leadership, giving 
assurance to other nations to follow our example.
  This resolution and its companion will block the EPA and this 
administration from taking prudent steps to reduce carbon pollution 
from one of the highest emitting sectors, the power sector.
  That is not all. The Congressional Review Act stipulates that the 
passage of a resolution to block a final rule also bars the Agency from 
issuing any rules that are substantially similar. So these resolutions 
prevent any future administration from developing similar rules to 
control carbon emissions from power plants.
  The irony is that this sector already is poised to make many of the 
changes that are contained within these EPA rules. These changes are 
being driven by a combination of factors, only one of which is Federal 
regulation. State policies, changes in the relative price of natural 
gas and coal, smart grid technologies, consumer demand, and the further 
expansion of wind and solar generation all are factors that are 
reshaping the grid and redefining relationships within the electricity 
sector.
  Instead of trying to hold back these forces, we should be helping 
States, local governments, consumers, grid operators, utilities, and 
displaced workers to make this transition easier.
  Every significant effort to improve air quality through the Clean Air 
Act regulations has met the same tired, old arguments from the GOP--
that it will cost too much, that it will jeopardize the reliability of 
our electricity system, that we don't have the technology to meet these 
new standards. Every time these dire predictions by my Republican 
colleagues are put forward, they have failed to materialize.
  We have already had delayed action on climate change, Mr. Speaker, 
for too long. The EPA's rules to set greenhouse gas emissions standards 
for new and reconstructed generating units is an essential first step 
toward a more sustainable energy future. This rule sends a strong 
signal to the market in favor of technologies that provide improved 
environmental performance.
  These EPA rules--this one and the one that will be mentioned later 
today--should move forward, and this joint resolution should be 
defeated. I urge a ``no'' vote on the resolution.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  We are taking this action today to protect the American people. The 
American people do not expect unelected bureaucrats, acting at the 
discretion and the direction of the President of the United States, to 
unilaterally adopt regulations that are questionably illegal.
  We have 23 States that are filing lawsuits on the new coal plant 
rules, and we have 27 States that have already filed lawsuits on the 
existing electric generating rules. I might add that, in the last 5 
years, this administration has spent a total of $77 billion on climate 
change.
  People ask why we have not taken action. This administration has been 
so extreme, so aggressive--and view this as the number one priority 
facing mankind--that we don't have enough money to act. Also, there are 
61 separate Federal programs under the Obama administration that 
address climate change.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. 
Brooks).

                              {time}  1445

  Mrs. BROOKS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, back in October I had the 
opportunity to attend the Indiana Industrial Energy Consumers annual 
conference in Indianapolis. There I heard from stakeholders across the 
energy supply chain about the serious economic and reliability issues 
emanating from the EPA Clean Power Plan.
  For instance, John Hughes with the Electricity Consumers Resource 
Council presented findings showing that Indiana alone stands to lose 
12,500 jobs because of these rules. This comes on top of the previous 
Obama administration regulations that have severely restricted my 
State's economic competitiveness and has dramatically increased 
electricity bills for Hoosiers.
  In fact, Indiana's electric rates have gone from the fifth lowest in 
the Nation in 2003 to the twenty-sixth lowest in 2014. When these rules 
take effect, electricity rates in my State will continue to climb to 
the tune of up to 20 percent each year.
  As a result, Hoosier manufacturers, who drive more than 30 percent of 
our economy, will be forced to shutter assembly lines and lay off 
employees simply to pay their utility bills.
  Congress needs to think about the very real consequences of this, 
even if the EPA and the Obama administration are not thinking about 
this. The EPA Clean Power Plan means lost jobs, lost economic growth, 
and higher utility costs for both individuals and businesses.
  That is why I strongly support both of the bills before us, which put 
an end to the executive overreach, protect the American ratepayer, and 
allow us to truly pursue an all-of-the-above energy strategy that will 
transform our economy and lay that strong foundation for our energy 
future.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Judy Chu).
  Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Speaker, this week something historic 
is happening. Leaders from 195 countries are meeting in Paris to 
discuss a global solution to a global problem: climate change.
  There is no denying it anymore. Climate change is real. Human 
activity is contributing to it. Without action, the results will be 
catastrophic.

