[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 173 (Tuesday, December 1, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H8829-H8837]
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. 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'' 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. 24

       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 ``Carbon Pollution Emission 
     Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility 
     Generating Units'' (published at 80 Fed. Reg. 64662 (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 York (Mr. Tonko) 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. 24.
  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.
  Mr. Speaker, even more sweeping than EPA's new source performance 
standard for power plant greenhouse gas emissions is the rule governing 
existing sources. And that is what S.J. Res. 24 is about, and the 
impact that this rule is going to have on every existing coal plant in 
America and the impact that it could have on the electricity rates and 
the impediments that it could establish for future economic growth in 
America.
  I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Olson), who is vice chair of the Energy and Power Subcommittee.
  Mr. OLSON. I thank the chair and my good friend from Kentucky for the 
time to speak on this important resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, today is a sad day for America when our administration 
harms our country without a valid reason, and yet that is exactly what 
President Obama's EPA has done with their clean power rules.
  Without input from Congress and with only small, limited public 
meetings, EPA rammed through new rules to limit CO2. These 
rules destroy new coal power in America.
  In my home State of Texas, our grid is regulated by ERCOT, 90 
percent. They say they lose 4,000 megawatts of power, at a minimum, 
with the early retirements of coal plants because of the Clean Power 
Plan. Energy costs for customers may be up by 60 percent by 2030 due to 
the CPP.
  EPA's actions violate the words and the intent of the Clean Air Act, 
and that is why a majority of States have sued in Federal court to stop 
its implementation.
  EPA's actions have Texans scratching their heads and saying, ``What 
the heck?'' Why is EPA's CPP tougher on newer coal plants than older 
ones?

[[Page H8830]]

  


                              {time}  1545

  Newer is always cleaner than upgraded, retrofitted older plants. What 
the heck?
  This is all done in the name of climate change. Climate change has 
happened since God created our Earth. Over 66 million years ago my home 
State of Texas was under water. Texas, as an ocean, is huge climate 
change unlikely due to human campfires set at that time.
  In September 2014, a high ranking former Obama administration member, 
the under secretary for science at the Department of Education, Dr. 
Steven Koonin, wrote this in The Wall Street Journal: ``The climate has 
always changed and always will.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Texas an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, I will quote from Dr. Koonin: ``There isn't a 
useful consensus at the level of detail relevant to assess human 
influence on climate change.''
  Yet, here we are, fighting for American jobs and commonsense 
regulations while world leaders are in Paris making promises they can't 
keep. Enough of the Band-Aids from EPA.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for S.J. Res. 24 and S.J. 
Res. 23 and for American jobs.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that we are considering two 
resolutions today that are designed to prevent the Environmental 
Protection Agency from moving forward with critical regulations to 
reduce carbon emissions from existing and new power plants.
  That previous resolution that was just aired in the House and now 
this resolution should be called exactly what they are, that being an 
attack on EPA's Clean Air Act authority. These resolutions would block 
this administration or any future administration from taking meaningful 
action to curb carbon emissions from our power plants.
  We have ample evidence from more than four decades' worth of clean 
air regulation that shows that a strong economy and strong 
environmental and public health protections do indeed go hand in hand. 
So let's stop promoting this false notion that we cannot improve the 
air we breathe while simultaneously growing our economy and, yes, 
creating jobs.
  The EPA's Clean Power Plan will promote public health. The EPA 
estimates that the Clean Power Plan will reduce carbon pollution from 
the power sector by 32 percent--32 percent--below 2005 levels. There 
will also be significant reductions in sulfur dioxide and 
NOX emissions.
  This is a tremendous public health victory. It will avoid thousands 
of premature deaths and an estimated 90,000 asthma attacks in children 
in 2030 alone.
  Mr. Speaker, I understand the concerns of the individuals, families, 
and communities that may have their jobs lost or displaced due to this 
energy transition. We share those concerns.
  I agree that these people who have dedicated their lives to providing 
us with reliable power deserve a lot more than a pink slip, but we do 
these people no favors by promising job security that the economy will 
no longer deliver.
  Instead of working together to find ways to ease the transition for 
States and communities that already are challenged by the many changes 
that are happening in the electric utility sector, we are spending time 
trying to turn back the clock. It cannot be done.
  EPA is a convenient scapegoat here, but the transition that is 
occurring is driven by much more than EPA regulations. Natural gas--its 
abundance and low price--is out-competing coal within the utility 
sector. Power plants are aging.
  Even more important, the economy has changed. Many of the older 
plants are located in areas that once had far more demand for 
electricity, demand from large manufacturing plants and heavy industry. 
Those factories have closed or modernized, both resulting in far less 
electricity use.
  There are new technologies. Wind and solar generation is growing, and 
those renewable energy sources have strong, broad-based, public 
support.
  Other technologies that enable the electric grid to be smarter, more 
flexible, and more resilient are being deployed now, and more are in 
development. State policies to encourage energy efficiency and to 
diversify energy sources are also driving this transition.
  As I have said before, Mr. Speaker, was the transition from wire to 
wireless communication a war on copper? Was the transition to the 
automobile a war on horses? No, of course not.
  EPA's regulations are playing some role in driving the changes we 
see. That is true. But the Agency is doing what Congress directed it to 
do on behalf of all Americans: to act in defense of public health and 
to act in defense of our environment.
  Let's put aside the EPA scapegoating and have a real dialogue on our 
changing power sector and what can be done to support those working in 
impacted industries. Meanwhile, we are debating these resolutions as 
our negotiators are in Paris working on an international climate 
agreement.
  The bottom line is there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that 
climate change is happening and is primarily caused by human activity, 
particularly the burning of fossil fuels.
  Climate change is no longer a problem for future generations. We are 
already feeling its effects in every corner of our Nation and across 
the globe, which threaten our economic and our national security.
  The Clean Power Plan will play a significant role in the fight 
against climate change. The United States' action alone won't stop 
climate change, but action by the rest of the world without the United 
States' action also will not succeed.
  Other countries will have an excuse to delay action as long as the 
giant, the United States, does as well. This is the dynamic that has 
prevented us from action in the past. But now we have seen major 
commitments from the world's largest developed and developing nations.
  Mr. Speaker, the Clean Power Plan demonstrates United States 
leadership and is key to our effort to secure an ambitious and lasting 
international climate agreement.
  We cannot fool ourselves that the Clean Power Plan, an agreement in 
Paris, or any one action alone will solve all of our climate crises. 
But these rules will deliver substantial benefits to our society, and 
they will move us in the right direction.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject these resolutions. Let's 
work together in a meaningful strategy to address the problems that are 
emerging from the transition in our own electricity sector while 
promoting a cleaner, more sustainable Nation and growing significant 
jobs that are not yet on the radar screen.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon). He is a member of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee.
  Mr. BUCSHON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S.J. Res. 24, which 
expresses congressional disapproval under the Congressional Review Act 
of the EPA's rule on existing power plants. I also support S.J. Res. 23 
that was just debated.

