[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 1]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 1168-1169]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             CONGRESS SHOULD GET A BETTER HANDLE ON THE EPA

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. IKE SKELTON

                              of missouri

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, February 3, 2010

  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, in 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 
Massachusetts v. EPA that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or 
EPA, had authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas 
emissions. Since that time, EPA has been putting in place a framework 
to do just that.
  I do not agree with the Supreme Court. Congress never explicitly 
granted EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gases, like carbon 
dioxide, under the Clean Air Act. That law was enacted years ago and 
was meant to eliminate lead in the air and to reduce smog.
  Because of the Supreme Court's ruling, the EPA has put in motion the 
process of writing complex rules to regulate emissions from both mobile 
and stationary sources in the United States--meaning both from 
automobiles, mobile, and from factories, farms, and power plants, 
stationary.
  I have serious concerns with the powers given to the EPA by the 2007 
Supreme Court ruling, and many people in Missouri's Fourth 
Congressional District share my view, particularly relating to possibly 
costly regulations of stationary emitters.
  In recent years, Congress has been working to get a better handle on 
EPA and to create a different approach to confronting global climate 
change, an issue that many scientists and national security experts 
have concluded could be a real threat to America's long-term domestic 
and international interests.
  In most cases, the discussion in Congress and throughout the country 
regarding the need for action to slow climate change has been very non-
partisan, with Republicans, Democrats, and Independents agreeing that 
some sort of shift in energy policy should occur. There has been 
tremendous debate, however, regarding just how best to gain better 
oversight of EPA while reducing potentially harmful emissions.
  After hearing for years from farmers, rural electric cooperative 
members, and others about their fear of the EPA in this area, I voted 
in 2009 for legislation that would, among other things, prevent EPA 
from regulating greenhouse gas emissions on farms and elsewhere and 
would instead create a market based trading system, called cap and 
trade, designed to cap these emissions over time.
  The legislation that passed in the House, H.R. 2454, the American 
Clean Energy and Security Act, would also promote homegrown, clean 
burning renewable fuels by eliminating regulatory requirements at EPA 
that unfairly restrict renewable energy production in rural America. In 
particular, it would temporarily stop the EPA from holding U.S. 
producers responsible for land use changes in other countries, expand 
the definition of what qualifies as renewable biomass, and include a 
program to help fund the installation of blender pumps that will help 
make clean-burning renewable fuels more readily available in America. 
These provisions are valuable for rural America, which is why it was 
important to keep this bill moving forward and not to let it die in the 
House.
  I realize H.R. 2454 contained other controversial provisions, some of 
which I did not support. That is why I pledged at the time to work with 
my colleagues to refine the bill or to oppose it during final 
deliberations if that was not possible.
  In particular, I was skeptical of the so-called cap and trade system 
envisioned under H.R.

[[Page 1169]]

2454. I have met with Fourth District residents about cap and trade 
since the vote and am more convinced than ever there is little support 
for it in my district. In fact, many rural Missourians are downright 
fearful of the unintended consequences associated with cap and trade.
  This year, Congress must set aside cap and trade and instead piece 
together a scaled back, bipartisan energy bill that gets a better 
handle on EPA; strengthens America's renewable fuels policies for 
ethanol, biodiesel, and biomass; encourages responsible domestic 
exploration of oil and natural gas; expands clean nuclear energy; 
ensures America's propane industry, which is vital to rural America, 
remains a key priority; imposes a reasonable renewable electricity 
standard, with close consultation with utilities, that requires use of 
renewable fuels in addition to coal and natural gas; and invests in 
clean energy research and development that will benefit colleges and 
universities, non-profits, and businesses and allow the United States 
to become a leader in renewable energy jobs.
  Right now, it appears that even a scaled back energy bill is on shaky 
ground in the Senate. While Senator Jeff Bingaman, a Democrat from New 
Mexico, and Senator Lisa Murkowski, a Republican from Alaska, have 
passed a bipartisan bill out of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee, more recent attention has focused on a bill introduced by 
Senator Barbara Boxer of California and passed out of the Senate 
Environment and Public Works Committee. The more liberal tone of the 
Boxer legislation has, frankly, alienated conservative Democrats, such 
as I.
  Legislative stalemate combined with aggressive actions by EPA to 
regulate greenhouse gas emissions without explicit authority from 
Congress make more urgent Congress' need to assert leadership and to 
make clear that EPA does not have authority to regulate these sorts of 
emissions under the Clean Air Act.
  That is why I have introduced bipartisan legislation in the House to 
address this very serious issue.
  On February 2, 2010, I introduced H.R. 4572, a bill to prohibit EPA 
from regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the authority of the 
Clean Air Act. My bill would also stop EPA from holding U.S. producers 
and renewable fuels industries responsible for land use changes in 
other countries and would expand the definition of what qualifies as 
renewable biomass under U.S. energy law.
  Congressman Collin C. Peterson, the Chairman of the House Agriculture 
Committee, and Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson, R-Missouri, joined me as 
original cosponsors of H.R. 4572. This legislation will send a clear 
message that many of us in Congress are just plain concerned about what 
EPA is trying to do under the authority of the Clean Air Act and are 
ready to do something about it.
  I am very hopeful that H.R. 4572 will become law or will be included 
in any sort of scaled back energy bill that could conceivably be 
drafted this year. In my view, enacting common sense, bipartisan energy 
legislation, like the bill I have introduced, will help build consensus 
among the American people and Congress on energy and environmental 
policy issues and would allow for the United States to reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions over time.

                          ____________________