[[Page H8824]]

  Yet, while the nations of the world gather in agreement and concern, 
what are the House Republicans doing? They are rejecting science and 
reversing what progress we have made.
  These disapproval resolutions effectively gut EPA's Clean Power Plan 
and carbon pollution standards for power plants. By attacking the EPA, 
Republicans are opening the smokestacks to release more of the 
dangerous emissions we know contribute to global warming. This is 
reckless.
  Not only do these resolutions ignore the warnings of the scientific 
community by reversing progress, they also block the EPA from issuing 
any standards in the future that are substantially similar. Republicans 
must accept that our country is evolving.
  In fact, many States are already running on an increasing amount of 
renewable energy, reducing energy waste, and decreasing carbon 
pollution. My own State of California has set a goal of 50 percent 
renewable energy by 2030, and others are developing their own plans to 
meet pollution reduction targets.
  Each new goal towards a cleaner environment only encourages the 
investments and innovations that will help get us there. That is a 
benefit to our economy and our world, which is why two-thirds of 
Americans support a climate change pact.
  It is time we listen to our constituents, to the vast majority of 
scientists and experts, and to the tens of thousands of world leaders, 
experts, and advocates who are seeking a path toward a sustainable 
future for our children and grandchildren.
  I oppose these resolutions and these reckless attacks on our 
environment.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I might say that no one on our side of the aisle has denied climate 
change. I think we still live in a country where we all can express our 
views and we simply disagree with the President on the urgency of the 
issue. The President has even told the world that climate change is a 
more pressing issue to mankind than terrorism.
  When we talk to people in the developing world, when we talk to 
people in Europe and around the globe, representatives come here and 
they stress to us that they are more concerned about clean water, a 
job, electricity, health, hygiene, issues like that, than they are 
about climate change.
  Even in the polls here in America, only about 5 percent of the 
American people view climate change as one of the most pressing issues 
facing mankind. So that is why we have over 180 separate groups around 
the country that support these joint resolutions to turn back what 
President Obama is doing in an extreme and unprecedented way.
  I would also just like to read that the Partnership for a Better 
Energy Future, which is a 181-member coalition, including national as 
well as State and local organizations in 36 States, writes of EPA's 
rule for new plants, which is precisely what we are discussing today: 
The EPA set a regulation so strict that the only technology that meets 
the requirement for a coal-fired power plant, carbon capture and 
sequestration is not commercially available.
  There is no technology available to meet the stringent emissions 
standard set by EPA. Yet, China, India, and every other country in the 
world can build a new coal plant if they decide to do so.
  We are not mandating that a plant be built, but we are recognizing 
the increased need for electricity in America and that it must be 
affordable and it must be abundant. For us to compete in the global 
marketplace, we simply want that option, and that is what this is 
about.
  I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Carter).
  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S.J. 
Res. 23, which disapproves of the EPA's carbon standard rules for power 
plants.
  Our country is blessed with an abundance of energy sources. Reliable, 
affordable, and secured energy is critical to our national security, 
and a diverse energy portfolio adds to our strength.
  While new technologies have allowed us to tap into sustainable 
sources of energy, we lack the infrastructure to use that energy 
nationwide. Clean coal, natural gas, and nuclear produce the bulk of 
America's energy for a reason. They are affordable, reliable, and the 
most available.
  The carbon capture and storage technologies mandated by this rule are 
not commercially viable. Make no mistake. The EPA is seeking to ban the 
construction of any new fossil fuel power plants and severely limit the 
production of the others. With its companion rule on greenhouse gases, 
the EPA will simultaneously force the closure of many existing power 
plants.
  Until alternative sources of energy are affordable and available from 
coast to coast, we must ensure that Americans can continue to 
affordably light and heat their homes. Under this rule, we will be 
unable to achieve this.
  I urge my colleagues to protect families and the economy by 
supporting this bill.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just have to say, I listened to my colleague from Kentucky (Mr. 
Whitfield), who I respect a great deal. I think he is suggesting that 
somehow the Republicans on our committee or maybe the leadership in the 
House do want to address climate change.
  Every time that I have tried in the committee to bring up the issue 
of climate change, nothing has happened. We haven't had a hearing. We 
haven't had a bill. We haven't had any initiative since I have been on 
the committee, let alone served as the ranking member, in the last 
year--any initiative--that would address the issue of climate change.
  So when my colleague from Kentucky says, ``Well, we are not denying 
that this exists. We just don't think it is a priority,'' well, it is 
not only not a priority. It is not something we have addressed at all 
in any way anytime the Democrats or myself have tried to raise this 
issue.
  To suggest that it shouldn't be a priority--and maybe that is not 
what he is saying, but it sounded that way--well, I come from a 
district where we had Hurricane Sandy that devastated our district. We 
have droughts in California--we were just discussing it with my 
California colleagues who will be speaking soon--and all kinds of 
weather extremes that are causing all kinds of problems--loss of jobs, 
destruction around the country that has to be made up for later by FEMA 
and other Federal agencies that come in and spend billions of dollars 
to try to correct these problems. To suggest that this is not a 
priority I think is wrong. To suggest that somehow maybe the 
Republicans are dealing with it is simply not the case.
  Again, I know you don't particularly like the President's power plan, 
but at least he is trying to do something. I don't see the GOP 
addressing this at all.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ted Lieu).
  Mr. TED LIEU of California. Mr. Speaker, I am Congressman Ted Lieu 
from California. I rise in opposition to the Republican resolution 
opposing the Clean Power Plan.
  This is just another example of the Republican majority denying the 
urgency and severity of carbon pollution. At a time when the entire 
world is meeting in Paris to address carbon pollution, you now have the 
Republican majority doing exactly the opposite.
  Now, America is an exceptional country, the best in the world. One 
reason we got here is because we believe in science. We believe in 
facts.
  So if 9 out of 10 doctors said that your child is showing the 
symptoms of diabetes, would you ignore that and keep feeding your child 
doughnuts? No. You would go seek treatment.
  So listen to 9 out of 10 scientists that are saying carbon pollution 
is real and it is going to kill us as a species if we don't do anything 
about it.
  If you don't want to listen to those scientists, listen to some of 
the most conservative companies and organizations in America. Listen to 
ExxonMobil today. They say carbon pollution is real, it is being caused 
by humankind, and they support putting a price on carbon emissions.
  Listen to the U.S. military. I served in Active Duty, and I am still 
in the Reserves. I am very proud of our military. They take the world 
as it is, not as they think it should be, not as they hope it will be, 
but as it is. They rely on facts and science.
  They are telling us carbon pollution is a national security threat 
and it is