  According to the EPA's own cost-benefit analysis, these regulations 
would do very little to impact global temperatures, but these 
regulations will, without a doubt, be devastating for Hoosier 
businesses and families that rely on affordable energy. Those hurt the 
most will be the poor and seniors on a fixed income.
  Mr. Speaker, advances in how we produce energy should be achieved 
through innovation, technology, and efficient business practices, not 
by unobtainable Federal Government mandates from the EPA.
  Mr. Speaker, Indiana disapproves of the EPA's attack on our State's 
economy and our State's jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this overreach by 
supporting S.J. Res. 23 and 24.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Connolly), my colleague and friend. He is the cochair of 
the SEEC Coalition in the House, the Sustainable Energy and Environment 
Coalition. He is an outstanding leader with SEEC, and he is an 
outstanding leader for his district and the Commonwealth of Virginia.

[[Page H8831]]

  

  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend from New York, who 
is the cochair of the Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition and 
does such a superlative job.
  I rise to support him in opposing this legislative effort which 
argues overreach, but what it is really all about is making sure that 
the government does not protect the public, that we live in a Darwinian 
world where you apparently take your chances, whether it is asthma, 
other respiratory illnesses, cancer, and all kinds of other ailments 
that can affect communities that suffer from this pollution. We, as a 
country, can do better. We can create jobs, not lose them.
  The arguments on the other side have always been that the Clean Air 
Act costs jobs and raises costs, neither of which are true. We have 
gotten lots of experience since 1970 with the Clean Air Act. I can tell 
you that, in my home State of Virginia, electric costs came down. They 
didn't go up. Jobs got created, not lost.
  I end, Mr. Speaker, by reminding us of what His Holiness Pope Francis 
has argued. When Pope Francis came to the White House, before he spoke 
to this body, he personally thanked the President for these rules in 
protecting clean air.
  His first encyclical is on climate change, which he believes is one 
of the most important and imperative moral issues facing mankind today. 
That is what the Pope has to say about this subject. We ought to heed 
his words and his moral warning as we debate this subject.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose the legislation and support the amendments with 
respect to the Clean Air Act.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Bost).
  Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky and my 
neighbor across the river.
  Mr. Speaker, the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan rule is a 
dagger aimed at the heart of the coal industry and affordable, 
American-made energy.
  According to recent studies, the regulation will increase electric 
costs in my home State of Illinois by 27 percent. That is an unbearable 
burden on working families, seniors, and those people who are on set 
incomes.
  On top of that, Mr. Speaker, the mining industry employs thousands of 
workers in southern Illinois and supports thousands more in union 
retirees.
  I have heard here today on this floor that it doesn't affect jobs. 
Well, tell that to the people of my district who have watched the coal 
mines close and who have watched the suffering. These people don't have 
the opportunity to keep their children working near their own homes. 
They have to move away.
  Mr. Speaker, if this regulation takes effect, the local coal mines 
that are left and coal generation plants will close down. Our priority 
must be affordable energy and American jobs.
  For this reason, I ask, I beg, and I plead: Vote for S.J. Res. 24.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Castor). She is a member of the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Power, and that reports to the greater Committee on Energy and Commerce 
that we both serve. I have witnessed her straightforward thinking and 
her very strong, passionate response on behalf of climate change.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I thank the gentleman from New York for his 
kind words and his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution that seeks to 
hamstring America's ability to combat carbon pollution and the impacts 
of the changing climate.
  In Paris today, 195 nations from around the world are meeting to 
tackle the challenges of the changing climate. I am proud to see that 
America is leading this effort.
  America's willingness to tackle the economic and environmental 
impacts of climate change is a reflection of our values. We do not 
cower in the face of difficult circumstances. That is the essence of 
the United States of America.

