[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.
____________________