[[Page H8825]]

going to flood our bases, it is going to cause more extreme weather 
events, and it is going to make it much worse for humanity if we don't 
do something about it.
  At the end of the day, America is going to lead and the history books 
are going to say we led the way in saving humanity and dealing with 
carbon pollution or there will be no history books.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I wish President Obama 
took the threat of radical Islamic jihadists as seriously as he takes 
the pseudo science behind the manmade climate change threat.
  Folks, these EPA rules affect jobs and they affect the amount of 
money in the pockets of moms and dads all across this great country. 
Now, transportation fuel costs are down for moms and dads, but the 
power to heat and cool their homes, the power to run the engines of the 
economy--the cost of that power has gone up because of the EPA 
regulations and rule writing that we have seen.
  What does that mean? Well, wholesale electricity prices in South 
Carolina will spike as high as 13.9 percent. Households will pay as 
much as $84.19 more a year. Industrial customers will pay as much as 
$40,200 more a year just in South Carolina. It will cause 11,700 
manufacturing jobs to be impacted.
  Since 2012, 27 coal mining companies with core operations in West 
Virginia have filed for bankruptcy protection. But you know what? The 
TPP trade deal will allow West Virginia coal and Wyoming coal to be 
shipped to China to be burned. Now, where is the hypocrisy in that?
  Let me tell you this: We rely on 24/7, always on, baseload power to 
run the engines of our society to heat and cool our homes. We can't do 
that with intermittent solar and wind. You can do that with nuclear, 
hydro, and fossil-fuel-fired power plants.
  Think about the morality of 24/7 baseload power. That means the 
incubators in the hospitals are there to provide the incubation for the 
preemie children. That means that you can keep food from spoiling. That 
means you can heat your homes with some sort of source that doesn't 
cause pollution inside your home like it does, say, in Latin America or 
Africa, where they are burning wood or coal.
  We have the ability through nuclear, hydro, and through fossil-fuel-
fired power plants to provide that 24/7 baseload power. You can't do it 
with regulations that continue to kill the industry. You can't do it 
with intermittent energy sources like wind and solar. These regulations 
and these rules, written because of those regulations, are killing job 
creation in this country.