                              {time}  1600

  Yet that is what this Republican majority in the Congress would have 
us do--ignore the problem, pretend it doesn't exist, hope it goes away.
  Well, we cannot do that. Scientific consensus is clear: The Earth's 
climate is changing, temperatures are getting warmer, and it is the 
greenhouse gases that are the primary drivers. Over the long term, the 
consequences will be very serious and the costs will be very high, 
indeed, unless we take action.
  My neighbors back home in Florida are particularly vulnerable. 
Florida has more private property at risk from flooding linked to 
climate change than any other State, an amount that could double in the 
next 4 years.
  Already, local governments and taxpayers are being asked to pay more 
for stormwater drainage, drinking water initiatives, and beach 
renourishment. Extreme weather events will likely cause increases in 
property insurance and flood insurance.
  We just experienced, colleagues, one of the warmest Novembers on 
record in central Florida. Because of the heat, we had to run our air 
conditioners a lot longer than we are used to. We are used to turning 
them off in November, so we are paying more on our electric bills.
  For my friends in agriculture, the tomato crop was harvested earlier 
this year because of the heat, and while the yield was comparable to 
past years, the size was affected. The increase in the number of days 
with extreme heat is sure to impact other crops in Florida's economy.
  We are not alone. We are going to continue to see the impacts all 
across America. So we have a challenge before us. We cannot shirk our 
responsibility to this great country or to future generations.
  We must unleash American ingenuity to reduce carbon pollution. So 
much is already happening. Technology today helps consumers conserve 
energy and save on their electric bills. Smartphones and smart meters 
can help you control your thermostat.
  Renewable energy, such as solar and wind power, hold great promise 
and are growing by leaps and bounds. I have seen it at home, where 
local businesses like IKEA and the big beer distributorship have put 
solar panels on the roofs of their huge buildings to save on their 
electric bills.
  Roughly 20,000 megawatts of solar capacity is forecasted to come on 
line over the next 2 years, doubling the country's existing solar 
capacity.
  And industrial energy and heat that was once wasted is being turned 
into fuel.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. TONKO. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  All of these efforts are creating the jobs of tomorrow in clean 
energy, in engineering, in energy efficiency and green building.
  So, colleagues, I urge you to defeat this resolution. It is largely a 
symbolic vote. A ``yes'' vote is one to ignore the costs and 
consequences of the changing climate, but if it passes, it will also be 
another low point for this Congress, a Congress that has demonstrated 
time and again an inability to deal with the complicated and thorny 
problems that face America. I predict that many will come to regret 
that legacy.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully disagree with the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Florida who says this is a symbolic 
vote.
  We want this vote to be held because the Senate has already adopted 
this resolution. We want the House to adopt this resolution while the 
climate change conference is going on in France so that the world will 
know that in America there is a disagreement about the extreme power 
grab that this President is initiating under his clean energy plan.
  At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Johnson), who has been a real leader for Ohio in this issue and in the 
Congress.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, and I 
couldn't agree with my chairman more on his comments.
  I rise today in strong support of S.J. Res. 24, a joint resolution 
disapproving of the EPA's regulations targeting existing power plants.
  If the administration allows the Clean Power Plan to move forward, 
countless coal and coal-related jobs across the country will be 
eliminated, families and small businesses will be forced to pay higher 
electricity prices, and grid reliability will be seriously jeopardized.
  It is estimated that, to comply with the EPA's existing power plant 
regulations, energy sector expenditures

[[Page H8832]]

would increase from $220 billion to $292 billion, with retail 
electricity prices doubling in 40 States. In fact, by 2030, one study 
predicts Ohio's wholesale electricity prices will increase by 31.2 
percent due to this regulation. The regulation will force consumers to 
absorb a $64 billion cost just to replace the power plants shut down by 
the rule.
  This resolution of disapproval sends a clear message to the President 
that a majority of the Senate, the House, and America do not approve of 
higher electricity prices and an unreliable electric grid.
  At least 27 States, including Ohio, are now challenging the 
regulations in court. Ohio EPA Director Craig Butler is correct; it 
would be irresponsible for the U.S. EPA to force immediate compliance 
until the legal issues are resolved.
  America faces real challenges. ISIS and other terrorist groups are 
plotting to attack us. We have a staggering national debt that our 
children and grandchildren will be buried under if we don't address it. 
We have a Tax Code and regulatory framework that are stifling and 
strangling innovation and job creation. And our education system isn't 
keeping pace with those of our rivals.
  These are real problems. America's air and water have never been 
cleaner. For the President to continue his crusade to shut down the 
coal industry and all the jobs that go with it is shortsighted, 
foolish, and wrong.
  And it won't just be the coal miners who pay for the President's 
policy on coal, Mr. Speaker. It will be every family and small business 
who end up paying more for their electricity as a result.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support S.J. Res. 24.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott), a member of the Ways and Means Committee 
and, more important to this discussion, an outstanding, passionate 
voice concerning climate change and carbon emission.
  (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, Members of Congress, the Republican 
propaganda machine is out here pushing a false choice: You either have 
no regulations or you have no economy. That is what it is. You have to 
get rid of all the regulations, or you won't have an economy.
  Now, that simply is not true. The facts are piling up worldwide that 
we cannot continue what we are doing.
  Now, on the front page of today's Washington Post is a picture of a 
Chinese city where you can't see a guy riding a bicycle in the street. 
That is true in Delhi. That is true in Beijing. It is all over the 
world.