                              {time}  1500

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hultgren). Without objection, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko) will control the time on behalf of 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps). She serves as a member of the Subcommittee on 
Environment and the Economy. She is an outspoken voice for defending 
the environment and calling for our sound stewardship of the 
environment.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in unwavering opposition to these 
resolutions which deny the real effects of climate change and express 
opposition to our Nation's effort to address it.
  These resolutions are particularly embarrassing because they come at 
a time when the rest of the world is coming together in Paris to 
identify solutions to climate change. There is overwhelming consensus 
around the globe that climate change is one of the most critical issues 
facing our world, not just for the environment, but for human health 
and for our local economies.
  Our climate is changing. Our actions are emitting the greenhouse 
gasses that are contributing to this problem. Climate change is 
threatening public health, people's livelihoods, and the very 
environment that we live in.
  While we should be determining a course forward to protect our 
constituents and safeguard our planet for generations to come, we are 
instead sending a signal to the rest of the world of willful negligence 
and disregard. Instead of arguing about whether the climate is 
changing, which it is, or if we are responsible, which we are, it is 
high time that we work together to determine solutions.
  The new source carbon pollution standards and the Clean Power Plan 
will not solve all of the problems associated with greenhouse gasses, 
but it is a necessary step in the right direction. In addition to 
enacting meaningful change to curb emissions from the power sector, 
which is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in this 
country, these regulations also send a signal to people across America 
and across the world that we are working to address this broader issue.
  Curbing carbon emissions from new and existing power plants in the 
country signifies that we are serious about working toward a cleaner, 
healthier future.
  In addition to providing for a healthier environment for current and 
future generations, these regulations are important for both our public 
health and our business community alike. EPA's carbon regulations will 
lead to billions of dollars of public health benefits, potentially 
averting thousands of premature deaths and tens of thousands of asthma 
attacks in children.
  The private sector has also stressed the need to take action because 
they understand the long-term costs and benefits. Businesses understand 
the economic consequences of inaction, that they are severe, and that 
we need to prepare for climate change today. They know the regulations 
are projected to create over 300,000 new clean energy jobs.
  On the central coast of California, my congressional district, we 
have seen firsthand how important the jobs associated with the clean 
energy technologies are. Renewable energy projects in my district have 
created hundreds of new jobs, and provide enough energy for over 
100,000 homes.
  Instead, here we are today, debating and voting on resolutions of 
disapproval that deny these facts and show again the willingness of the 
majority to bury its head in the sand when faced with the need for 
action on climate change.
  Just a few months ago, we all sat in this Chamber together as the 
Pope spoke of our world's most pressing challenges. In that speech, he 
reminded us that it is our moral obligation to respond to climate 
change. I couldn't agree more. We must band together to enact 
meaningful and lasting change for our people and our planet. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose these resolutions.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  One of the great things about having a debate in this body is that we 
all get to express our different views, and the world benefits when 
different views can be expressed.
  One of the reasons that we brought these resolutions to the House 
floor today is because of the climate change conference in France going 
on today. We want the world to know that there is disagreement with the 
President on this issue, not about the fact that the climate is 
changing, but about the priority that is being placed on it.
  Why should this President penalize America and put us in jeopardy 
compared to other countries of the world and require us to do more than 
other countries of the world are doing just so that he can go to France 
and claim to be the world leader on climate change?
  According to the Energy Information Administration, energy-related 
CO2 emissions in America will remain below 2005 levels 
through 2040. Our CO2 emissions today are roughly the same 
as they were 20 years ago. America does not have to take a backseat to 
anyone on addressing climate change. That is the point that we want the 
world to understand. We are doing a lot. We would like to help other 
countries do more, but why should we be penalized?
  At this time, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, you have heard the facts from the gentleman 
from Kentucky just now. What we are dealing with here on the other side 
is an ideology.

[[Page H8826]]

  Today I rise in support of the two resolutions that work to keep 
electricity affordable and reliable for Americans. S.J. Res. 23 and 
S.J. Res. 24 are a response to harmful regulations established by the 
EPA under the President's Clean Power Plan. The EPA's regulations 
implement the first-ever caps on carbon emissions, which will result in 
higher energy costs for American families, businesses, and consumers. 
Some experts have said that the Clean Power Plan could be the most 
expensive regulation ever imposed on Americans.
  Congress must protect Americans from legacy-driven agendas that 
trample the rights of our citizens, hurt our economy, and hinder job 
growth. These two resolutions work to provide protection for existing 
and future American power plants and safeguard Americans from higher 
energy costs.
  The Senate has already passed this legislation. As the people's 
House, it is imperative that we vote to protect Americans from these 
destructive regulations.
  I will continue to fight against the EPA's power grab. That is why I 
strongly support these two pieces of legislation.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for our colleague from Kentucky. 
However, when he talks about being in disagreement with the President 
of the United States, I should point out also that he is in 
disagreement with 97 percent of the scientist community that professes 
that we need to do something tremendously strong in response to climate 
change.
  In regard to our role in this whole arena, putting ourselves at a 
competitive disadvantage, one of the responsibilities that befalls the 
leading nation like the United States is that, in fact, we must be that 
inspiration that inspires the international community. We have been 
able to bring some 150 countries to the fold to speak to their efforts 
of climate change, and we have inspired efforts from major nations like 
that of China, Brazil, and Mexico so as to begin that process.
  When I met in my office with representatives from the EU--I think 
there were 13 nations represented--they all wanted to know where the 
giant was on this issue. The world is looking to the United States for 
its leadership, and that is a role that we should not take lightly, and 
it is one that we should move forward with in bold fashion.
  With that being said, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McNerney), who has been an outstanding voice on the 
Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose S.J. Res. 23 and S.J. 
Res. 24.
  Frankly, this effort to deny climate change reminds me of the 50-plus 
votes we have taken to try to eliminate the Affordable Care Act.
  As a global leader, we must reduce carbon emissions. To simply ignore 
our responsibility is misguided and will harm generations to come. We 
can't solve climate change by ourselves, but we must lead and be part 
of a larger effort.
  I know that fossil fuels--and in particular, liquid fuels--will be 
needed in the years ahead, but we can still move toward a more 
efficient and sustainable energy system.
  For example, I have actually had coal plants in my region shut down, 
shift to biomass, and become very successful while also benefiting the 
climate. I would also note that California is again leading the world 
in efforts to promote cleaner energy with a 50 percent renewable energy 
goal by 2050.
  I represent part of the Central Valley, which has some of the worst 
air quality in the Nation. While this comes from a variety of sources, 
it impacts everyone. In an area that is already hurt economically, 
dirty air affects school- and workdays and disproportionately hurts 
children and other adults. This makes me more determined than ever to 
develop green energy.
  This vote will again show that most or all House Republicans deny the 
obvious: climate change is taking place as a result of human activity. 
I expect that many of my Republican colleagues know and believe that 
climate change is real and is a long-term threat, and yet we are voting 
on these two resolutions today.
  Lastly, one argument we hear is that the Clean Power Plan is 
administrative overreach and that it was never authorized by Congress. 
But this is exactly what the Clean Air Act does. The Supreme Court has 
ruled that carbon emissions can be regulated by the Clean Air Act.
  I urge my colleagues to support our future, reject efforts that 
increase pollution, and oppose this measure.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining 
on both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky has 16\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from New York has 14\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ratcliffe).
  Mr. RATCLIFFE. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for his leadership 
on this important issue.
  Mr. Speaker, every day Washington hits the American people with more 
regulations that hurt families, but very few will hurt these families 
more than President Obama's so-called Clean Power Plan because, 
according to the U.S. Energy Information Agency, the average 
electricity cost for a Texas household each year is $1,800, which is 
already 26 percent higher than the national average. To put this in 
perspective, almost half of all Texans spend more than 15 percent of 
their annual household budget on energy costs alone.
  To stand up for middle-income families, we have an obligation to 
fight for policies that will keep energy costs down. Unfortunately, the 
administration's new regulations do exactly the opposite, which is why 
I introduced resolutions to combat these regulations immediately after 
they were announced and garnered the support of cosponsors from 15 
different States. Americans across every corner of this country are 
impacted by this administration's overregulatory zeal, and we have got 
to do everything we can to stop it.
  The facts are clear. These regulations will shut down vital power 
plants across the country, costing thousands of hardworking Americans 
their jobs, and in the process driving up electricity costs for every 
American. To that point, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas 
anticipates that these regulations will increase retail power prices in 
Texas by up to 16 percent; and when family budgets are already 
stretched so thin, they simply can't afford this increase. In 
developing these regulations, the Obama administration once again has 
ignored everyday Americans and instead doubled down on its extreme 
ideological agenda.
  Making matters worse, the EPA itself admits that these regulations 
come at a cost of anywhere between $5.1 billion and $8.4 billion in 
year 2030 alone.
  What are the benefits of these regulations, you may ask? In exchange 
for crushing American families, losing American jobs at a cost of 
billions and billions of dollars, what profound effect will these 
regulations have on our environment?
  Well, the scientific experts estimate that these regulations would 
only reduce the global temperature by one one-hundredth of a degree 
Fahrenheit and reduce sea levels by a mere two-tenths of 1 millimeter. 
Mr. Speaker, we simply can't let the Obama administration force 
Americans to sacrifice so much when even the most optimistic of 
calculations predict that the return would be negligible at best.
  I urge my colleagues to support both pieces of legislation which are 
so critical to stopping these regulations dead in their tracks.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, there is much talk of the impact the President has on 
this issue and that it is a one-person force driving this country in a 
given direction, but a memo has been brought to my attention from 
Cassandra Carmichael, Executive Director of the National Religious 
Partnership for the Environment, and the faith-based community, which 
incorporates several faiths, who have written very strongly about their 
belief that we need to move forward with climate change action.

[[Page H8827]]