  And, unfortunately, climate is all over the world. We can't just have 
it clean in our neighborhood and have it awful in the rest of the 
world. We have to think about a larger issue than our own.
  I have heard the same arguments that I am hearing today when we said, 
``You got to stop smoking on the airplanes.'' Why, we heard the tobacco 
boys running in here saying, ``Oh, this is the end of the Earth. There 
will be nobody smoking tobacco.''
  And look what has happened. The air is cleaned up on planes, it is 
cleaned up in restaurants, it is cleaned up on this floor because we 
had rules and regulations.
  This is a public health problem as much as it is an economic problem. 
Since I got out of the military in 1968, 76,000 miners have died of 
black lung disease--76,000. We have appropriated in this House $45 
billion in money to those miners because of their problems.
  Our ravenous appetite for fossil fuels continues to be a real 
problem, and it is getting worse. And yet, with all the reckless bills, 
the Republicans are once again turning a blind eye to these costs. 
``They don't mean anything. We want the mine owners to have freedom to 
do whatever they want and the power companies to do whatever they want. 
We don't want anybody to tell them you have to clean it up.''
  In Seattle, we have a steel plant right in the middle of town. It is 
run by Nucor. The Nucor Steel rebar plant is right in the middle of the 
city. It has been cleaned up, and you can do it.
  But the coal boys and the power boys, they don't want to spend any 
money cleaning anything up. They don't want anybody telling them, with 
regulations, you have to reduce the amount of particulates in the air. 
So we have this problem that is going on and on and on.
  Now, as industry and the industry-bought Republicans fight tooth and 
nail against any effort to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, they are 
not just condemning future generations to a world battered by 
increasing extreme and erratic weather patterns--we are seeing them all 
over the world.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. TONKO. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. They are really betraying a generation of Americans 
who are already reeling from the impact of all of this. Coal miners and 
the communities they live in are bearing the brunt of this 
irresponsible action by the coal owners.
  We had the same thing in Washington State with the forests. People 
said, ``You have to keep cutting trees. Cut every tree you can see that 
is standing anywhere.'' And we said, ``If you do that, you destroy the 
environment.'' So we stopped, and we helped the loggers find another 
way to make a living, and they are doing just fine.
  Now, if we keep this up and keep resisting and keep exposing the 
American public, both in the mines and in the cities, to this kind of 
environment, we are going to pay for it.
  It is like that FRAM commercial when I was a kid. The FRAM commercial 
was you either clean your air filter on your car now or you are going 
to pay me later by having to have the motor redone.
  That is what this is about. We are talking about a President who 
says, let's put some new FRAM filters in here and see if we can't cut 
down the pollution and save both the people and the economy.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the distinguished majority whip.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Kentucky 
for yielding and for bringing this legislation to the floor.
  I rise in strong support of S.J. Res. 24.
  Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about is rejecting this radical plan 
by President Obama's EPA that is going to actually impact every power 
plant in this country.
  The President has a war on coal. He declared a war on coal years ago, 
and we are seeing the results of it. The results of it here in America 
are thousands of good jobs lost, thousands of middle class families 
that are now unemployed and trying to fight to get back in the middle 
class. And even more than that, Mr. Speaker, what you see is millions 
of people across this country paying more for electricity costs because 
of these regulations.
  So what is President Obama's answer? It is to go to Paris and say 
that the biggest threat to national security is global warming. For 
goodness' sake, doesn't he see what is going on across the world?
  We are here focusing on national security, Mr. Speaker. We are also 
focusing on energy security, and we are standing up against a radical 
regulation that is going to increase costs on the most needy in this 
country.
  When you look at the impact, this proposal by President Obama's EPA 
would have a $29-billion-per-year cost on middle class families. The 
people that are going to be hit the hardest are low-income families, 
Mr. Speaker. In Louisiana alone, nearly 1 million middle-and low-income 
families will be hit by this radical regulation.
  At Christmas season, I think families would much rather be spending 
their hard-earned dollars going and buying Christmas presents for their 
families instead of seeing a 13-percent increase in their utility bills 
for a regulation that is not going to do anything to clean the air.
  We are already seeing a reduction in carbon emissions because of the 
American innovation. When some of these European countries signed Kyoto 
and some of these other accords that are wrecking their economies, we 
didn't do it. Because we are actually doing better than them without 
signing an accord because we used great American innovation.

[[Page H8833]]

  And, instead, the President wants to come behind and bring a 
regulation that is going to strangle small businesses, it is going to 
strangle families, and it is going to increase electricity costs on 
those that can least afford to pay it.
  Again, let them keep the money in their own pockets. Let's innovate, 
let's create jobs in this economy, not use radical regulations to 
strangle our economy and our middle class. Let's pass this resolution.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance 
of my time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), our 
distinguished ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, who 
has led a fight for carbon emission and climate change on behalf of the 
Democrats in the House, and that he may control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleague Congressman McDermott pointed to this 
picture in today's edition of The Washington Post. This is during the 
daylight. It is outside. It is in China.
  I have been over there about four times, and I can relate to this 
picture in case nobody has been over there. Anybody who has been over 
there knows how the environment, the air quality, and people's health 
are impacted by the lack of regulations that have existed over in 
China. They have an acute air pollution problem.
  The fact is we don't have air pollution like that here in America 
because we have had regulations promulgated by agencies like the EPA, 
particularly the EPA, that have resulted in, yes, some increased costs 
to Americans, but the result of that cost is air quality that does not 
look like this.
  This is worth paying for, and the people will continue to pay. We 
will continue to pay. I mean, life is not free. It is true, though, 
that, with companies making so much money these days due to the 
misbalance in the economy, people are being squeezed.
  I hate to ask people to pay more, but I myself cannot live just based 
on the price that businesses have to pay to make sure that they are not 
polluting our environment. They should pay, and we have to pay our fair 
share, too.
  The question is: Are we going to be able to save our planet from 
countries that don't have regulations?
  We are going in the opposite direction here. We are talking about 
doing away with the EPA. Why is it that the first thing my friends on 
the other side of the aisle and all of their Presidential candidates 
talk about is getting rid of the EPA?
  There is a reason for that. The reason is that they want to protect 
the ability of polluters to just pollute at will and to continue to 
make all of the money at the expense of people's health, with our 
paying them exorbitant amounts for the energy that they are creating.
  When are we going to do something about this? If not now, then when? 
If it is not America that is leading, then who?
  They talk about President Obama going to Paris. There are 185 nations 
being represented in Paris that are working on this problem, which is a 
profound problem not just for America, but for the world. We all live 
in this same ship together, and we have got to take care of it.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I will reiterate and make sure that everyone understands that S.J. 
Res. 24 does not eliminate the EPA. It refers only to the President's 
existing coal plant rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Womack), who has been very involved in this issue in his career in 
Congress.
  Mr. WOMACK. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky for his 
leadership on the issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S.J. Res. 24 and to echo the 
sentiments of my colleagues.
  There is no question that we are all searching for a brighter future 
for generations to come. We disagree, however, on how to get there and, 
in this case, on the effects that our decisions could have on the 
environment and on the American family in the process.
  Frankly, the EPA's Clean Power Plan will result in little to no 
environmental benefit at the expense of thousands of jobs and countless 
dollars and hours spent on compliance, all for the sake of an 
unrelenting government agency's agenda and the desired environmental 
legacy of this administration. It is as simple as that.
  Not only will the Clean Power Plan fail to achieve the results 
intended, but the administration's very authority to implement it is 
questionable at best. The letter of the law itself denies the EPA this 
authority to regulate power plants under section 111(d), something 
specifically cited under section 112. Twenty-seven States' attorneys 
general, including our very own Leslie Rutledge in Arkansas, agree and 
have filed suit in response.
  The Constitution clearly states that legislative powers are vested in 
the Congress. The Clean Power Plan is a clear attempt to take 
policymaking out of the hands of Congress. That is unacceptable. 
President Obama's never-ending regulatory overreach has to be stopped.
  If the EPA will not halt, Congress must act to prevent this egregious 
power grab. This resolution will stop the EPA in its tracks and return 
the power to where it rightfully exists. Maybe then we can all get back 
to this Nation's historic, all-of-the-above energy policy.
  Mr. Speaker, if we want to leave our successors a better future, 
supporting the two resolutions that have been debated here on the floor 
today is a really good first step.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time that remains 
on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey has 10\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Kentucky has 16\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Weber).
  Mr. WEBER of Texas. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of both joint 
resolutions, which will block the Obama administration's so-called 
Clean Power Plan, a regulation, I will add, that was never authorized 
by Congress, that will hurt our economy, lower our standard of living, 
and have absolutely no impact on the climate.
  Mr. Speaker, I often say the things that make America great are the 
things that America makes. Now, how do we do that? We do that with an 
affordable, dependable, reliable energy supply.
  According to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, which 
operates my State's electric grid, energy costs would increase 
protections by up to 16 percent due to this Clean Power Plan. This will 
have a disproportionate impact on the poor and on those on fixed 
incomes. Sadly, most of those folks don't even see it coming.
  According to testimony we heard today, Mr. Speaker, in the Science, 
Space, and Technology Committee, the Clean Power Plan will reduce 
global temperatures by just .023 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2100.
  Furthermore, the EPA's claimed public health benefits from this 
regulation are due solely to reductions in air pollutants that are 
already regulated by the Agency under existing standards. The reduction 
of carbon dioxide on its own has no public health benefits.
  I mentioned that the things that make America great are the way that 
we have a reliable, affordable power supply. I guess we could say that 
the EPA stands for an ``energy and power assault.''
  Mr. Speaker, the facts are clear. This regulation will hurt our 
economy, and it will have none of the stated benefits the 
administration claims. I often say that the EPA seems to stand for 
``eventually paralyzing America.''
  We must adopt these resolutions of disapproval and hold this 
administration accountable for its regulatory assault on our economy 
and on our low-income families. That is how I see it here in America.