They are disappointed in the lack of foresight and leadership reflected 
in these two resolutions. They make it abundantly clear that their 
communities are on the front lines of issues like health care, disaster 
relief, refugee resettlement, and development work. These are all 
issues that are somewhat connected in the external measurements of the 
fight on climate change.
  They also talk about their beliefs that the Clean Power Plan is a 
solution that they have been advocating for over the course of many 
years, and that they believe that we can do this by assignment to the 
individual States, not imposing heavy economic pressure on some of our 
poorest neighborhoods, and that there is a way to be sound stewards of 
the environment and at the same time grow our economy.
  I believe that it is a very powerful statement that should motivate 
all of us to think twice about our actions here, that we should move 
forward in a progressive fashion. They indicate God's creation is 
sacred and that we are called on to be responsible stewards of the 
gifts of creation while protecting our vulnerable neighbors. It doesn't 
get stronger than that.
  So with that, I just think it needs to be brought into the discussion 
that it is not a one-person operation, a one-person show that is 
drawing us down this certain route of response to climate change but, 
rather, a large universe of support there that speaks to the wisdom of 
sound stewardship.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Johnson), who is a passionate voice on behalf of the environment and 
economic recovery.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose S.J. Res. 23 and 24, which 
constitute the latest salvo by my friends on the other side of the 
aisle attacking our Nation's commitment to cut carbon pollution and 
slow climate change.
  Now, I do realize that some of us really don't care whether or not 
mankind's actions contribute to climate change. Some of us really don't 
care.
  Some of us don't care to consider that 95 percent of scientists 
recognize that it is man's activities that are contributing to the 
astronomical rate of climate change that is occurring that has the 
potential to render our planet uninhabitable by human beings. You can 
laugh, you can smile, you can joke, but 95 percent of the scientists 
agree that if we continue along the same path that we are continuing 
along, it is the demise of humankind itself that is the end result.
  Now, some say you can adapt. Well, what we should be adapting to is 
the reality of the fact that we can change this. We can make things 
better for our children. That is why 195 progressive-thinking leaders 
of 195 countries represented in Paris today--right now, as we speak--
are working on this very profound issue that affects humankind.
  And what are we here in Congress doing? We are trying to scuttle the 
plans that have been made by this country to try to reduce carbon 
pollution. We are trying to scuttle it. We are using the argument that 
it is too costly to the big businesses that are already making 
billions.
  Don't you know that, regardless of the cost to the big businesses, 
they are going to transfer those costs on down to you and me? Well, I 
think the health of our babies, the health of our elderly, and our own 
health is something that most Americans are willing to pay for.
  We have got to have leadership in this Congress. We can't allow 
ourselves to put our heads in the sand and let climate change just rape 
and pillage the world. 195 world leaders say that we can't do that. 
That is what they are working on now, today, and we should be 
supporting that effort.
  Unfortunately, we are going in the wrong direction here in this 
particular body by trying to kill it. I don't know whether or not that 
is because President Obama represents this country. He has been the 
most mistreated President during my lifetime, certainly. I don't know 
whether or not it is the hatred for him that causes people to deny 
science. But whatever it is, let's get off of it. Let's do the right 
thing, and let's oppose these two resolutions.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I might say that this is really not a debate about 
science today. I have said repeatedly and most people have said, yes, 
we agree the climate is changing, but this is a debate about the 
solution and about the policies being advanced by this administration. 
That is why for both rules you have a total of 50 States and a 
multitude of other entities that have filed lawsuits--because we 
believe it is illegal. In fact, on the existing rule, which we will 
discuss in the next hour, EPA changed 30 years of its legal opinions, 
saying that they could not regulate under 111(d) the way they intend to 
do it now.
  So I have the greatest respect for every Member of this body, and 
certainly those on the Energy and Power Subcommittee and the Energy and 
Commerce Committee, but I think it is important that we be able to have 
the debate. And that is what we are doing: showing how we disagree with 
the President's policies and his solutions.
  I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Hurd), who has been involved on this issue.
  Mr. HURD of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the two 
disapproval resolutions that the House will consider today.
  Mr. Speaker, many of our bellies are still full from Thanksgiving and 
now we are thinking about what we are going to buy our loved ones and 
family for Christmas. Let me tell you what families in Texas do not 
want for Christmas, and that is higher energy bills. But that is what 
we are going to get if EPA's proposed rules for new and existing power 
plants go into effect.
  Many families in Texas are already living paycheck to paycheck. They 
are looking for ways to put a little extra aside so they can have a 
nice Christmas. But the EPA's rule for power plants will do more than 
just raise their electricity rates. Higher rates increase the cost of 
many other products and services that families need to buy.
  During this weak economic recovery, families struggling to pay bills 
or still looking for good-paying jobs simply can't afford for their 
cost of living to go up. Folks in my district have had enough of this 
kind of executive overreach by the White House. They have had enough of 
the excessive red tape that just seems to keep on coming from Federal 
bureaucracies like the EPA. They know it destroys jobs and economic 
growth; and in this case, it also puts our national security at risk. 
This new red tape by the EPA will hamper American energy security, and 
American energy security is a critical component of American national 
security.

  The EPA's plan is an unnecessary attempt to eliminate reliable and 
affordable energy. Let's help make sure our families, our veterans, and 
our senior citizens don't face higher energy bills. I encourage my 
colleagues to support S.J. Res. 23 and 24.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the policies, I believe that the many, 
many hearings on the many issues, in a way, provide for a doable, 
workable plan. But opposition to a policy or just saying ``no'' isn't 
public policy. It isn't a strong response. It isn't a substantive 
response. To just disagree with what is being offered here without 
having viable solutions, without addressing carbon emissions, without 
speaking to the nuances of greening up our power supplies and growing 
energy independence, we are failing to respond in an effective manner.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts 
(Ms. Tsongas), a very strong voice and progressive voice for the 
environment, who is strong in her beliefs about climate change.
  Ms. TSONGAS. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the misguided resolutions 
before the House that seek to block the Clean Power Plan and undermine 
United States global leadership on climate change.
  Climate change is no longer an academic question for scientists to 
ponder. It is a very real crisis that, if left untouched, will cause 
irreparable harm to current and future generations.
  Should the resolutions we are considering today become law, our 
country would be prevented from taking necessary steps to safeguard our 
future.
  The Clean Power Plan calls for a 32 percent reduction in carbon 
dioxide

[[Page H8828]]

emissions below 2005 levels by 2030 and sets individual goals for each 
State in order to meet this national standard. It is a reasonable, 
commonsense approach that gives States the flexibility to reduce carbon 
pollution with strategies that work best in their State while 
bolstering clean energy investments and economic development.
  Efforts to block the Clean Power Plan not only ignore overwhelming 
scientific consensus--we only have to turn on the radio today to hear 
it time after time, moment after moment--but they ignore the global 
consensus that we must take action to address climate change.
  Right now, leaders from over 190 countries are gathered in Paris to 
outline long-term strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and 
stave off the worst impacts of climate change. While at the summit, 
President Obama personally met with other heads of state, including the 
leaders of China and India, to reaffirm their commitment to reducing 
carbon emissions.
  America must be at the forefront and lead by example. We must embrace 
modern policies that cut emissions, increase the use of renewable 
energy, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and encourage the 
development of innovative green technologies. If we are successful, the 
economic, security, and environmental benefits to our Nation will be 
widespread, long-lasting, and significant.
  I urge my colleagues to reject these harmful resolutions. The cost of 
inaction on the critical generational challenge is simply unacceptable 
and the price of delay too high.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it raises the question once again. As I said, we have 
been very successful in America under the Clean Air Act. Our 
CO2 emissions are as low as they were 20 years ago, and they 
are projected to be below 2005 levels through 2040. We are making great 
progress.
  So why is the President committing America to being a country that 
cannot build a new coal-powered plant? We are not saying you should 
build one, but the President said he is for an all-of-the-above energy 
policy; yet he is prohibiting, through regulation, the building of a 
new coal-powered plant because the technology is not available to meet 
the emissions standards.
  You don't think the Chinese would agree to not build a coal plant, do 
you? They are providing money for Pakistan to build coal plants. They 
are providing money for India to build coal plants. And even in Europe, 
with the natural gas prices from Russia so high, they are building new 
coal plants as they close down some gas plants.
  So that is the kind of policy that we are discussing here today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), who has been focused on this issue for his 
entire congressional career.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding the time 
and for his leadership.
  I might add that, prior to being in Congress, I was focused on the 
issue for nearly 10 years as a regulator of the energy industry in 
North Dakota. I served nearly 10 years on the North Dakota Public 
Service Commission, where I regulated not only the siting of coal 
plants, the reclamation of coal mines, but the cost of electricity to 
consumers.

                              {time}  1530

  I have to address some of the comments made by the gentleman from 
Georgia. I am sure they were sincere. I am sure they were well-
intentioned.
  But to stand here, Mr. Speaker, and lecture us that we are somehow 
motivated by hatred for the President of the United States is so 
beneath the dignity of this Chamber, and I am embarrassed for him.
  Let me tell you that Barack Obama has the right to his opinion, and 
he is entitled to have it be different than mine. He perfectly has the 
right to be wrong even, if he wants to be.
  But he doesn't have the right to break the law because he couldn't 
get a law changed when he had a Democratic House and a Democratic 
Senate. And that is what we are here to talk about, the violation of 
the law, as the chairman has pointed to earlier.
  I don't even want to deal with the merits of climate change or global 
warming. I want to deal with the solution.
  We have heard today that Republicans don't have a solution. Well, let 
me tell you about my little rectangular spot in the middle of the North 
American continent, North Dakota, best known now, of course, for 
producing a whole bunch of oil.
  But long before we produced oil, we produced coal, 30 million tons a 
year, as a matter of fact. Seventy-nine percent of our electricity is 
generated by coal. We generate coal-generated electricity for many 
States in our region.
  But we also are one of the seven States that meet all ambient air 
quality standards as prescribed by the EPA. We have a grade A, perfect, 
year after year after year for our air by the American Lung 
Association. The counties that have the greatest concentration of coal-
fired power plants get an A grade.
  Our utilities have been investing hundreds of millions of dollars 
over the years in clean coal technologies and scrubbers and everything 
that we can do to make our environment cleaner.
  We live there. We love it. No bureaucrat in Washington, D.C., is 
going to love the air that we breathe in North Dakota more than those 
of us who live in North Dakota.
  We also enjoy, like other coal-producing States, some of the lowest-
priced electricity in the country.
  I also would like to point out that, long before it was cool, we were 
siting wind farms. I sited over 1,000 megawatts of wind farms when I 
was on the Commission. Now there are nearly 2,000 megawatts of 
installed wind in North Dakota.
  We don't even have a mandate. We don't need to be lectured to by 
people who don't know a thing about where we live, a thing about our 
economy. We will do the right thing because it is the right thing. We 
will do the right thing because it is good for our families.
  And, by the way, the rule that we are disapproving, the two rules we 
are disapproving, disproportionately hurt the poor and the middle 
income. Do you think it is the poor people that can afford to buy an 
Energy Star refrigerator at the end of the month? Is it the poor people 
that can afford to wrap their house in new insulation? Of course not.
  We need to pass these resolutions and reject these rules.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The whole effort to make certain that we move forward with carbon 
emission reduction and the claims that we have dropped since 2005 
levels--well, there was a drop in 2008 and 2009 because of the 
recession, a wind-down of activity, of less use of electricity. But 
then, again, we had climbed in 2012 and 2013, the last measurements on 
record.
  So we need to be real about this effort. We know that if we do 
nothing we will see drops by 2040 of only 9 percent, when efforts here 
to make certain that we can reduce that carbon emission by 80 percent 
by 2050 are a strong contrast, and the goals here are laudable and 
noble.
  I would also make mention that we have it within our power to provide 
for issues that, with technology, enable us to respond to these goals. 
We need to do that. I think we need to set the standards in a way that 
pronounce our stewardship as very noble for the environment.
  Mr. Speaker, I again encourage us to reject these resolutions. I 
think they set us back. It would nullify opportunities to policy 
standards that would require stronger response.
  We would allow for build-out that provides for additional 
construction, additional pollution that would accompany that 
opportunity that would be dangerous to our environment.
  It would nullify our efforts to address carbon pollution, so that 
this is a dangerous thing, and I think it is why the President has 
indicated that, should they come to his desk, he would veto these 
measures, and why we are having this debate today while we should be 
championing the cause in a bipartisan, bicameral way to show the world 
that we care significantly about carbon emission reduction and that we 
want to stand as a world leader. That is where we should place 
ourselves and posit ourselves in that noble dimension.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H8829]]