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H8834]]

  I have heard my Republican colleagues say over and over again that 
the President's Clean Power Plan won't have any impact on air quality 
and that it won't do anything to improve the environment. Nothing could 
be further from the truth.
  The rule that we are discussing in this joint resolution and that the 
joint resolution would seek to disapprove establishes State-by-State 
targets for lowering carbon emissions. When it is implemented, the rule 
will reduce emissions from the power sector by 32 percent over the next 
15 years as compared to emissions in 2005.
  The final rule has public health and other benefits of up to $54 
billion per year by 2030, and this includes thousands of fewer 
premature deaths from air pollution and tens of thousands of fewer 
childhood asthma attacks each year--emphasizing again, thousands of 
fewer premature deaths from air pollution and tens of thousands of 
fewer childhood asthma attacks each year.
  I keep hearing from my GOP colleagues about the costs. What are the 
costs to society of air pollution and of people suffering from asthma 
and of premature deaths and of hospitalizations and of all of the 
costs? None of these things are calculated by the Republicans in their 
speeches. They just assume that somehow none of this matters.
  Some of my Democratic colleagues have said over and over again that 
this is sort of a wasted debate because we know that the President has 
said he is going to veto the bill and that there wouldn't be enough 
votes in the House or in the Senate to overcome the President's veto.
  The theme that you are getting from the Republicans is somehow a 
clean environment and a good economy don't go together. In fact, the 
opposite is true.
  The fact of the matter is that, ever since the Clean Air Act was 
implemented years ago, we have seen reductions in air pollution. We 
have seen people's lives saved. We have seen fewer people suffer from 
asthma attacks and the other consequences of pollution. At the same 
time, the economy has improved.
  In the Statement of Administration Policy, in which the President 
says that he will veto this resolution, he specifically says that, 
since it was enacted in 1970 and amended in 1977 and 1990, each time 
with strong bipartisan support, the Clean Air Act has improved the 
Nation's air quality and has 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 protections go hand 
in hand.
  I just keep hearing these negative comments from the other side of 
the aisle. The fact of the matter is, when you reduce air pollution, 
you eliminate the consequences of people having bad health, of dying, 
of getting sick.
  At the same time, the economy has improved because we have come up 
with alternatives to the awful pollution that has resulted which this 
Clean Power Plan is designed to thwart.
  Again, I keep hearing my colleagues saying all of these things, but 
the fact of the matter is you can have clean air, you can have a good 
environment, and you can have a good economy and grow jobs. That is 
exactly what this rule that the President has put forward is designed 
to achieve.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).
  Mr. YOHO. I thank my good friend from Kentucky for allowing me to 
speak.
  Mr. Speaker, we are as concerned about our environment and jobs and 
the economy as anybody else is, and there was a point in time when we 
needed this. We saw those pictures of China with the red glow and where 
you couldn't see the bicycle rider. China has got a problem, and they 
need to address that.
  We have addressed that in this country, but it gets to a point at 
which you cross a line and you can't squeeze any more out of the rock. 
Back 40 years ago the mercury coming out of the smokestacks of the 
coal-fired power plants was about 50 pounds of mercury a year. Now it 
is less than 2 pounds of mercury a year. So how much more can you 
increase that?
  Mr. Speaker, this administration has proven that it is no friend to 
the hardworking American families across our country or to the power-
producing companies that supply power to all Americans.
  Instead, this administration is placing added requirements on our 
Nation's energy producers, requirements that will increase costs to all 
Americans, affecting those most who can least afford it. It will 
increase costs, it will decrease the grid's reliability, and it will 
jeopardize our national security.
  As we speak, nations across the world are meeting in Paris to discuss 
further restrictions on energy producers. As Americans, we do not bow 
to foreign pressure or influence. America needs to do what is best for 
America, especially when it is a foreign country that is putting out 
more than 50 percent of the carbon emitted into the atmosphere.
  Instead of limiting our energy production, which, again, hits 
hardworking Americans especially at the lower economic scales, why 
don't we use all of the resources that America has been blessed with 
and take a commonsense approach in making our economy stronger and more 
competitive rather than in crippling it?

                              {time}  1630

  The issue is near and dear to my heart as a Member from Florida who 
represents five co-ops in my district, and it is what we see.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. YOHO. The EPA's own report says that their new emissions 
standards will not reduce the CO2 emissions or improve air 
quality or human health, but they are going ahead with it anyway to the 
detriment of American manufacturing jobs and costs to the American 
taxpayers.
  I stand in strong support of S.J. Res. 24.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Again, I listened to the previous speaker. House Republicans keep 
telling us that greenhouse gas emissions are falling in the United 
States. The previous speaker suggested that the United States doesn't 
need to do much more about climate change. That couldn't be more wrong.
  U.S. greenhouse gas emissions did fall in 2008 and 2009 during the 
economic recession. Since that time, our overall emissions have grown. 
Cumulatively, U.S. emissions grew, not fell, in 2012 and 2013, the two 
most recent years for which data is available.
  What matters really is whether U.S. emissions are on track to decline 
in the future by the amount needed to prevent dangerous climate change. 
Scientists say we need to reduce carbon pollution by 80 percent by 2050 
to avoid catastrophic climate change. The EPA already predicts that, 
without any new policies to control carbon pollution, policies like the 
Clean Power Plan, the U.S. will only see a 2 percent drop in 
CO2 emissions by 2040 compared to 2005 levels.
  So this data highlights the importance of the Clean Power Plan and 
the Obama administration's overall push to cut greenhouse gas 
emissions. To suggest the United States doesn't need to do any more, 
that is just not the case. We need to do a lot more, and that is what 
the Clean Power Plan is designed to do.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), a member of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S.J. Res. 23 and 24, 
resolutions that would protect my constituents from egregious EPA 
overreach. This burdensome regulation is projected to raise electric 
rates in Florida annually between 11 and 15 percent for over 10 years 
while providing virtually no environmental benefits.
  The regulations for existing power plants, commonly called the Clean 
Power Plan, could have disastrous consequences for the safety, 
affordability, and reliability of my constituents' electricity. In my 
district, there are over 200,000 residents who get their

[[Page H8835]]

electricity from rural electric cooperatives, utilities formed during 
the Great Depression to serve rural, traditionally underserved areas 
with electricity.
  If the Clean Power Plan continues without serious alterations, it has 
the potential to negatively affect these underserved areas the most. 
The Clean Power Plan could close down power plants in rural areas that 
provide jobs and economic activity.
  In Florida, the Seminole Electric Cooperative operates two power 
plants whose baseload generating units do not meet the emission rate 
requirements. Their Seminole generating station employs over 300 
individuals. If the EPA forces the plant to close prematurely, these 
jobs are at risk, and rural electric cooperative members, like my 
constituents, will still have to pay for the closed plant in their 
rates through 2042 while also paying for a new electricity source.
  The Congressional Review Act was created for a reason: to give this 
body the authority to check the executive branch when it oversteps its 
bounds and enacts policy against the will of the people.
  I urge my colleagues to support these resolutions, both of them, to 
protect my constituents from needless rate increases and to protect the 
powers of this institution.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. May I inquire as to the time remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky has 10 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from New Jersey has 5\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Carter).
  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S.J. 
Res. 24, which expresses Congress' disapproval of the EPA's carbon 
emission rule for existing power plants. The administration's 
unprecedented rule would inhibit our ability to produce affordable and 
reliable electricity.
  A robust energy supply is essential to national security, public 
health, and the economy, yet the administration continues to wage war 
on the source of 85 percent of America's energy. Until our energy 
infrastructure can support widespread use of alternate energy sources, 
we cannot arbitrarily force the closure of plants that are keeping 
lights on for millions of Americans.
  Implementing this rule would result in the loss of over 125,000 jobs, 
as well as significantly higher electric bills in 48 States. Forty of 
these States would see double-digit electricity price increases.
  Our Nation is still in a period of economic recovery. Low- and 
middle-income American families already spend 17 percent of their 
household budget on electric bills. These families cannot afford to 
have another costly mandate forced upon them.
  Our economy cannot recover, much less compete on a global level, with 
this many jobs lost. This resolution would prevent this rule from 
having any effect and would prohibit the EPA from reissuing this rule 
in a similar form.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill so we can assure Americans 
are not disadvantaged by another costly regulation.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In closing, I just want to comment on two issues that keep coming up 
on the Republican side. One is this notion, which I think the GOP Whip 
Scalise talked about, of the President's war on coal. Nothing could be 
further from the truth.
  I agree that the transition away from coal is contributing to job 
losses in the coal industry, but setting aside these rules will not 
alter this trend. There are too many other changes occurring in the 
power sector that are impacting these workers.
  Technologies--including distributed generation, smart grid, energy 
storage, energy efficiency, microgrids, and combined heat and power 
systems--are maturing and being incorporated at a faster pace. In some 
areas, they call into question the old grid model that was dominated by 
large, centralized generation.
  Concern for these displaced energy workers should be motivating us to 
do something to help these people and their communities to transition 
to other good-paying jobs in new industries. Setting aside this rule is 
not going to replace the job security that they had in the past.
  Instead of wasting time trying to hold back progress and ignore 
climate change, we should be working together to address this 
challenge. This rule moves us forward, and it represents our Nation's 
commitment to addressing a serious global problem that we helped to 
create.
  I constantly hear this about job losses. The fact is that job losses 
are occurring regardless of anything that the Clean Power Plan would 
do. Instead of saying job losses, the Republicans should be thinking 
about ways of trying to help these workers.
  The other thing I would mention is I kept hearing from the other side 
this whole notion that electricity rates, prices, and bills are going 
to go up.
  I include in the Record a letter from Public Citizen and a number of 
other consumers groups.