  

  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Tonko, who does a great job on our 
committee, and I certainly respect his views.
  I wanted to just touch previously on and reiterate why we are here 
today. The Senate has already passed both of these resolutions by a 
vote of 52-46 of disapproval of the President's clean energy plan and 
his regulation relating to new coal-fired plants.
  We wanted this on the floor today because we want to send a message 
to the climate change conference in Paris that in America there is 
serious disagreement with the extreme policies of this President.
  I would like to just point out briefly one of the reasons why we are 
so upset with this particular resolution about the emission standards 
for new coal-fired plants if one is going to be built.
  EPA went to great detail of setting an emission standard, and they 
based that standard on four plants. And guess what? None of the three 
plants in America are even in operation.
  In fact, the one in Texas, it looks like it is not going to be built 
at all. The one in California, DOE has suspended funding for it. The 
one in Mississippi has already experienced a $4.2 billion cost overrun. 
And it is close to an oil field for enhanced oil recovery to make it 
work, but it is not in operation.
  The only plant that is operating, on which EPA set this emission 
standard, is a very small project in Canada that would not have been 
built without the Canadian Government funding. And it looks like it 
will never achieve a technical readiness level that would show it is 
available for commercial demonstration.
  So here you have EPA taking this drastic step based on emissions of 
plants that really are not even in operation.
  Why should America be the only country where you cannot build a new 
coal plant because EPA has set an emission standard that commercially 
and technically is not feasible?
  That is what we are talking about here, just the policy, just the 
disagreement on the solution. I would urge our Members to support this 
resolution, and let's send a message to the White House and to those 
conferees in Paris.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, this week, world leaders are meeting in 
Paris to address the serious threat of climate change. Across the globe 
and here at home, there is broad recognition of the need to act 
decisively to curb the climate crisis that threatens our communities. 
And yet today we are considering legislation that would allow continued 
carbon pollution, jeopardizing public health and the environment.
  The President's Clean Power Plan limits carbon pollution from new and 
existing power plants for the first time ever. It is a flexible, 
meaningful plan that will help states transition to clean energy 
sources and greater efficiency. It was developed with extensive 
stakeholder outreach. And it will create jobs, reduce the toxic 
pollution that is a leading contributor to climate change, and protect 
public health.
  The resolutions on the Floor today would stop this common sense plan 
and prohibit any similar measure. And Congressional Republicans are not 
offering any plan to replace it. They continue to deny the problem of 
climate change, even in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence 
and the damaging storms, increased flooding, and drought that are 
already impacting our communities. They are ignoring the warnings from 
our Department of Defense, who call climate change a threat multiplier 
throughout the world.
  We have the opportunity to lead, to expand opportunities in 21st 
century energy, and to protect our environment for future generations. 
The world is watching. We must reject these shameful, regressive 
resolutions and act to prevent climate change.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the previous question is ordered on the joint 
resolution.
  The question is on the third reading of the joint resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the joint resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. TONKO. 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.

                          ____________________