         Public Citizen--Center for Accessible Technology--
           Citizens Action Coalition--Citizens Coalition--
           Consumers Union--Energy Coordinating Agency of 
           Philadelphia--Friendship Foundation--Greenlining 
           Institute--Low-Income Energy Affordability Network--
           National Consumer Law Center--NW Energy Coalition--
           Nuclear Information and Resource Service--Ohio Partners 
           for Affordable Energy--Public Utility Law Project of 
           New York--TURN The Utility Reform Network--Vermont 
           Energy Investment Corporation--Virginia Citizens 
           Consumer Council--WA State Community Action 
           Partnership--A World Institute for a Sustainable 
           Humanity (A W.I.S.H),
                                                November 24, 2015.
     RE: Consumer Groups Oppose S.J. Res. 23 and S.J. Res. 24.
       Dear Representative: We urge you to oppose S.J. Res. 23 and 
     S.J. Res. 24. These resolutions would effectively repeal the 
     EPA Clean Power Plan, which curbs carbon pollution from power 
     plants. Opponents of the Clean Power Plan often argue that 
     they are protecting consumers, but they are mistaken. The 
     Clean Power Plan is good for consumers because it will 
     mitigate climate change and can lower household electricity 
     costs.
       The Clean Power Plan will benefit consumers. Climate change 
     poses a severe threat to American consumers and in particular 
     to vulnerable populations. A few of the most salient risks 
     include: higher taxes and market prices to cover the costs of 
     widespread damage to property and infrastructure from extreme 
     weather; diminished quality and higher prices for food and 
     water, heightening food insecurity for America's most 
     vulnerable populations; and increased illness and disease 
     from extreme heat events, reduced air quality, increased 
     food-borne, water-borne, and insect-borne pathogens.
       By curbing carbon pollution, the Clean Power Plan will 
     benefit consumers by mitigating these harms.
       The Clean Power Plan should lower consumer electricity 
     bills. The Clean Power Plan is likely to lower consumer 
     costs, not raise them, because it will spur improvements in 
     energy efficiency. Although electricity prices may rise 
     modestly under the Plan, consumers will use less electricity. 
     This should result in lower bills overall. The EPA projects 
     that the rule will lower consumer bills by 7.0 to 7.7 percent 
     by 2030. A Public Citizen analysis of the proposed rule found 
     that the EPA's projection of bill reductions was conservative 
     because it overestimated the cost of efficiency programs and 
     underestimated how much progress the states can make on 
     efficiency. These points remain valid with respect to the 
     final rule, for which the EPA's analysis is similar. Consumer 
     costs are likely to decline by more than the agency projects.
       We strongly encourage members to support the Clean Power 
     Plan and to oppose the resolutions disapproving it. Thank you 
     for considering our views, and please feel free to contact 
     David Arkush for further information at [email protected] 
     or (202) 454-5132.
           Sincerely,
         David Arkush, Managing Director; Public Citizen's Climate 
           Program; Dmitri Belser, Executive Director; Center for 
           Accessible Technology; Kerwin Olson, Executive 
           Director; Citizens Action Coalition; Joseph Patrick 
           Meissner, Legal Counsel; Citizens Coalition; Friendship

[[Page H8836]]

           Foundation; Shannon Baker-Branstetter, Policy Counsel, 
           Energy and Environment; Consumers Union; Liz Robinson, 
           Executive Director; Energy Coordinating Agency of 
           Philadelphia; Stephanie Chen, Energy and 
           Telecommunications Policy Director; The Greenlining 
           Institute; Elliott Jacobson, Chair; Low-Income Energy 
           Affordability Network; Charlie Harak, Attorney; 
           National Consumer Law Center, on behalf of its low-
           income clients; Michael Mariotte, President; Nuclear 
           Information and Resource Service; Wendy Gerlitz, Policy 
           Director; NW Energy Coalition; David C. Rinebolt, 
           Executive Director and Counsel; Ohio Partners for 
           Affordable Energy; Richard A. Berkley, Esq., Executive 
           Director; Public Utility Law Project of New York; Mark 
           W. Toney, Ph.D., Executive Director; TURN--The Utility 
           Reform Network; Beth Sachs, Founder; Vermont Energy 
           Investment Corporation; Irene E. Leech, President; 
           Virginia Citizens Consumer Council; Merritt Mount, 
           Executive Director; WA State Community Action 
           Partnership; Michael Karp, President & CEO; A World 
           Institute for a Sustainable Humanity (A W.I.S.H).
  Mr. PALLONE. I would like to just read some sections from the letter. 
The letter is from Public Citizen and a number of other consumers 
groups.
  They say in the letter that ``the Clean Power Plan will benefit 
consumers. Climate change poses a severe threat to American consumers 
and in particular to vulnerable populations . . . The Clean Power Plan 
should lower consumer electricity bills. The Clean Power Plan is likely 
to lower consumer costs, not raise them, because it will spur 
improvements in energy efficiency. Although electricity prices may rise 
modestly under the Plan, consumers will use less electricity. This 
should result in lower bills overall. The EPA projects that the rule 
will lower consumer bills by 7.0 to 7.7 percent by 2030. A Public 
Citizen analysis of the proposed rule found that the EPA's projection 
of bill reductions was conservative because it overestimated the cost 
of efficiency programs and underestimated how much progress the states 
can make on efficiency. These points remain valid with respect to the 
final rule, for which the EPA's analysis is similar. Consumers costs 
are likely to decline by more than the agency projects.''
  Again, we keep hearing from the other side of the aisle, oh, 
electricity bills are going to go up. They are not. They are going to 
go down. We keep hearing we are going to lose jobs. Well, a lot of 
those jobs are going to be lost anyway because of the change in the 
types of generation of electricity. We should be thinking of ways to 
try to deal with that rather than saying that somehow we are going to 
stop it, because we are not going to be able to.
  I also want to say that I heard the national security argument. We 
had, in the Energy and Commerce Committee, a minority hearing a couple 
of months ago at Annapolis. One of the reasons we went there is we know 
that our military is seriously concerned about the impacts of climate 
change and sea level rise. When we were there, the superintendent of 
the Naval Academy was talking about hundreds of millions of dollars 
that were being spent just at Annapolis to deal with sea level rise at 
the academy and went on to talk about the impact of climate change on 
naval operations and so many other things.
  Again, I don't want to emphasize the impact on our national security, 
but it is there. To suggest that somehow there is no impact is simply 
not true. Climate change is very much in the minds of the admirals and 
the generals at the Pentagon. They are very worried about the impact 
and what it is going to mean in terms of our national security and what 
we have to do to address those concerns over the next few years.
  The main thing I wanted to stress, Mr. Speaker, if I could, is that 
this rule that the Republicans are trying to get rid of provides States 
with a lot of flexibility to find the best path forward to meet their 
emission reduction goals. In fact, many States are already implementing 
policies that are consistent with these regulations.
  The fact of the matter is that the EPA spent several years talking to 
States, talking to stakeholders, and talking to consumers. They have 
not put together some kind of straightjacket here that says that the 
States have to implement these reductions in carbon emissions in a 
certain way. They are giving States a tremendous amount of flexibility. 
They had a lot of public hearings. They had millions of people who 
commented on the rule.
  Somehow, when you listen to my colleagues here today, they suggest 
that this rule came out of nowhere without considering all of the 
economic impacts, without considering the costs. None of that is true. 
In fact, there were a lot of discussions about the costs and about the 
economic impact.
  The bottom line is that there is every reason to believe that this 
rule will improve the public health, will improve the lives of 
Americans in terms of the negative impact that air pollution has on 
their health, and, in the long run, will improve the economy and lower 
costs for the consumer.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I certainly want to thank Mr. Pallone and the great job he does as 
ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. I am delighted 
that we have the opportunity to come to the House floor to debate 
things like S.J. Res. 24.
  The Congressional Review Act is an instrument that is available to 
Congress to try to stop the President when we believe that the 
President has exceeded his legal authority, and that is precisely why 
we are here today on S.J. Res. 23 as well as S.J. Res. 24. We believe 
the President has exceeded his legal authority.
  Now, the President in 2013 went to Georgetown University and gave a 
speech on climate change, and he set out his clean energy plan. I might 
say that he never consulted with Congress. He never talked to Congress. 
He never asked for any input from Congress on this issue. That is his 
prerogative. But the EPA took him at his word, and then they started 
the process of adopting these final regulations.

                              {time}  1645

  We have already talked about the regulation relating to new coal 
power plants so that America finds itself to be one of the only 
countries in the world today where you cannot build a new plant.
  But right now we are talking about the regulation on existing plants. 
The reason we have such concern about it is that, first of all, EPA's 
own legal team, their lawyers, reversed 20 years of legal opinion when 
they said that they could regulate under 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. 
Prior to that, they had always made the decision that, on this type of 
scale, they could not do it under 111(d).
  I might also add that Professor Larry Tribe of Harvard Law School, 
who taught Barack Obama while Barack Obama was a student at Harvard, 
came to Congress and testified on this clean energy plan that, in his 
view, it was like tearing up the Constitution. In other words, the 
President exceeded his legal authority. In other words, it was a power 
grab.
  Now, some people say, well, the end justifies the means. There are a 
lot of people who feel that way. But we are still a nation of laws. We 
believe--and not only we believe--every time the EPA has testified 
about this existing coal plant rule, they have stressed how they have 
met with the States, they give the States maximum flexibility to try to 
address this regulation. If that is the case, why have 27 States 
already filed lawsuits against the EPA and a multitude of other 
entities as well?
  This is even a violation of the Federal Power Act because States, 
generally speaking, have jurisdiction over electric generation and 
intrastate distribution. But under this regulation of existing coal 
plants, EPA will have that authority.
  Guess what. Normally, when EPA has a major rule like this, they will 
give the States 3 years to come up with their State implementation 
plan. But, in this instance, the rule came out and was finalized in 
September or October of this year. The States have until September, 
basically 1 year, to come up with a State implementation plan.
  They wanted to finalize this rule so that the President could go and 
tell the world leaders in France that America was doing more than 
anyone else, and we already were doing more than anyone else.
  With all due great respect to everyone, whether you agree with our 
position or not, we have the right to express that view. We decided 
explicitly

[[Page H8837]]

to bring these resolutions to the floor as the climate change 
conference is taking place in Paris because we want the world to know 
that there are differences of opinion between the Congress and the 
President on this issue and on his clean energy plan.
  I would respectfully ask every Member of Congress to vote for this 
resolution. As we said earlier, the U.S. Senate has already passed both 
of these resolutions because they are concerned about the President 
exceeding his legal authority, his power grab, his extreme plan. Even 
Democrats in the Senate supported these resolutions.
  That is all we are trying to do today. We are not debating climate 
change. We are not debating the science of climate change. But we are 
debating the President's view on the way you address it and the fact 
that he is jeopardizing America because he is making us jump through 
more severe obstacles and hoops than any other country is being asked 
to do. That is why we are here today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  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 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 passage of the joint 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. PALLONE. 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, this 15-
minute vote on the passage of S.J. Res. 24 will be followed by a 5-
minute vote on the passage of S.J. Res. 23.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 242, 
nays 180, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 650]

                               YEAS--242

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stivers
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--180

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanna
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Graves (GA)
     Herrera Beutler
     Kirkpatrick
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sewell (AL)
     Slaughter
     Stewart
     Stutzman
     Takai
     Williams

                              {time}  1716

  Mr. HANNA changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. MEEHAN changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the joint resolution was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________